KiCad 5.0.0 does't start on Win 7 :-(

Hi there,

I’ve just installed KiCad for the first time. My computer:
Intel Pentium CPU G645 @ 2.90 GHz
Windows W7 Professionel (all updates done regulary)
Service Pack 1
32 Bit
This PC is not bodged or frisky.

I’ve loaded the right Version from the main page.
Installation works well, all done. Icon and so on.
As suggested I’ve installed FreeCAD, too.
That software starts and works fine. :slight_smile:

But KiCad 5 not.Doubleklick on the icon, the HDD give some
action, but nothing happens than.

The taskmanager doesn’t show any process or action.

Any suggestions on my Problem?
TIA, Mike

Hi Mike,

KiCAD 5.x should work on Windows 7 as far as I know.
It could be you are missing some essential .dll files on your computer.
If you are handy with computers, you could try running a dependency checker on the .exe to see what is missing – if anything.

You can find a dependency checker here:


Hi Niels,

I’m not a programmer. But a good user with some background in PC.
Unzipped Dependencies_x86_Debug
Started DependenciesGui.exe
Stops Funktion with an error.
The updates on Win7 are all done. Nothing missing or false.

73’s for the straight key icon, OM

1 Like

Did you install the 32 Bit KiCad (


I wonder how many people have installed the 32 bit version? “Undertested” springs to mind these days.

1 Like

This is a 64 Bit processor:
Intel Processor Specs

At this point in time, running a 32 Bit Windoze OS on a 64 Bit Intel Processor is just asking for all sorts of problems; I’d advise to downgrade your Processor or upgrade your OS.

Note: Advice given potentially worth the value that was paid for.


yes, I did. I tried the other version, but this produces an error message.
So I’ve choosen the right one. :wink:

I’ve wounderd about that fact, too.:roll_eyes:

Okay, that sounds logical. I didn’t setup the computer, that was the specialist shop.

KiCad works on my notebook with W7 Home 32 Bit very well.
Tried this yesterday evening. So at least I found a solution to run it.
Greetings, Mike

The only part of that post you should pay much attention to is the following line:

Note: Advice given potentially worth the value that was paid for.

There’s no problem running a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit processor. It might be underutilising the processor but it will run just fine.

By the way Jim, it’s Windows. I find your constant use of the pejorative “Windoze” a bit offensive and immature.

But it’s still possible that running a 32bit program on 32bit Windows on a 64bit processor triggers a bug which is not seen in a completely 32bit system. The 32+64 combination may have been completely untested before publishing KiCad 5 packages.

While it’s entirely possible that the 32 bit version may have a bug related to being compiled as a 32 bit version, it would have nothing to do with running on a 64 bit processor. It would even be independent of running on a 32/64 bit OS for that matter.

I think most 32 bit Windows OS are running on 64 bit capable cpus. The last significant 32 bit only cpu was an Intel Atom, common in netbooks several years ago.
There are many companies still forcing 32 bit OS for historical reasons, ancient custom applications.

I wonder if the failed install has left some 64 bit residue in the registry?

For information, I’m running a dual install KiCad4 / kiCad5 on a Win 7 32 bit system using a 64-bit processor with no problem whatsoever.

1 Like

It would likely be of noticeable benefit to upgrade your OS and throw another 4G of RAM in it.

@Efcis Just because one can do something does not mean that they should.

It is very easy for an individual to use Google to learn the benefits of using a 64-bit OS with a 64-bit processor.

I’m not going to spend the time to dig up information on weird systems that could not be put into my shopping cart.

In Tacoma, WA I purchased one of the AMD 64-bit processors in the very first batch that was received by the store, also an Asus 64-bit compatible motherboard, and the magical Windoze XP 64. Does anyone think that every prior 32-bit program I had worked without issue? Hint: There was a service pack for that…

Maybe, in theory, any 64-bit processor is 100% compatible running a 32-bit OS; but it has to work with every device on the motherboard as well as every DLL and every driver, and possibly every interaction with the BIOS. And this does not include any sort of device that may be plugged into any of the card slots that motherboards have.

I see no reason for KiCad to spend resources to support further bug-fixes/development on such oddball, and low percentage, of users.

No, because I’ve tried it AFTER the first installation with the right setup.

KiCad works well with my older notebook that has only 2 MB RAM. :+1:

Yes, for shure. But keep in mind that I trusted the specialist. And it’s a fact that more than 60 much more complicated programs with deeper integration into the OS are running (without any mistakes!) under this setup. So this PC works well the whole years.

It is therefore relatively obvious that when programming KiCad, one or the other of the general constellations is either not intercepted by error messages or solved in some way. The 32-bit OS on 64 processor constellation has simply never been tried before. Or I’ll be the first to get back to you with it. :sunglasses:

Please keep in mind that it is not proven that this constellation really the problem why KiCad does not start…

Anyway, I’ve found a solution.I also became aware of this discrepancy.
Thank you for your patience and the help.

All the best, Mike.

1 Like

Precisely! Just because you can post such drivel does not mean you should. :wink:

It’s not theoretical, it’s be design that X64 processors are 100% backward compatible with X86 processors. X64 is just an extension of the 32 bit architecture. There was a time when most X64 processors were running 32 bit OS’s, the exception being the server domain which quickly adopted 64 bits. That of course does not mean that a 64 bit OS will be compatible with all 32 bit apps, but that has nothing to do with the processor.

Once again you have caused a thread to deviate from the main topic with such unrelated and meaningless posts. Not to mention referring to the OP as “oddball”.