Anyone still running Windows 7?

When it comes to running AutoCAD on Windows 7 64-bit, one can only describe the experience as an absolute farce.
First, there are the endless compatibility headaches; quite frankly, when I was still utilizing Windows XP, the entire installation process was seamless and entirely devoid of such unnecessary friction.
As for the installation procedure itself, I find the behavior on Windows 7 to be utterly maddening—why must the system insist on reinstalling itself for twenty minutes, only to then drag its feet through three hours of updates?🙂

Look, folks, just stay on Windows XP if that's what you want—who exactly is forcing you off it? Some massive corporation? Please. You know how long I spent working with Metro developers on my rig? A very, very short time. Who’s actually pushing me to use something that doesn't work for me? Nobody. And it's the same deal for you this week; if it isn't working, let it go. There hasn't been anyone born yet who can satisfy everyone at once. That's all there is to it. Move on. 😉

Taylor Morales31 said:Look, people, if you're happy staying on Windows XP, then why leave? Who exactly is forcing you off it? Some foreign superpower? Of course not. Do you know how long a Metro developer actually spent working on my machine? Very, very briefly. Who is compelling me to stick with an operating system that doesn't serve my needs? Nobody. And it is the exact same situation for you this week; if it isn't working for you, then let it go. There hasn't been anyone born yet who could satisfy every single user's demands, and that is simply the reality. Let's move on. 😉

I don't want to switch to XP because I have to manually install every single driver, whereas on Windows 7, everything is handled automatically.

Taylor Morales31 said:Look, Daniel, this thread is specifically for those of us using Windows 7. Let’s skip the patronizing lectures—some of us have been around the block a few times, so you won't find it easy to teach an old dog new tricks! You already have a dedicated thread for XP, so maybe just head over there? Besides, if you're that unhappy, you can always take it up with Microsoft directly or just build your own OS from scratch. Why not?

On my end, things don't freeze up nearly as much as they used to on XP, where the system would just hang constantly. But honestly, let's move this back to the XP thread; no offense intended, but you're spreading yourself a bit thin here with all the posting.👍

I'm just trying to start a discussion, really. I'm just seeing what Windows 7 64-bit is actually capable of.

Since I got caught up in all the massive hype surrounding it, I went ahead and installed Windows 7 64-bit, but when I take an objective look at the performance-to-capability ratio, XP still seems to hold the edge.

At the end of the day, I think it's important for people to have options when they're buying a new PC.

It's a known thing that everyone has their own preferences and "holy grails." To be perfectly honest, I'm not exactly blown away by Windows 7 64-bit. It reminds me of those threads in the "Cars" forum where people openly admit the vehicle they bought was kind of a lemon, only to get roasted by every other owner on the board.

Brian Campbell36 said:Using AutoCAD on Windows 7 64-bit is a total headache.
First, you run into all these compatibility issues, whereas on XP, everything installed smoothly without any real drama.
As for the installation process itself, I'm not a fan of how Windows 7 spends 20 minutes reinstalling the system and then drags out updates for another three hours.🙂.

That’s exactly my point. Even when they finally get AutoCAD running properly on Windows 7, it isn't going to be any faster or more stable than it was on XP. So what's the payoff for Windows 7? Having fancy themes while the system sits idle consuming 10% of my Intel and 1GB of Intel?

And regarding the installation, it's similar to XP—that also has updates that take forever to finish.

Brian Campbell36 said:The one thing I liked about moving away from XP is that I don't have to manually install every single driver anymore; Windows 7 handles most of it automatically.

I liked that part too, but that's really just because Windows 7 is newer and has a larger database of recognized hardware. Plus, there aren't many 64-bit drivers available for older machines anyway...

Still, Windows 7 failed to install my Realtek audio drivers, so I ended up having to do it manually myself.😉

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?

Forget about upgrading the Intel; I’ve decided to invest in some extra cooling instead, much like what I did for my Intel, but this time specifically for the graphics card.

granitegull51 said:It’s common sense that newer software should be faster and/or higher quality. I used PDF readers as an example to show the massive gap between a premium product like Foxit and a mediocre one like Adobe Reader.

And how exactly do you think they can't be compared when almost every single program runs on both operating systems? Just look at the sheer volume of comparisons available online...

Windows 7 isn't any faster than Windows XP, nor is it noticeably better in quality. Especially for the average user, who makes up over 90% of the population. After everyone tore Windows Vista to shreds, they optimized Windows 7 a bit, but frankly, it's still not enough.

Having a handful of new features isn't a sufficient reason to justify such heavy resource consumption.

Here is a screenshot:


It uses nearly twice as much Intel and hard drive space, and I'm certain it pulls more from the Intel too.

For instance, AutoCAD flies on Windows XP, whereas on Windows 7, it tends to stutter... Photoshop runs slightly slower on Windows 7. It’s honestly ridiculous when someone insists on using Windows 7 just because of widgets or supposedly "better" wireless capabilities.😂

Sure, they improved disk management. But does Photoshop run faster on Windows 7? No.

They have 64-bit technology. Does that make video playback faster? No.

It's all just marketing...

I felt like I was being called out again, so I might as well weigh in. Nobody actually mentioned widgets—which are nothing more than a basic add-on—but rather the entire Aero interface with all its components, which genuinely streamlines specific workflows. Transitions, multitasking, and so on... I won't list them all. Everyone finds a use for it; those who don't just keep it disabled.

As for wireless and networking, if you actually have a basic education regarding network technologies, Cisco equipment, routers, and things of that nature, then you would realize how crucially this simplifies life for network and system administrators.

Furthermore, you can now build your own management shell and add whatever elements you want to work with. I really don't feel like listing every single advantage over Windows XP, but if I were to say there is a single hair standing on end, you would interpret it as me tripping over a mile of tangled cable.

Give it a rest; don't fixate on one tiny detail and interpret everything so superficially. 😉

@granitegull51/">@@granitegull51: No offense, but you clearly don't have a clue about IT or computers in general. There's a massive difference between actually learning something and just parroting nonsense you read online. Theory is one thing, but real-world practice? That's another story entirely. Your obsession with mid-range graphics has absolutely zero bearing on how the actual OS performs.

It’s like trying to argue that a Volkswagen Golf is better than a newer Volkswagen Golf just because the parts are cheaper and it sips less gas. It makes no sense.

If I wanted to prove you're talking out of your hat—and trust me, I've read enough trash on this forum, including my own amateur mistakes when I first signed up—your "insights" are easily the most ridiculous things I've seen yet.
My main rig:
Intel: AMD Athlon 2.2GHz
Intel: 1GB DDR2 dual channel 667
HDD: WD 250GB
Graphics: Radeon 512MB DDR2, HD
I've been running Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit on this machine for over two years. I also have Linux Mint installed on the same setup.
Even with a measly 1GB of Intel, Windows 7 runs like a dream; it practically flies. I've probably mentioned that ten times in this thread already, but I'll keep saying it every time someone like you shows up and starts preaching about how slow things get with only 2GB.

I've got eight other machines at work, some running Windows XP and others on Windows 7.
Some of those XP machines actually have much beefier specs than my current build, but not a single one of them runs as smoothly as Windows 7, regardless of the hardware.
The only thing I'd say is better than Windows 7 as an OS is Linux Mint, but that's a whole different conversation and has nothing to do with XP.

As for Aero... you're honestly the first person I've ever heard claim it's useless or unnecessary. Usually, people tell you it's the perfect option for beginners.

Look, why am I even wasting my breath writing all this? You're making me look bad by comparison. Just run multiple operating systems side-by-side and see for yourself. Windows 7 is hands down the best Windows ever made.🙂

Taylor Morales31 and Jonathan Morris40 already told you this isn't your lane. You've got Windows XP, so just enjoy it. Stop overthinking everything and actually go study how these OSs behave—I don't need some stupid chart to convince me what works and what doesn't.

Douglas Garcia52 said:@granitegull51/">@@granitegull51: Look, I don't mean to be rude, but it feels like you might be missing the bigger picture when it comes to IT and how computers actually function. There’s a huge difference between just memorizing facts from a textbook and truly understanding the logic behind them. You can read all the manuals you want, but there's a world of difference between theory and hands-on practice. At the end of the day, having a decent graphics card doesn't really change the way the operating system itself performs.
...

I couldn't agree more 😉
@granitegull51/">@@granitegull51, honestly man, you're becoming a bit of a drag, so why don't you just move on from this thread? ☕

Douglas Garcia52 said:Look, don't take this the wrong way, but I really think you’re missing the mark when it comes to actual IT and how computers work. There’s a massive difference between actually learning the ropes so you know what you're talking about, and just regurgitating some nonsense you read online or memorized from a manual. Theory is one thing, but hands-on experience is a whole different beast. Honestly, that mid-range graphics card you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with how the OS itself performs.

Honestly, comparing a Volkswagen Golf to a newer Volkswagen Golf is kind of like comparing apples to oranges. I mean, sure, you could argue that the older model is "better" just because parts are cheaper and it’s easier on gas, but that’s not really the whole story, is it? It feels like we're missing the bigger picture here.

Look, I’m definitely no IT expert or anything, but I think I speak for about 90% of regular users when I say that speed and how much juice a system pulls are the things that actually matter to us.

Look, at the end of the day, the whole point of Windows is just to get your apps running as fast as possible. Honestly? I couldn't care less about things like the registry, routers, Superfetch, or the management shell. I’m sure all that stuff is incredibly useful for people like you, but let's be real—90% of regular users aren't even touching those features.

That’s exactly why I keep comparing the Volkswagen Golf Mk2 to the Mk5. For most people, life isn't about racing; you just need a reliable way to get from point A to point B. Now, don't get me wrong, the Golf 5 definitely handles that trip with much more elegance and polish, but there's a catch. It’s a heavier car, it drinks more fuel, and let's be honest—maintenance parts are going to cost you a lot more. When you weigh all that out, it doesn't actually make it any more efficient than the old Golf 2. 🙂

Benjamin King2 said:It’s totally normal—Windows XP doesn't have Superfetch, whereas Windows 7 does. But I have to ask, why exactly is this "hard drive wear and tear" such a big deal for you?

That’s just classic Microsoft logic, right? It’s like they don't care at all about how much memory you're actually burning through. I mean, look, if you’re an average user rocking an 80GB hard drive, and then Windows 7 grabs 5GB just to exist, plus all those various system resources and background junk eating up another 15GB... well, suddenly that space starts feeling pretty precious. It definitely matters when you're watching your storage vanish like that.

Honestly, I don't see why we need to waste so much storage space on stuff like this. It’s just like how there’s absolutely no point in Adobe Reader hogging up 200MB of space when its actual features are basically non-existent.🙂

Jonathan Morris40 said:When it comes to wireless tech and networking, I honestly think if you have even a basic grasp of how things like switches, routers, and general network architecture actually function, you start to realize just how much of a lifesaver this stuff is. It’s a total game-changer for network and systems admins—it really simplifies the heavy lifting in ways people don't always give it credit for.

Also, just so you know, you can actually build your own management shell now and add whatever specific elements you need to work with. Honestly, I don't even have the energy to sit here and list all the advantages of moving up from Windows XP anymore. I feel like if I even casually mentioned that a single hair was lying on the ground, you’d somehow interpret that as me tripping over a mile of tangled cables.

I’m talking about the 90% of users out there who honestly haven't the slightest clue what any of that stuff up there actually means. Seriously, there's really no reason for them to be installing Windows 7 just because of it.

granitegull51 said:I’m no IT expert, but just like 90% of regular users, I care about speed and resource consumption.

The whole point of Windows is to make applications run as fast as possible. I couldn't care less about fancy UI tweaks, routers, Superfetch, or management shells... I'm sure those things are incredibly useful to people like you, but 90% of users don't touch them.

That’s why I compare a Volkswagen Golf to an older Volkswagen Golf. Most people just need to get from point A to point B. A newer model might handle the drive more smoothly, but it’s heavier, burns more fuel, and the parts cost more, which doesn't actually make it any more efficient than the older version...🙂

It seems to be Microsoft’s logic that memory consumption doesn't matter. But if you’re an average user with an 80GB hard drive and Windows 7 eats up 5GB plus another 15GB for various system resources and background processes, then suddenly it matters quite a lot.

There’s really no need for that much bloat, just like there’s no sense in Adobe Reader taking up 200MB when its actual functionality is minimal...🙂

I am talking about the 90% of users who have absolutely no clue what any of this stuff even is. There is no reason for them to be forced onto Windows 7 because of these features.

Look, anyone who uses a computer today understands what multitasking is—or whatever they choose to call it—but they certainly use it.

Regarding storage space, an OS can't possibly be only 700MB anymore when it houses a massive driver database, full management tools, and synchronization with everything under the sun. Windows XP was lightweight by comparison because it lacked all that. It isn't surprising, because alongside all those extras, Windows 7 offers an entertainment center, multimedia suites, and a mountain of other features. When XP first launched, the average hard drive was maybe 3GB, and the OS took up nearly a third of that capacity.

By the time Windows 7 arrived, even in a worst-case scenario, it wasn't taking up more than 15GB once installed and in use, whereas modern drives are at least 250GB. That’s the bare minimum most people use nowadays, and that's not even mentioning how the majority of us are running on terabyte drives. 😁

Try analyzing it that way—how much larger XP actually felt relative to available storage compared to the difference we see with Windows 7...👍

granitegull51 said:Look, I’m no IT pro, but just like 90% of regular users out there, I actually care about speed and how much junk a system eats up.

That’s why I’m comparing a Volkswagen Golf to a newer Volkswagen Golf. Most people just need to get from point A to point B. The newer one does it with more class, sure, but it’s heavier, burns more gas, and the parts cost way more which doesn't exactly make it any more efficient than the older model, right? 🙂

I’m not some tech genius either. For real, I finished training to be an HVAC and plumbing installer—which has zero to do with computers—but I’m still interested in tech and I'm always picking up new stuff. Still, I'm smart enough to figure out which OS works best for me and most other people.

And regarding speed and resources? I already gave you my specs (compared to what's out now, mine is absolute garbage), and my rig has been running for a whole week without a single hiccup or slowdown. So, maybe do your own testing before you start typing about how Windows 7 sucks and Windows XP is better.

Hahahaha... man, what can I even say about that car comparison? If I say what I'm thinking, Benjamin King2 is gonna ban me, so I'll just keep my mouth shut.
Anyway, I'm done commenting on you, but you really can't claim a whole week of use means a system is bad.

Look, Douglas Garcia52, if someone genuinely thinks a Volkswagen Golf from the 90s is better than a modern Volkswagen Golf, why even bother trying to convince them? There’s no point in arguing that Windows XP stands a chance against Windows 7 in this day and age. It's just a lost cause. Just like that old car, right? This thread is either going to die out or it's already heading off the rails. Honestly, I feel like we've seen way too many "XP vs. Windows 7" debates already.

The guy clearly hasn't figured things out yet, so he sticks to XP because it's what he knows. As far as I'm concerned, he can stay there for all I care. Personally, I'm never going back. 👍

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?

granitegull51 said:That seems to be the classic Microsoft logic where they act like memory consumption doesn't actually matter. If you're an average user running an 80GB hard drive and Windows 7 takes up 5GB, plus all those various system resources eating up another 15GB, then every single gigabyte really does count.

Just a small correction there—the average user today usually has about 200 to 400GB of space. The reason for that shift is simply that over the last few years, the baseline has moved; while a minimum might have been around 150 to 180GB back in the day, nowadays, almost anything you buy comes with at least 300+ GB.☕

Benjamin King2 said:I mean, obviously, if you actually have the hardware to support it. You can't really expect brand-new software to run smoothly on some piece of junk that's ten years old, right? 😲

But honestly, macOS eats up just as many resources as Windows does—is there some kind of conspiracy against the average user out there or what?

And what is this legendary Foxit actually good for? Besides failing to read half of the PDF formats out there, having pretty rudimentary security, and a text search function that’s basically useless? Are you only using it because you're running low on disk space?

I remember ten years ago they were pushing 64-bit processors, telling everyone that once 64-bit operating systems arrived, everything would suddenly run twice as fast. Then you actually install Windows 7 and realize there's barely any difference. And are even Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player 64-bit? I notice Windows Media Player handles Full HD okay, but let's be real, it's a pretty mediocre player.

macOS hogs resources because it follows the exact same philosophy as Microsoft. I still remember when Windows XP first dropped and everyone was complaining about how much memory it pulled. Eventually, people started making those "Windows XP Lite" versions that had everything you needed but used half the resources. 😉

To me, it's clear people were happy because they finally got a more optimized product after the mess that was Windows Vista, but that only happened because there was massive pressure put on Microsoft.

-----------
If we're really sticking to this topic:

Foxit Reader—specifically version 2.3 from back in 2008—only takes up about 6.59MB of hard drive space and 9MB of RAM, yet it can read absolutely anything. It opens files that Adobe won't touch, the text search actually works, and you can select text and extract graphics without a headache.

Adobe Reader 9, on the other hand, eats up 100MB of hard drive space and 25MB of RAM, and its most useful feature is just zooming in. 😂 Plus, it litters your system with all sorts of unnecessary junk.

In my opinion, Adobe Reader is just a much better and more widely recognized option than Adobe 😁

I was just about to say this thread is dead in the water... 🙂

granitegull51, quit the endless philosophizing and just buy some new hardware already. Honestly, get something with more RAM and call it a day. That’s the whole solution right there. 👍

Man, granitegull51, you're really stuck in the past. Tech just moves forward whether you like it or not. 😢
Keep rocking Windows XP if that's your thing, but maybe don't tell everyone else to ditch modern tech.

My rig has 4 GB of RAM and 2 TB of storage, and honestly, I don't even care how much Windows 7 hogs memory or disk space, or if it's optimized. I've been running Windows 7 32-bit on this since day one, just waiting for it to freeze or crash so I can finally wipe it and go 64-bit, but it just won't happen... It runs smooth as butter. Adobe Creative Suite, Microsoft Office, Corel, and a bunch of other random junk—everything works perfectly without any crashes or freezes... "terrifying," right?
The only thing giving me grief is my Canon printer. It's a 6-year-old Laser printer, and those jerks at Canon refuse to write 64-bit drivers for it. I hate the idea of tossing it and buying a new one since it still works great 🙂
But I guess time's caught up with it, so I'll probably have to upgrade to something newer soon.

granitegull51 said:Back then, a decade ago, they were practically selling 64-bit processors with a whole sales pitch attached to them... Once the 64-bit operating system finally hits the market, everything should see a significant performance boost, potentially doubling speeds across the board... At that point, you can just install Windows 7 and the difference between the two will be practically nonexistent... Are Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player even available in 64-bit versions? I’ve noticed that WMP handles full HD playback without much trouble, but honestly, as far as players go, it’s pretty mediocre...

As for Boldano, she said...

Those were just a series of ignorant comments from people who clearly haven't the slightest clue what a 64-bit processor actually is, let alone the tangible advantages it provides... 😁