Anyone still running Windows 7?

stormywalker68 said:Should I just wipe everything and start fresh with a clean install?

A total reinstall? Honestly, you don't have much of a choice left...😁 😁

stormywalker68 said:Let me explain what's going on—I've got an ASUS X55A laptop running Windows 7 Ultimate. It’s about two and a half years old, and honestly, I haven't had a single hardware or software hiccup until now. I mostly just use this thing for browsing, streaming movies or shows, listening to music—that kind of stuff. For actual gaming, I just stick to my desktop.

The thing is, a few days ago, the laptop pulled down a massive pile of updates, and ever since then, everything has gone completely south. It's been a total nightmare.

Now, when I boot it up, it takes about five minutes just to get Windows running, and then it spends another 15 to 20 minutes loading various background services. Once it finally settles, the whole system is incredibly sluggish, and opening any program feels like pulling teeth.

Web browsing is a disaster. Every time I try to open a new tab in Firefox, it freezes up for two or three minutes with that "Mozilla Firefox not responding" error, and even when it finally unfreezes, the page loads painfully slow.

To make matters worse, there's no sound at all. Even though the system claims everything is working perfectly, I'm getting nothing. I tried reinstalling the drivers—wiped the old ones and put in new ones—but no luck. I even followed some troubleshooting tips from the ASUS website specifically for this model, but still nothing.

I ran scans with AVG and Malwarebytes, and everything came back clean.

It’s just incredibly frustrating because the laptop has become basically useless—unless I wanted to sell it to someone who actually enjoys suffering.

Should I just wipe everything and do a fresh install?

If you want, shoot me a private message and I can send you a link for Windows 7 Ultimate that has all the updates integrated through this month. That way, when you reinstall, you won't waste three hours waiting for every single update from 2009 to today to download. These are "clean" versions, too—not some sketchy build with random extra programs shoved in.

Windows 7 is honestly great—especially the Ultimate edition. I mean, I suspect even Windows 10 might not actually manage to top it. P.S.: I'm not sure if you guys caught this, but unlike previous versions, Windows 7 somehow seems to rub it in your face just how much "junk" you bought when you dropped $1,000–$3333 on a laptop or desktop... it sort of makes it obvious that more expensive rigs are actually better.

Nicholas Ross38 said:Windows 7 is actually pretty solid, especially if you're running the Ultimate edition. Honestly, I’m not even sure Windows 10 will ever truly top it. P.S.: I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but unlike previous versions, Windows 7 seems to have this subtle way of reminding you just how much "junk" you bought when you dropped $1,000 or $3.25 on a laptop or desktop. It’s almost like it's trying to let you know that more expensive hardware actually performs better.

No, I'm fairly certain that index was intended to prove that cheaper computers are superior? Haha

GT-I9505

I’m basically arguing that Windows 7 is actually a bit "smarter" than the versions that came before it.

Does anyone happen to have a copy of Windows Media Player 11 for Windows 7 32-bit they could share? I'm looking to get things running smoothly...

I honestly thought you were just trolling when you said Windows 7 makes a more expensive PC look better...
Turns out there’s no illusion left to hide behind. You check the score and you see exactly where you stand. All that talk about "my dad's rig is faster" doesn't mean much anymore, because now the Windows Experience Index actually shows you the real power you're working with.

GT-I9505

driftingbadger17 said:I honestly thought you were just trolling when you said Windows 7 makes more expensive PCs look better...
Turns out there's no misunderstanding here. You check the score and see exactly where you stand. No point arguing; it's like saying my dad is tougher just because a test proves he is.

GT-I9505

That Windows Experience Index is pure garbage if I'm being blunt. It doesn't actually show you how much "power" a computer has.

Robert Rodriguez2 said:that Windows Experience Index is absolute garbage, if I can be put that bluntly; it doesn't actually give you a real look at how much "power" a computer actually has.

So what are we supposed to look at instead? Read tea leaves and try to predict the future?

Sent from my GT-I9505

Standalone benchmark programs and tests are way more relevant than the Windows Experience Index—especially since you don't really know what's being factored in or how the math actually works behind the scenes.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2...nce-index.aspx
Besides, if that number were actually a meaningful metric, software developers would have started including it in their system requirements a long time ago.

It's also probably more important to compare one component against other available options out there.

driftingbadger17 said:What are you even looking at? Reading tea leaves or something?

Sent from my GT-I9505

The Windows Experience Index isn't some actual measure of how powerful a computer is.

If you actually want to know what a machine can do, you look at synthetic benchmarks—stuff like 3DMark, PCMark, Cinebench, Unigine, and so on.

Eric Patel7 said:The Windows Experience Index isn't some definitive measure of a computer's raw power.

If you actually want to gauge what your machine can do, you should be looking at synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark, PCMark, Cinebench, Unigine, and the like.

Look, if Windows tells you your graphics score is a 6.1, your disk is at 5.9, and your processor hit a 3.4, you don't necessarily need to go out and buy expensive software just to confirm that your CPU is the bottleneck and it's time for an upgrade.
For the average user, the Windows Experience Index is perfectly fine for figuring out which component is dragging everything else down.

It’s kind of like how a simple calculator is all you really need to add two numbers together; you don't exactly need a supercomputer for basic arithmetic.
The WEI is a useful tool for the everyday person.

GT-I9505

Look, the Windows Experience Index still doesn't really give you anything concrete.
Based on your example, he gets info saying his processor is the weakest link. Okay, sure, but then what?
If he walks into a Best Buy and tells them his Windows Experience Index for the CPU is 3.4, the clerk is just going to stare at him blankly and ask which processor he actually has and what the rest of his specs look like.
It’s the same story if he asks for advice on a forum, from some expert, or even just a friend.
Everyone is going to ask for the specific component names—and once they know those, they'll be looking at benchmark results from the programs Eric Patel7 mentioned.

Here's a screenshot of my rig:
View on imgur
My configuration:

So, according to the Windows Experience Index, I can't really do much better—the processor lags a little behind, but everything else hit the max scores. An average user seeing a result like that might jump to the conclusion, "Well, I should be able to run The Witcher 3 on max settings." And we all know that's not how it works.

driftingbadger17 Honestly, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about—that index isn't worth much at all. I really don't see any reason why they would bother removing it from Windows 8.1

driftingbadger17 said:Look, if your Windows Experience index is telling you that your graphics card is sitting at a 6.1, your disk is at a 5.9, and your processor is hitting a 3.4—you don't need to go out and waste money on some overpriced software that's just going to tell you your CPU is a bottleneck and that it’s time for an upgrade. I mean, you already have the data right there. There's really no point in paying someone else to tell you what your own computer is already saying.
Look, for the average user, I guess the Windows Experience index is enough to figure out which component is dragging everything else down—it's probably sufficient for that.

It’s like when you just need a calculator to add two numbers—you don't exactly need to go out and buy the most powerful supercomputer on the planet to get the job done.
I guess the Windows Experience index is actually a pretty useful thing for the average user—at least if they know what they're looking at.

GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2 ok

So, how do we actually define the average user? Is it just that person who goes out and buys a basic typewriter for... $500 Is this for someone shopping at a Walmart or just an average user who knows their way around a computer—but doesn't really care about top-tier performance?

Look, the general consensus when you're getting into computers is pretty simple—do your homework. The Windows Experience index might tell you that your hard drive is the biggest bottleneck in your rig—which is what people told me, too—but honestly, the drive speed wasn't even my main issue. For me, it was all about the RAM. I mean, what’s the point? You go out and buy an SSD thinking it'll solve everything, then you try to open a massive project in Photoshop and—surprise, surprise—the whole system still crawls.

If you’re really planning to judge a computer based on its Windows Experience index, then honestly—you might as well just go buy a Mac and call it a day.

Honestly, common sense is probably the best guide you'll ever find when it comes to upgrading your PC.

Larry Ortiz5 said:driftingbadger17 You clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about; that index isn't useless, and I don't see any reason why they would ever strip it out of Windows 8.1

It wasn't actually removed, 🙂
it just doesn't have a graphical interface anymore 🙂

The Windows Experience Index benchmark tool has been part of the landscape since Microsoft first rolled out Windows Vista. It basically gauges your PC's performance by breaking things down into five specific buckets: processor, memory, graphics, gaming graphics, and hard disk. While it’s not exactly considered the gold standard for measuring PC performance—especially if you're trying to compare scores across different systems—it can still serve as a decent way to sniff out a hardware bottleneck.

With the release of Windows 8.1, Microsoft decided to ditch the visual interface for the Windows Experience Index. However, the actual engine running under the hood, known as the Windows system Assessment Tool (WinSAT), is still very much present in Windows 8.1. If you actually want to see your scores, you just have to run a few quick commands through the command line.

If the Windows Experience Index actually meant anything, vendors and retailers would have embraced it as the industry standard a long time ago.

Eric Patel7 said:If the Windows Experience Index actually carried any weight, vendors and retailers would have embraced it as an industry standard ages ago.

Look, honestly, it doesn't really matter; the whole point is just to give you a quick way to see which of two different PCs has better components.
That’s its purpose, and that is exactly what it does.
A higher index score simply points to better hardware.
It's that simple.
It's enough for the casual user, while the "experts" can go ahead and download some other software to run benchmarks ten times over, debating the results for days on end... and so on.
For your average business professional, it's perfectly fine.

driftingbadger17 said:Look, it doesn't matter—the whole point is just to show which components are better between two different PCs.
That’s what it's for, and that’s exactly what it does.
It shows a higher Index score for the better component.
Simple as that.
It's enough for the simpletons, while the "geniuses" can go grab some other software and run the same benchmark ten times in a row, debating the results for days... whatever.
The average business guy doesn't need all that extra noise.

Well, that "average business guy" could also be a graphic designer who uses the Windows Experience Index to realize his hard drive is the slowest part of his rig, even though he's running 2 GB of DDR3 RAM at 1600 MHz or faster. I guess you can probably guess what matters more to a designer when they're processing photos.

Eric Patel7 said:Your average office worker might be a graphic designer who sees a Windows Experience Index score telling them their hard drive is the biggest bottleneck in the system, all while they're sitting there with 2 GB of DDR3 RAM running at 1600 MHz or higher. Now, if you want to guess which one actually matters more to a designer when they're trying to edit photos, you probably already know the answer.

Man, what am I even talking about.
I’m over here overcomplicating things when the reality is that people only care about one thing: what's the index score on your graphics card compared to mine?
If one number is higher than the other, that's the "better" card in everyone's eyes.
Just forget about the drives entirely. 🙂