Anyone still running Windows 7?

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.

Jonathan Morris40 said:Let’s be honest: not everyone can just drop a small fortune on a top-of-the-line, high-end workstation. It really comes down to the budget—you get exactly what you pay for when it comes to your setup.

Windows XP is so incredibly stable that when an application finally decides to hang, you can hammer the Ctrl+Alt+Del combo sixty times in a row without it even flinching. At that point, there’s no software workaround left; the only thing that actually works is physically slamming the reset button on the tower.

I’m seeing the exact same thing on Windows 7, and it looks identical to how it behaved back on Windows XP. To make matters worse, I've actually been hit by the Blue Screen of Death even more frequently on this setup.

Windows Aero was truly a godsend for those who had never even laid eyes on a computer, let alone understood the intricacies of computing—especially the older generation, like your typical aunts and grandmothers, who were often just clicking blindly without the slightest clue what they were doing. Beyond that, it provided a much-needed boost for power users who juggle heavy multitasking workloads and manage a constant stream of simultaneous operations every single day.

🤣

It’s exactly as Benjamin King2 pointed out: RAM is currently the fastest tier of memory we have available. From a purely logical standpoint, the more data you can load directly into your RAM, the faster your system can execute tasks. It’s basic efficiency. As for those complaints regarding bloated RAM usage, background processes, and startup programs—honestly, if someone doesn't actually understand how to configure their Windows environment to suit their specific needs, they shouldn't be criticizing the operating system itself. If you don't know how to properly manage your tools, you haven't truly mastered them.

How exactly does that serve as a valid argument for Windows 7?

And besides, the point isn't really about what Microsoft intends or thinks. The crux of the matter is that you, as the user, should have the freedom to build and configure your system exactly how you see fit. At the end of the day, everyone deserves the right to make their own choices.

How much more RAM are we actually talking about when we compare it to the old Windows XP days? It’s a significant leap, to say the least. 🤷 Giga? Honestly, does anyone even bother with machines that have less than 2GB of RAM these days?

Why is everyone obsessed with the idea that this needs to be four times faster? It doesn't have to be. Honestly, if it just performs on par with Windows XP, I’m satisfied. To me, the raw speed isn't the headline here; what actually matters is whether they’ve finally fixed the management tools, refined User Account Control, and overhauled the wireless and connectivity protocols. I also want to see them streamline and simplify disk management along with a dozen other systemic improvements. Those structural refinements carry far more weight than some arbitrary benchmark for "ultra-speed." At the end of the day, what am I actually going to gain from increased velocity? Rapid-fire switching between windows and applications? I fail to see the practical purpose in chasing that kind of marginal utility.🙂

Kudos to the improvements under the hood—I actually quite like the updates they made to user accounts—but my experience working in Windows 7 has been...
To be perfectly honest, I haven't observed any meaningful improvements regarding system stability.
They’ve completely butchered the user interface. It's an absolute disaster.

You've got to be kidding me. Honestly, even my two-year-old brother wouldn't buy that line for a second. 😲😕

Hold on, who actually claims that the "XP shell" is lacking anything? On the contrary, that interface dominated the market for nearly a decade; people became fundamentally accustomed to it, particularly the GUI. If they were to overhaul it entirely overnight, what would be the result? Pure confusion and chaos. Users wouldn't know how to navigate their own machines. Not everyone using a computer is a systems engineer, a designer, or a programmer. There are plenty of 50-year-olds who just finished a basic computer literacy course and previously didn't even realize a computer required a monitor to function. There are far more people like that than there are tech specialists.

Scrolling? Please. Once you have mastered working in Windows XP, you will have memorized every possible shortcut. At that point, all you really need to do is hit Win + R and launch the application you require.

You mention Microsoft's laziness. If you truly consider yourself the polar opposite of Microsoft, why don't you just move all your program shortcuts to the desktop? That way, you won't have any issues with scrolling.😍

That is a massive generalization that I don't even care to address. KMPlayer works perfectly, GOM Player works excellently, and BSPlayer works great. In fact, they often perform better now than they did on XP.

I can't speak to Corel video editor, but I highly doubt you purchased an official license and attempted to work with genuine, licensed software. If you had, I am certain a reputable company wouldn't be charging money for a half-baked product that fails to run on Windows 7. So, if you intend to pick a fight with Windows 7 by showcasing cracked software, don't bother—the OS wasn't built for that.

As for cracked programs, they actually tend to run more reliably on Windows 7 than they ever did on XP.👍

By the way, my eyesight is perfectly fine.

Yes, I also find that programs run better on this machine than they did on my old XP rig, but that machine only had 256 MB of RAM, whereas I have 3 GB here.

We are discussing an operating system that doesn't even feature an "Up" button.

We are talking about an operating system that refuses to let you sort open applications on the taskbar by the order in which they were opened.

While it might be a necessary evil due to drivers and application compatibility, I certainly won't say I enjoy using it.

I need some advice 🙂.

Work is sending me to some training soon, and they told me I need to have Windows 7 installed because that’s what we use at the office. They’ll be covering the basics, but I want to be able to practice and mess around with it at home too. A coworker mentioned he wasn't sure if my current setup could even handle it, since I bought this PC about seven years ago... How can I tell if it'll work? And if Windows 7 won't run, am I looking at buying a whole new computer, or maybe just a few specific components 😕?

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.

Benjamin King2 said:Download this little tool and list your hardware specs (processor, RAM, motherboard, graphics card...): http://www.piriform.com/speccy

The request seems a bit odd to me. If you're already handling Windows 7 at work without issues, I don't see why you'd need to test it out at home...

Thanks for getting back to me. It’s not just you who thinks the request is weird. We haven't started using that OS at the office yet—that starts Monday. They’re dropping the machines off tomorrow, so we’re still stuck on Windows XP for now. I have this Everest program, which I think is similar to yours, so here are the specs. Let me know if anything vital is missing; I didn't copy everything because there's way too much stuff...

Motherboard:
Processor Intel Pentium D 930, 3015 MHz (15 x 201)
Motherboard Model Unknown
Motherboard Chipset unknown chipset
System Memory 1024 MB
BIOS Type Award Modular (12/27/06)
COM port COM port (COM1)
LPT port LPT port (LPT1)

Graphics:
Graphics Card Radeon X1650 Series Secondary (256 MB)
Graphics Card Radeon X1650 Series (256 MB)
3D Accelerator Chip ATI RV530 monitor
Monitor Plug and Play Monitor [NoDB] (170289143)

Multimedia:
Sound Card Realtek HD Audio output

Storage Subsystem:
IDE Controller Intel(R) ICH8 2 port SATA Controller - 2825
IDE Controller Intel(R) ICH8 4 port SATA Controller - 2820
IDE Controller standard dual Channel PCI Floppy Controller
Floppy disk Floppy disk drive
Hard Drive Seagate ST3160811AS (149 GB, IDE)
Optical Drive Optiarc DVD RW AD-7170S
Hard Drive SMART Status OK

Partitions:
C: (NTFS) 29996 MB (3411 MB free)
D: (NTFS) 122621 MB (25074 MB free)
Total Size 149.0 GB (27.8 GB free)

Matthew Ramos61 said:Yeah, my programs run better on this than they did on my old rig running XP, but back then I was rocking 256 MB of RAM, whereas here I've got 3 GB

We are talking about an operating system that doesn't even have an UP button

We're talking about an OS that won't even let you sort open apps on the taskbar by the order they were launched

Look, maybe it’s a necessary evil because of drivers and specific apps, but as far as actually enjoying using it? Not gonna happen

Alright, why does it need to be by launch order? Seriously, why can't you just memorize what each icon looks like so you don't have to hunt through names to find your software? Are people really that slow? After two years of using this, that superbar is actually a huge advantage for me

Why are you guys showing up every single week just to spit venom over such trivial nonsense?
If you hate it so much, go build your own OS and leave me alone. Don't annoy me.🙂

@casualbear17, I see you're sitting on 1GB of RAM. You should really look into adding another 1GB if you want anything remotely close to normal performance—though I don't know how heavy your workload is, 1GB is pretty pathetic by today's standards. While you're already in Everest, check exactly which RAM module you're running

Taylor Morales31 said:Fine. Why does the order matter? Why can't you just remember what an icon looks like or which program it belongs to without having to read the label? Is it really that hard to grasp? After using this thing for two years, I find that taskbar actually helps quite a bit...

Why are you guys showing up here once a week just to complain about nonsense?
If you hate it that much, go build your own OS and leave me alone. Don't annoy me...🙂

@natalie, I see you're running on 1GB of RAM. You should probably grab another GB if you want this thing to actually work. Not sure how heavy your workload is, but 1GB isn't doing you any favors. While you're in Everest, check what specific RAM stick you've got installed...

Thanks for trying to help me 🙂! Sorry, I'm lost. I have no idea where to look to find the specific RAM details. Under "Memory," it just shows the total amount and what's currently in use... What exactly am I looking for? Which spec do I need?

casualbear17 said:Thanks for trying to help me out 🙂! I’m sorry, I’m clearly lost—I have no idea where to look to find the exact RAM specs. Under "Memory," all I see is the total capacity and how much is being used, and that's about it. What am I actually supposed to be looking for? Which specific detail do I need?

Computer -> Motherboard -> Democratic Party



It would be absolutely perfect if you could just search on Amazon by typing in the module name itself, like the way I managed to track mine down. If that doesn't work, then I guess I'll just have to copy over every other single spec and search using those instead.

Under Computer, Motherboard, the Democratic Party section is just blank 😕.

Check under Computer->DMI->Memory Devices, then tell me which specific slot your module is sitting in.

It’s not showing me any of the data you have down there. Look at 🤷this:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Ugh, look, you could try it this way: pull the module out physically and head over to the most well-stocked tech shop in town, because there is clearly no way to detect it via software right now.

Alternatively, you could attempt to run CPU-Z free

Maybe that utility can pick it up? I haven't personally used it, so I can't give you any specifics, but give it a shot. If that fails, I'm afraid you're stuck with that first option—the hard way...

While you're at it, you really ought to check how many memory slots you actually have available in your machine, just so you know what you're working with.

Otherwise, sure, you could technically install Windows 10 32-bit on that rig, but you’ll be dealing with a massive shortage of usable RAM compared to your current 1GB. You're going to feel that hit immediately. Once you open a web browser or try to get an antivirus running, I honestly fear you won't even be able to play a single song because you simply won't have the memory left. You are extremely limited with only 1GB; remember, it isn't just the OS that eats through RAM—every single application needs its own slice too.

Try using different tools. Taylor Morales31 uses CPU-Z, and you're using that one Fosna recommended.
Just grab CPU-Z and run an analysis with it.

Though, looking at your report, casualbear17, your C: drive usage is getting pretty critical. You've only got about 3 GB left. I have a feeling if you don't clear some space or move stuff over to the D: drive soon, Windows might just crash on you.

Keith Bennett38 said:Just try using different tools. Taylor Morales31 uses "Ada," and you should probably stick with that program Fosna suggested.
Download Ada and run an analysis with it.

Honestly, casualbear17, looking at this report of yours, your C: drive usage is getting dangerously close to the edge. You’ve only got about 3 GB of breathing room left. I have a gut feeling that if you don't clear some junk off that C: drive or move some files over to D: pretty soon, your Windows is going to completely crash on you.

Well, Everest and Ada are basically the same thing now—it's just called Ada. My only concern is whether the Home edition, which is the free version, is too limited. I'm wondering if the paid Everest Ultimate version would actually provide more detailed data, though I suspect even then it might not be much different.

So I went ahead and installed this other program too. This is what shows up under the RAM section, though I'm not even sure if this is what you guys are looking for 😁:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

casualbear17 said:So I went ahead and installed this other program too—it shows this under the RAM section, though I have no clue if this is actually what you guys are looking for 😁:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

If you're actually planning on upgrading your memory, here’s the deal: you need DDR2 modules with a 400MHz DRAM frequency. Aiming for 1GB would be ideal—you can probably find some on eBay.

Taylor Morales31 said:Look, why does the opening order matter? Honestly, why can't you people just memorize what an icon looks like or which program belongs to which icon? Is it really that much of a mental struggle for you? After two years of using this, I find that specific taskbar layout to be a massive advantage. It keeps things organized.

Why do you all show up here once a week just to vent about such trivial nonsense?
If you're so dissatisfied with how things work, go ahead and build your own operating system. Just leave me out of it; I have no patience for this level of complaining. 🙂

@Natalie, I noticed you're running on 1GB of RAM. If you want even a semblance of a functional experience, you really ought to install another 1GB. I don't know exactly how resource-heavy your software load is, but 1GB is practically prehistoric by modern standards. While you're browsing through something like Newegg, check the specifics—what exact RAM module are you currently using?

Am I being questioned because I opened them in that specific order? It’s because otherwise, the taskbar shifts and scatters my programs everywhere, forcing me to hunt for what I need every single time I try to select something.

Is that explanation sufficient for you?

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

Quote : Jonathan Sanders

Matthew Ramos61 said:So, you’re asking if I pinned them like that for a specific reason? Yeah, exactly. Because otherwise, the taskbar just keeps shifting around and scattering my programs all over the place. Every single time I try to click on something, I have to waste time hunting for it. It's a total mess.

Is that enough?

You don't even need to go looking for things. That’s exactly why having these icons gives you such an edge—you can tell what's what with just a quick glance. Plus, you can actually fit more on the screen. It's only when you start opening a massive amount of windows on Windows XP that everything turns into a total cluttered mess. Everything gets squeezed, the labels get shortened to the absolute limit, and the icons end up looking tiny. But look, I can't please everyone. If it works for me, fine. If it doesn't work for you, that's your business. That's just how it is.

Why on earth does everyone assume there’s only one way to work? Who actually decided that everybody has to stick to a rigid five-day grind? Just because some corporate handbook says so doesn't mean it's the law. People should be able to work on whatever schedule actually fits their lives. It's common sense, really.

Matthew Ramos61 said:Is there actually a reason I did that? It’s because the taskbar keeps shifting around and scattering my programs everywhere, so I end up hunting for what I need every single time I try to click something.

Does that make sense?

Totally! Let's leave it at that.