Posts by Benjamin King2

velvetcrane38 said:Well, damn—I just went ahead and measured the length, and it’s basically identical to my old 4650. But here’s the kicker: my 4650 is only about 7.5 cm tall, whereas this 5670 is sitting at a solid 9 or 10 cm. Great. Just great. At this rate, I won't even be able to close my computer case—total disaster. Does anyone actually know of a decent low-profile card that won't turn my PC into an open-air rig? $167 I was actually thinking about that 5570 card—you know, the one I had my eye on.

It’s not like you actually have any real options here—even if that card is absolute garbage... though, honestly, I have no clue what kind of junk you were digging out of the scrap bin before this. 🙂

velvetcrane38 said:Man, that sounds super sketchy—is it actually that long or what?

Yeah, that's the length—height is probably sitting around 3.5 or 4 inches.

The 5670 Ti is about 7 inches long—just grab a trash can and measure it yourself—but honestly, it should fit inside without any issues at all.

Natalie, this kind of stick would totally be your style:

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet...linkID=9240617

Grab this little utility and then drop your hardware specs here—you know, the usual stuff like your CPU, RAM, motherboard, GPU, etc.: http://www.piriform.com/speccy

I'm finding this request a bit odd—if you're already handling Windows 7 at work without breaking a sweat, I don't really get why you'd need to be testing things out on your home rig, too.

Run CCleaner to scrub your registry—it’s pretty obvious you’ve got leftover junk from a previous version hanging around. If that doesn't do the trick, just fire up the Registry Editor, search for "AutoCAD," and manually wipe out every single key you find.

granitegull51 said:Apple's OS eats up resources like there's no tomorrow—mostly because they follow the exact same playbook as Microsoft. I still remember back when Windows XP first dropped; everyone was losing their minds over how much memory it was hogging. Eventually, people started churning out those "Windows XP Lite" versions that actually have everything you need while using half the hardware power. 😉

Everything required? For whom exactly? 🙂

granitegull51 said:Back in 2008, Foxit Reader version 2.3 was basically a miracle—we’re talking about a tiny little thing that only needed about 6.5 MB of hard drive space and 9 MB of RAM—but man, it could read absolutely everything. It was legendary because if Adobe couldn't open a file, Foxit would just shrug and get it done. You could search through text, select stuff, pull graphics out of documents, and all that good stuff without breaking a sweat. Just pure efficiency.

You bet it is. 😂 Hey, just open up some PDF catalog using Adobe—it’s not that hard.

Gill01 granitegull51 said:Hey there, Windows 7 experts. 😁
So, here’s the deal—I finally pulled the trigger and picked up some new coolers for both my CPU and my VGA.
...

Gill, I'm moving this over to the Overclocking section—this has absolutely zero to do with Windows.

granitegull51 said:Look, I’m no IT guru, but like 90% of regular users out there—myself included—actually care about speed and how much junk is being eaten up by system resources.

At the end of the day, the whole point of Windows is to make apps run fast.

I mean, obviously, you need the hardware to back it up—unless you're actually expecting modern software to run smoothly on some piece of garbage from ten years ago? 😲

granitegull51 said:That’s just classic Microsoft logic—acting like memory consumption doesn't matter. If you're an average user rocking an 80GB drive and Windows 7 grabs 5GB plus all those various system resources, leaving you with barely anything left, then yeah, it matters.

And honestly, macOS eats through resources just as aggressively as Windows does—is there some kind of conspiracy against the average American consumer or what?

granitegull51 said:There’s no reason to take up that much space, just like it makes zero sense for Adobe Reader to be hogging 200MB when its actual feature set is basically non-existent.🙂

Really? And what "features" does this legendary Foxit actually provide? Aside from failing to read half the PDF formats out there, having pretty rudimentary security, and a text search function that’s practically useless? Are people actually using it just because they’re running on a tiny hard drive?

Look, they’re all basically the same thing—honestly, they're pretty much interchangeable. The only real difference is that Microsoft's glossy finish (you know, like those laptop screens) acts like a mirror for whatever lights are on in your room. If you're working in total darkness, though, it'll be fine.

Better save up another 300 bucks--$133 than you go scooping whatever sludge is sitting at the bottom of a barrel.

Sarah Doyle54 said:It’s just silly and totally lacks any real logic. Flooding a chat with a hundred messages in thirty minutes isn't going to stop actual spammers—it's just noise. On top of that, what about people who actually have a legitimate issue or an urgent request they need help with? Should they be forced to churn out a bunch of random posts before they're allowed to start a new thread in, say, the jobs and career subforum?

And what exactly is this forum supposed to be? An emergency room? 😲 What good are those kinds of users anyway—the ones who drop three "urgent" posts and then vanish forever?

granitegull51 said:It uses almost twice the Intel and hard drive space—not to mention the extra load on the Intel.

That’s just how it works—Windows XP doesn't have Superfetch, but Windows 7 does. And why exactly does the hard drive "usage" matter here?

granitegull51 said:For instance, AutoCAD flies on XP, but on Windows 7, it can actually stutter.

Look, that’s an issue Autodesk needs to fix, not Microsoft.

granitegull51 said:Does Photoshop run faster on Windows 7? Nope.

Hell, yes. I mean, the 64-bit version should definitely be faster—the 32-bit one shouldn't even be seeing a boost. Plus, running 32-bit Photoshop on 64-bit Windows gives you access to twice the Intel.

granitegull51 said:They have 64-bit tech. Does it make video playback faster? No.

What do you even mean by "faster video playback"? Are you using a 64-bit player?

Yeah, if you need five licenses, you're actually looking at volume licensing territory—so you should probably just reach out to one of their reps. You'll likely score a better deal on a five-pack bundle rather than buying them individually: http://www.digitalmedia.com/

granitegull51 said:I get where you're coming from, but this is just Microsoft being reckless with Intel usage. It’s totally possible to build OPTIMIZED software that does the exact same thing while using way fewer resources.

Take Adobe Reader versus Foxit, for instance. They do the same job, yet Foxit uses about 5x less resources. 😉 It’s pretty obvious that Adobe Reader is basically a half-baked product since they're following that same lazy Microsoft logic...

Honestly, it sounds to me like you just want all the shiny new software to run faster than the old stuff without actually upgrading your hardware—which, let's be real, isn't going to happen.

Windows XP and Windows 7 are worlds apart when it comes to functionality. They aren't even software packages with the "same functions," so there's no way they should be pulling the same amount of hardware resources.

Look, you’ve basically got three tasks you need to knock out first. 😁

granitegull51 said:Brilliant. Why stop there? Why not just burn through 15GB of RAM loading every single background process and useless app imaginable—maybe then things will actually run faster.🤣

Well, that’s exactly the point—we'll get to that eventually.

granitegull51 said:You basically just gave me the perfect definition of bloatware. Instead of doing some actual downsizing so apps run snappy without eating up all your resources, they just dump everything straight into the RAM. It’s the kind of thing that drives people crazy, because—newsflash—that memory and CPU power could be used for literally anything else.

Hold on a second—you want applications to run faster, but you don't want them sitting in the RAM?!? What is the fastest form of storage we have? Where, exactly, should those applications live if not there? And what is this "something else" that RAM is supposed to be reserved for? Your laundry? 😕

Anthony Stewart2 said:Is there any way to get Outlook Express running on Windows 7?

Nope. Not happening.

It’s decent enough if you just want to game—but otherwise? Not really worth the hassle.

That’s pretty much the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel graphics card you can find anywhere.