Vista: Benchmarking or Benchmarketing?

Windows Vista features built-in benchmarking to assess system and component performance, by calculating so-called Windows Experience Indices (WEI). Can Microsoft really replace traditional benchmarking?
72 answers Last reply
More about vista benchmarking benchmarketing
  1. They have replaced everything else...
  2. someone forget to test AMD cpu's?
  3. I installed Vista twice (as beta). I got two different sets of performance ratings on the exact same hardware.

    The ratings were similar, but they were definantly different. I remember getting penalized bigtime for only having a modest (at the time) 6600GT 128MB video card.
  4. I really would like to see the on-board graphics from Intel added to this for comparison.

    We all know that MS fudged that program to make it look less embarrising for Intel. I'd love to see the actual comparison in black and white to see how much of an exception MS made to help Intel out.
  5. Quote:
    Windows Vista features built-in benchmarking to assess system and component performance, by calculating so-called Windows Experience Indices (WEI). Can Microsoft really replace traditional benchmarking?
    No.
    The point is to ensure that a given user has enough computing horsepower to run Vista, and to identify where improvements are needed. Nobody in their right mind would use that as a serious performance benchmark. Would they?
  6. Can someone explain what those MS numbers mean?
    Ok, 1 is lowest and 5 is hghest. You need X benchmark to play Y game requiring an X.
    But what happends in a few years? The Playing tomorrows software on todays hardware will not work well.
    Do you expect numbers will keep going up, 6,7,8,9, etc?
    That way a '4' in 2007 will be the same as a '4' in 2010.

    I underatand the Windows Experience Index us just a rough guess so the casual buyer won't need to read so much gobbledygook about "System Requirements:"
  7. The numbers will go up over time, as new hardware comes out.
  8. Quote:
    The numbers will go up over time, as new hardware comes out.

    Thanks. Now I can sleep more easily.
  9. Quote:
    Windows Vista features built-in benchmarking to assess system and component performance, by calculating so-called Windows Experience Indices (WEI). Can Microsoft really replace traditional benchmarking?


    Ah, finally a place to put my 2 cents on this topic. When I saw the article I knew before reading it that Tom's will have criticised its over-simplicity. I will agree 100% that the WEI is not a replacement for benchmarking--if it was, every major benchmarking program vendor would be doing their best to sue microsoft for every penny they can get anyways.

    The WEI, as the article puts it, is the WEI--IT IS NOT A HARDWARE BENCHMARK, IT IS A WINDOWS BENCHMARK. This means that DirectX versions, hardware driver versions used, HARD DRIVE FRAGMENTATION, background processes (super-duper important!), such as ANTI-VIRUS PROGRAMS, hard drive free space, available RAM, superfetched data, COLOR DEPTH/RESOLUTION, and even the amount of reboots since the last program installation WILL ALL AFFECT THE WEI FOR YOUR PC.

    So...why is it different one day than the next on the same PC? Look at the reasons above. I have personally tested them all--I ran WEI then defragmented and ran again and my score changed, for a single example. Also I have some situations I plan to test:

    1. Change the pagefile from one hard drive to another--does the disk index change?

    2. Disable my antivirus altogether--does anything change? (tested with AVG Free 7.5 and with Norton 2007 90-day trial separately--Norton is the devil :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: , but disabling AVG completely?)

    3. If I disable cool n' quiet, what will happen to my cpu's WEI?

    4. Run the WEI at cold startup while speedfan confirms both cores are under 40 Celsius, then retest them at nearly 55 Celsius (by running two WoW.exe's simultaneously at max settings with two different characters--of course closing them both before testing)--how much different?

    5. Disable the second cpu core in the bios, and retesting--how much performance does that second core actually give me?

    Also tested my Graphics card with the newest NVIDIA driver yesterday and it is still 5.9 as it was with the previous nvidia version. Note with the ORIGINAL Vista driver my Graphics was only 5.7.

    Is WEI supposed to replace traditional benchmarking? HELL no, and thank the Lord that we finally have a sytem that will be affected by all environmental conditions--so performance on one person's machine can be totally opposite someone else's experience even if the PC's hardware is 100% identical. Run the WEI and compare it to similar systems to see if you have any viruses or "resource hogs" on your system--how awesome!

    Even if Vista does get plagued with viruses like XP has, now I will have an easy method to determine what the performance should be verses what it is. This WEI thing is cool.

    Hmm--just thought of a new catch-phrase marketing slogan: "Got Vista, now how much does your computer WEI?" New System Requirements label:
    "OS: Windows XP or Windows Vista 32-bit
    For XP Systems:
    Video: at least 128MB or higher DirectX 9.0c PCIe or AGP adapter including hardware T&L support
    RAM: 512MB or higher recommended
    CPU: Intel Pentium III 1.0GHz/AMD Athlon 1.0GHz or faster CPU
    Hard drive: at least 4.4 GB free uncompressed drive space

    For Vista Systems:
    Video: at least 128MB or higher DirectX 9.0c graphics chipset with a WEI of 3.0 or higher
    RAM: 1GB or higher RAM with a WEI of 3.0 or higher
    CPU: Any cpu with a WEI of 3.5 or higher recommended
    Hard Drive: Any hard drive with a WEI of 3.0 or higher and at least 4.4 GB free space"

    This could be the beginning of something new and exciting, to say the least :)
  10. Quote:
    The numbers will go up over time, as new hardware comes out.

    Thanks. Now I can sleep more easy.

    More easily you mean? (LMAO sorry I just couldn't pass that up :D Really, just kidding)
  11. my two cents

    I don't see Microsoft's benchmarking tool giving enough information, for me to decide weather it would be worth the extra money for the next level of hardware. Even looking in the article I noticed some hardware that had noticeable differences with other benchmarking software, and it barely shows up in the windows benchmarks.
  12. That's a laugh. :lol:
  13. Just my opinion, but I feel that this (like so many of M$'s other "innovations") is complete BS. An EX6800 and an 820 aren't even in the same "sport" let alone in the same ballpark... yet the WEI indicates that the EX6800 is only 14% faster.

    edit1: much -> many (for grammatical purposes since this is one of my pet peeves)
    edit2: Oh, and if a P4 560 scores a 5.0 I feel REALLY sorry for anyone trying to run Vista with a CPU that scores a 3.
    -mcg
  14. Quote:
    Just my opinion, but I feel that this (like so many of M$'s other "innovations") is complete BS. An EX6800 and an 820 aren't even in the same "sport" let alone in the same ballpark... yet the WEI indicates that the EX6800 is only 14% faster.

    edit1: much -> many (for grammatical purposes since this is one of my pet peeves)
    edit2: Oh, and if a P4 560 scores a 5.0 I feel REALLY sorry for anyone trying to run Vista with a CPU that scores a 3.
    -mcg


    With all due respect, I believe you are missing the whole point. When it comes to performance in real-world applications and noticeable difference, the processor makes very little difference BY ITSELF. I have a Dell Dimension 4700 that now has my x700 pro video card in it, and it benchmarks the same in that pc that it did in my rig. The Dell has an old 2.8GHz Prescott D0 stepping 800MHz FSB CPU and just PC3200 DDR2 memory in dual-channel. Now-- a brand-spanking new 2.4GHz celeron would hardley score a 3.0, but a processor that is 2.4GHz or faster (2.0 GHz or faster if dual core) IMHO should score 4.0 or higher generally, except for the budget versions (celeron and Sempron).

    Honestly the cpu is almost never going to be the bottleneck as slower cpus have slower chipsets meaning the memory bus is usually the culprit, so almost any Socket 775/939/940/AM2 processor will score 4.0 or higher as long as it's 2.4GHz or higher non celeron and has a chipset 800MHz or faster FSB for Intel.

    So FOR WINDOWS, the processor makes little difference with a modern mobo. There just aren't many crappy cpu's that fit into the latest cpu sockets. For the record, there was a time when the cpu was fairly important even on the same platform--that was in the socket 7 era and the socket 462 (socket A) era. Today the issue revolves around the platform much more than it revolves around the cpu.
  15. enewmen wrote:
    Newf wrote:
    The numbers will go up over time, as new hardware comes out.

    Thanks. Now I can sleep more easy.


    More easily you mean? (LMAO sorry I just couldn't pass that up Very Happy Really, just kidding)


    Thanks. Now I can sleep more, (i.e. its) easy.
  16. WEI is nonsense. Furthermore this article is totally wrong when it says:
    "Clearly, the Windows Experience Index is welcome"
    because the WEI is just a thinly disguised marketing tool and gives totally misleading and blatantly incorrect scores which is worse than having no scores at all.

    It doesn't actually test real performance, as I get the same score if I massively underclock my system or massively overclock it.

    I have corsair PC-1111 memory (currently the fastest memory available, and then overclocked). WEI gives it a 5.5 which is the same as single-channel ddr2-667 gets. It must be reading the memory speed from default setttings or something, its certainly not actually doing any real-world performance tests.

    If I didn't know better and believed the "improve your score link" I'd be screwed.
    It advised that I throw away my current memory and 'upgrade' to some cheap-ass single channel ddr2-667.

    I'll say it again: WEI is a piece of crap, and this is yet another Tom's article that appears to be blatantly and unjustifiably biassed towards Microsoft.
  17. I disagree. Again, in the real world, overclocking makes little noticeable difference for Windows performance. It makes numbers go up in "real" tests, but I have yet to hear people report any noticeable difference in everyday usage. I will probably alienate half or more of THG's readers by saying that, but when it comes down to it I've asked around and nobody plays Oblivion without overclocking then overclocks and "notices" any major difference.

    I will admit really have little experience with overclocking, and with water cooled systems and such that can be overclocked to the extreme I'm sure there will be some difference. For Windows Vista, however, there is little difference in overclocking or underclocking your cpu as far as it affects performance noticeably.

    Don't take my word for it, put a Pentium D 820 in your mobo and see what difference you notice in performance using the same PC. Then overclock your Pentium D. How many seconds did it save you? If the Pentium D doesn't even make that big of difference, why the heck would overclocking your X6800 make a big difference?

    Again the difference is there, but a dual-core 2.4GHz or faster cpu will not make a tremendous difference in speed regardless of the flavor. Change to a different mobo, and the story might be different.

    Quote:
    I have corsair PC-1111 memory (currently the fastest memory available, and then overclocked). WEI gives it a 5.5 which is the same as single-channel ddr2-667 gets. It must be reading the memory speed from default setttings or something, its certainly not actually doing any real-world performance tests.


    It is. The memory performance going beyond ddr2-667 on that platform (honestly even ddr2-533 wouldn't be much different either) has little benefit FOR THAT PLATFORM. It's all in the motherboard and what it was designed to run at. Heck, I'll run my memory at PC1600 speed when I get home and see what happens to the score and bootup time. Both will be minimal, but I'll update with my findings anyway.

    IMO, Vista is actually has the first "benchmark" that will reflect real performance. Time stuff. Prove me wrong. I'm not an arrogant in-your-face I'm smarter than you type of guy, I just want to find out if my personal experience with this is isolated just to me. Forget all the numbers, time it yourself using your watch timer.

    If your PC takes even 3 seconds longer to boot after changing to slower settings from the fast ones, let me know. Then RAR 4 GB worth of data files at max settings and time it. The difference there will be more noticeable, but the average Vista user won't care about that much of a difference. Microsoft is dealing with the masses, and frankly we are part of the elite not the masses.
  18. How fortunate I am to have such a helpful tool -- is this Star Search or American Idol -- or maybe it's Survivor? If Microslop score you low enough the OS votes you out it's validation database and you can't re-install til you upgrade to atleast a 12Ghz 8-core CPU, 32GB of RAM, and 4 GPUs -- I mean it was built for future hardware right?! Because it does so much more for you, like...like...errrr...like...

    So Vista is going to be the dominant OS by mid this year?? Well there are some real world market research polls that would make that statement False. THG has gotta stop humping Microsoft's leg -- don't worry THG, you'll get your turn at being bought out as soon as you become significant enough.

    Other than my many installs and uninstalls of Vista for testing my software, I don't know of anyone that is planning on buying Vista within at least the next 12-18 months (if at all).

    No thanks Vista, I'll use 3rd party tools or code my own to get real performance numbers -- go ahead, vote me off the Island.

    Rob.
  19. Quote:
    Can someone explain what those MS numbers mean?
    Ok, 1 is lowest and 5 is hghest. You need X benchmark to play Y game requiring an X.
    But what happends in a few years? The Playing tomorrows software on todays hardware will not work well.
    Do you expect numbers will keep going up, 6,7,8,9, etc?
    That way a '4' in 2007 will be the same as a '4' in 2010.

    I underatand the Windows Experience Index us just a rough guess so the casual buyer won't need to read so much gobbledygook about "System Requirements:"


    They're scored between 0 and 6. 8)

    And I'd have to agree that it is a welcome addition, certainly for a quick "how crap is this sytem really" test. Think about all those times you get called to relatives/friends/customers houses and they say that their PC is really slow. Now you can start up WEI, have it report back some really bad numbers and just point at the screen and say "See, Windows says that your hardware isn't good enough".

    Soooo much easier than arguing that yes, they did buy the PC *only* a year ago, but it was 2 years old when they bought it.

    And the whinging about how a Pentium D scored close to a C2D, who cares? I've just "upgraded" to an AMD 64 3400+ and it's, personally, fast enough for me and my games. Sure, all these dual/quad-cores are lightning fast, but unless you are doing some seriously time-critical work, is it REALLY that important?

    Windows boots 5 seconds quicker. Word opens 10 seconds faster. WoW gives me 3 more FPS. And my bank balance is a thousand dollars lighter..... I know what I value more. :lol:


    PS. I've installed Vista 2 times. I've also reformatted and installed XP 2 times.. Very unimpressed. To quote comic-book guy: Worst OS .. ever!
  20. What a pointless article. Its obvious that M$ pathetic software isnt going to replace "traditional" ("real" I prefer) benchmarking. How can a number between 0 and 6 tell you anywhere near as much as real framerates and real decoding times etc?
  21. Quote:
    For Vista Systems:
    Video: at least 128MB or higher DirectX 9.0c graphics chipset with a WEI of 3.0 or higher
    RAM: 1GB or higher RAM with a WEI of 3.0 or higher
    CPU: Any cpu with a WEI of 3.5 or higher recommended
    Hard Drive: Any hard drive with a WEI of 3.0 or higher and at least 4.4 GB free space"

    This could be the beginning of something new and exciting, to say the least :)

    This is a good example of what some program/game could have on the box... we've all seen this coming. The hardware is gonna need a WEI score as well then. Because, say someone who is not computer-savvy goes to get some cool new game and sees that it requires a graphics score of 4.0 or higher. So he(/she) heads over to the graphics card isle in Best Buy ("Worst Buy") to see what kind of product is needed for said game. The WEI score on the game box is useless in picking out a new graphics card if the GC box doesn't post a WEI score. But a score can change, depending on the mobo chipset and the like, right? I sense a disturbance in the force about this...
  22. Quote:
    The numbers will go up over time, as new hardware comes out.

    Thanks. Now I can sleep more easy.

    More easily you mean? (LMAO sorry I just couldn't pass that up :D Really, just kidding)
    I corrected the post and I regret the error.
    Now I can finally sleep more EASILY.
  23. Cant let Tom Baker see typos like that. Expect to see the TARDIS in your backyard.
  24. BenchMarketeering
  25. Quote:
    Cant let Tom Baker see typos like that. Expect to see the TARDIS in your backyard.
    I have not seen Tom in quite a long time. Is he still with us?
  26. I was referring to enewmen's avatar more.
  27. It's benchmarketing. The WEI is really aimed at the "customers"( aka idiots) I deal with everyday that can't tell the difference between a USB port and their butthole. Also, it really just tells you how well their hardware will run Vista, that's all.
  28. I think runswindows95 make a good point. It like the Rating for tv shows. Not everyone going buy parts for a computer and build it. But having a way to know if a software will work. Look at it this way. Look at any game right now this is what we see

    Civilization 4 Recommended System Requirements. 1.8ghz Intel p4 or amd athlon proscessers or equivalent/ or better 512mb of ram 128mb video card w/directx 8 Support pixel and vertex shaders Directx7 compatible sound card. Cdrom drive 1.7gb of free hard drive space. Directx9.0c.

    By Looking at this. Think of one of your friends who are Computer dumb. Ask them what there cpu speed, how much ram, What is there grapics card. The frist thing out of there mouth is I don't know.

    Then there other things to show to dumb people. Let say a Game requred a 2.3ghz p4 computer. Low end 1.8ghz. Yet Newer Computer like Core duo or Core 2 is at 1.66ghz. You get a dumb guy going Oh this will not work on this system. It needs 1.8ghz. Or you get people buy it and dont even look at the specs.


    Now if Game had rating 2 Low end and 4 highend. Your system shows 3.5. Then the people who dont know crap about computers can run the test and go ok my system should run this.
  29. The benchmarking tool in Vista is Bullsh*t.

    I had an Athlon 4800+ X2 on an Asus A8NSli motherboard it scored 5.5 with 2Gb memory.

    I bought an E6600 put it on a Nvidia 650I chipset with 4GB memory and its scores 5.3!!!

    Everybody knows the E6600 is faster than an FX74 and in SI Sandra it scores benchmarks around what it should do so nothing wrong with the processor. There is something wrong with the way they assess CPU performance in Vista therefore!
  30. Quote:
    Everybody knows the E6600 is faster than an FX74 and in SI Sandra it scores benchmarks around what it should do so nothing wrong with the processor. There is something wrong with the way they assess CPU performance in Vista therefore!

    Everybody? I bet most people have never heard of Sandra.
  31. Quote:

    Everybody? I bet most people have never heard of Sandra.


    Most people? Again, for the target audience of the WEI, all of them will ask, "Sandra? Who's she?"
  32. Exactly. Its not for the enthusiast crowd (which I'm proudly a part of), but the average consumer, ie. the majority of people. The numbers need to be extended to give a better indication of differences between hardware configs. The difference between 4 and 5 is significant on a performance level, but it doesnt look like much when you just look at numbers. Even if they pushed it up to 10, it would be easier to expand differences in performance to a more realistic amount, without overdoing it.
  33. PFFFT!

    I haven't owned a intel cpu since I had a PII 300, as such I also find it a bit lame of THG not to have any AMD CPU's in the roundup...
  34. I also believe that this WEI thing will never replace 3rd party benchmarking. I think that it's just a tool for people who don't know anything about benchmarking.

    I think the majority of PC users (like office users) don't know much about CPU and GPU performance, how much RAM they need for Vista and so on... They just ask the vendor and buy. As an example, a have this girlfriend who's just bought this Toshiba laptop with Vista Basic installed (just 512MB RAM, and a Celeron 1.7Ghz) and the system is slow... but my friend doesn't notice that because she simply wants to use it for office applications.

    I kept asking myself why does Toshiba sell these Vista "Ready" laptops, and I didn't find any other answer than PROFIT.

    Maybe this WEI thing helps people decide, but I think it's more meant for "Benchmarketing".

    I personally prefer XP and don't think about switching to Vista till next year...
  35. Sorry,

    Double post :oops:
  36. Dude, please tell me that no one was surprised by that whole article? Microsuck is never going to change, they are an extremely greedy corporation that makes crap products that people use only of of extreme convenience. If other OS's had support for games and all that stuff we wouldn't be playing with Microsoft but unfortunately I none of us are so lucky as to have a stable OS that is easy to use. Good ol Bill was just in the right place at the right time and was good at suckering people.
  37. I have to agree with bourgeoisdude on his point. WEI is intended to provide an indication to the average Joe as to how well his system is going to run Windows Vista. Not WinRAR per se, nor Battlefield 2, and definitely not Crysis. It is a general broad benchmark indication to avoid complaints such as the system is unusable, and provide guidance to improving the performace (as in if one particular component clearly drags down the overall WEI, improve that component). In that, it is a most welcome tool. The trouble starts when people are trying to use it as a performance benchmark in the traditional sense of the word, which is a misuse of the concept.
  38. I don't agree with bourgeoisdude or russki at all.

    I'm all for making a benchmark in Vista thats easy to understand, but WEI just doesn't work properly.

    I'm not arguing about the fact it comes pre-installed or its user-interface (which is what the "average Joe" cares about), I'm upset that the way it cacluates the numbers themselves is clearly defective. Even Average Joe doesn't benefit from incorrect information.

    And to be honest, if Average Joe can't understand the 3DMark06 interface then Average Joe is actually Retarded Joe.

    I hate the way Microsoft incorrectly thinks the way to dumb-down stuff for the lowest common denominator is to remove all detailed information. Its always at the cost of us users who actually understand computers and want/need that level of detail.

    The other (bad) point is that now hardware makers are going to focus on making otherwise crap hardware that just has a high WEI score, rather than actual real-world performance. In some cases designing just for benchmarks has been going on anyway (esp. with GPU makers), but the benefit has been that there's not one clear benchmark to use. Now WEI is on everyones PC and the fact that it doesn't calculate actual performance well/at all just leaves that door wide open.
  39. And that brings us to the "average joe" debate -- who is this average joe? What does he do? What market research studies did Microshaft do to discover "average joe"? Did they poll a wealthly WA city or did ther poll a poor community -- did they mix it up -- where are the stats?

    The mysterious average joe that has been deemed so stupid that he NEEDs a rating system. If we make the assumption that average joe is a complete idiot, then it's unlikely average joe would purchase much software at all, because complete idiots (on average, he he) don't really earn a lot of money -- life sorta has a way of working like that. An then to suggest the average joe can read the WEI and understand how it relates to his Vista PC is yet another giant leap of assumptions. And lets be fair to average joe, if he needs the Vista rating system at all, then he/she is probably better off buying a console.

    Why does Microslap, spend time and energy on stuff like this? They have an ever increasing PM (project manager) count -- these PMs are programmers that have no place to go up so move into project management and stop coding for the most part. Microhack have lots of PMs now as the actual coding is done in other countries outside of the US. So you get a bunch of programmers come PM, and they don't really know much about project management but get the marketing puppets to do surveys to see what people want (so they can define their projects). The marketing puppets don't really know how to target their surveys intelligently (this are folks that failed in sales) and the PM has no clue either since he/she has come out of programming background -- so the PM goes with whatever skewd drivel the marketing puppets vomit from their mouths.

    And what do we have, an average OS, for an average user, for which no one is. Followed by useless articles from THG -- which lets be realistic, have no interest in actual content, they just want hit count -- so post any stupid topic that will likely generate hits (pretty much how most media networks operate).

    So there ya have it.

    Oh and for you Dr. Who fans, you do realize that Billie Piper has been voted out of Season 3?

    Rob.
  40. Well, the Average Joe is the predominant computer user - which makes it squarely the corporate crowd that uses computers for work purposes and has very little understanding of how they work, beyond "click the Word icon to launch Word" type of thing. Come to think of it, that's the vast majority of home users, too. Pretty much anyone outside of the computer science industry (and the like). They have absolutely no idea what 3DMark is. So, they need something easy to look at. Just ask any professional support person - and they are a dime a dozen on these forums - how many retarded questions they have to fend off on a daily basis, and you'll see why something WEI is actually not a bad idea.

    Oh, and don't even use "if I know so should they" argument, 'cause people on these boards are definitely head and shoulders above the aforeentioned average Joe. So enough with "if they don't know than they are retarded." They are the majority, ya know?
  41. Quote:
    Everybody knows the E6600 is faster than an FX74 and in SI Sandra it scores benchmarks around what it should do so nothing wrong with the processor. There is something wrong with the way they assess CPU performance in Vista therefore!

    Everybody? I bet most people have never heard of Sandra.

    I didn't specifically means Sandra so much as everyone who reads any technical site on the internet will know just how fast the E6600 is and just how much faster than a 4800+ it is.

    Which kind of makes Microsuck look an a$$ when the E6600 scores 5.3 and the 4800+ 5.5.

    I take the point on Sandra perhaps not being so well known whihc is all the more reason why for average Joe the Microsuck one should give accurate results.

    The only other thing you could put it down to is Vista 64. I benchmarked the 4800+ using the latest Vista tool in XP. The E6600 is benchmarked using Vista's own tool in Vista 64. Considering dual core performance seems poor in Vista 64, (merely putting a CD in a drive will freeze the pc whilst it spins up to name just one example of obvious inability to mutlitask), maybe the difference is because Vista 64 isn't using the multiple cores properly because of a bug. Anyone with Vista 64 will no doubt also know about how a background task can freeze you for a few secs. Compare that to my 4800+ on XP, I was encoding huge video files whilst surfing the net, virus scanning etc with no slow down and no pauses. I even played BF2 whilst encoding High Definiton Video without a freeze!!!
  42. Well, all the more reason the retards should be using Macs and not PCs.

    But more importantly, what would average joe do with such a number? What would those folks such as myself who produce software tell the end user -- we'd aim very low so that we secure more customers and hence more revenue. So this WEI is pretty useless all around -- just like minimum requirement for running FSX or Vista or ... low ball and let the customer upgrade if they want.

    My point is that 'average joe' is a myth, we're all different be it a corporate, home, power, IT, developer -- the OS should not be in the face of anyone of these types of people. It should be easy to configure to how one works, from the retard to the developer. Vista is none of that.

    And this is where the Vista OS fails.

    Rob.
  43. Quote:
    Well, all the more reason the retards should be using Macs and not PCs.

    But more importantly, what would average joe do with such a number? What would those folks such as myself who produce software tell the end user -- we'd aim very low so that we secure more customers and hence more revenue. So this WEI is pretty useless all around -- just like minimum requirement for running FSX or Vista or ... low ball and let the customer upgrade if they want.

    My point is that 'average joe' is a myth, we're all different be it a corporate, home, power, IT, developer -- the OS should not be in the face of anyone of these types of people. It should be easy to configure to how one works, from the retard to the developer. Vista is none of that.

    And this is where the Vista OS fails.

    Rob.


    Truth is, average joe prefers Windows because it is a dumbed down interface. Don't believe me, check the numbers.

    What Microsoft has done successfully for so long is create a single OS core that is customisable to meet the needs of anyone from the biggest loon to the most sophisticated IT person. Me? I make Vista look as close to XP as possible, disabling all "eye candy" for best performance, classic start menu/control panel, My Computer is on my desktop, etc. For "newbies", Vista can have that nice little side bar on the right, but I could care less. Thing is, I am also smart enough to disable things that I never use.

    Disable the WEI on your Vista install if you don't want it. Better yet, ignore it. Will I use this WEI feature personally? Heck no, I know what hardware works well with Windows before I purchase it because I like to know what I'm buying. Why complain about something that is optional?

    I take calls from 'average joe's' everyday at this call center, and believe you me, this new feature will make my job much easier...
  44. Quote:

    ...

    What Microsoft has done successfully for so long is create a single OS core that is customisable to meet the needs of anyone from the biggest loon to the most sophisticated IT person.
    ....


    No they really haven't been successful in this at all. As a 'very sophisticated IT person' as you put it, Windows doesn't suit my needs in the slightest. It hides everything I want to get to and doesn't tell me any details about anything.

    Furthermore the pro-user experience is terrible. I can't tell you how annoying clicking through all those "assume dumb user" dialogs are such as "changing a file extension can make this file unusable", which is also total crap because it doesn't change the file itself so its not made unusable....and the new and much more frequently appearing ones in vista like the one that won't let you just copy files over others with the same name.

    It would be much better if you could just turn that sh1t off but you're forced to forever re-confirm every time that you (still) understand what your'e doing even though you've confirmed the same thing a million times before.

    Linux is WAAAY nicer on all these points. Really.

    Quote:

    ...
    Disable the WEI on your Vista install if you don't want it. Better yet, ignore it.
    ....


    I don't mind it being there. My issue are that it is installed by default and the numbers it gives are blatantly wrong as they're not based on actual performance. You're better off with no street sign at all than one pointing the wrong way. This is especially true for inexperienced users as they don't know that they can't trust it or that there are better alternatives.
  45. Quote:

    ...

    What Microsoft has done successfully for so long is create a single OS core that is customisable to meet the needs of anyone from the biggest loon to the most sophisticated IT person.
    ....


    No they really haven't been successful in this at all. As a 'very sophisticated IT person' as you put it, Windows doesn't suit my needs in the slightest. It hides everything I want to get to and doesn't tell me any details about anything.

    Alright, that's a good point. Honestly, though, once you find out how to customise it the way of your liking, it ends up being worth the extra work in the end IMO. Sure, Linux distros may come setup the way more to your liking, but I'd rather work hard to get Windows the way I like it than to have something built the way I like it that doesn't offer half of the app support Windows does. Call me crazy.

    Quote:
    Furthermore the pro-user experience is terrible. I can't tell you how annoying clicking through all those "assume dumb user" dialogs are such as "changing a file extension can make this file unusable", which is also total crap because it doesn't change the file itself so its not made unusable....and the new and much more frequently appearing ones in vista like the one that won't let you just copy files over others with the same name.


    I am assuming that you just haven't spent much time on Vista, so I'll refrain from repudiating those complaints individually. Needless to say, it's just a few extra OS settings you have to change and those problems will all disappear if you wish them gone.

    Quote:
    It would be much better if you could just turn that sh1t off but you're forced to forever re-confirm every time that you (still) understand what your'e doing even though you've confirmed the same thing a million times before.


    I am missing something--so are you a sophisticated IT person or just sophisticated with non-Microsoft products (does the phrase "Don't show this message every time Windows starts" sound familiar?) Nevermind that...

    ...Hey man, if you know Linux more than you know MS, and learning MS isn't worth your time, that's fine. I'm just saying that after the initial hassles of adjusting the default settings here and there, in the end Windows supports more of the stuff I use than Linux does. Do I know Linux like I know Windows? No I don't, and yes, perhaps you are correct that the "out of box" or "out of distro" experience with Linux is much easier for folks like yourself, but technically the bells and whistles in every OS are secondary to their base, and Vista's base IMHO is easier for me to work with than that of *nix OSes base.

    Quote:
    I don't mind it (WEI) being there. My issue are that it is installed by default and the numbers it gives are blatantly wrong as they're not based on actual performance. You're better off with no street sign at all than one pointing the wrong way. This is especially true for inexperienced users as they don't know that they can't trust it or that there are better alternatives.


    Fair enough. However, I strongly disagree that the numbers it give are "blatently wrong". They are based off of actual performance tests that Microsoft actually designed to specifically use Vista APIs, interfaces, and function calls so that it is better suited for testing the hardware's performance in Vista. If the Pentium D 810 runs better IN WINDOWS VISTA than the Quad-Core X6800 does, then why would a customer care if the "hardware is actually better"?
  46. One problem with WEI is that it obtains information about the CPU's pre-configured state not it's actual operating state.

    As pointed out in other threads and I've confirmed with my own test rig -- I run my X6800 at default 2.93Ghz - run WEI - then I overclock to 3.9 Ghz (watercooled/TEC) run WEI and I get exactly the same WEI rating. WEI is ignoring the actual clock speed.

    As far as a road sign for anyone to follow, it'll fall the way side of the many other elements of Vista, nice gimmick that most users will eventually realize is pretty inaccurate. Worse yet, a wrong WEI rating could make a potential customer decide NOT to purchase game XYZ -- how is this a good thing for game developer or Microshaft?

    And what happens when your hardware is beyond it's max rating? Do they just keep bumping the scale up? How do you make any before and after comparisons with a moving WEI max rating? What then -- I know at least one product, FSX that will turn out dog do do frame rates even at moderate detail levels on very high end overclocked systems. So where does this leave WEI?

    It's just such a bad idea that it really should NOT have made it into the OS, not when there are so many more important items to be resolved.

    Rob.
  47. Quote:
    It would be much better if you could just turn that sh1t off but you're forced to forever re-confirm every time that you (still) understand what your'e doing even though you've confirmed the same thing a million times before.


    I am missing something--so are you a sophisticated IT person or just sophisticated with non-Microsoft products (does the phrase "Don't show this message every time Windows starts" sound familiar?) Nevermind that...

    ...Hey man, if you know Linux more than you know MS, and learning MS isn't worth your time, that's fine. I'm just saying that after the initial hassles of adjusting the default settings here and there, in the end Windows supports more of the stuff I use than Linux does. Do I know Linux like I know Windows? No I don't, and yes, perhaps you are correct that the "out of box" or "out of distro" experience with Linux is much easier for folks like yourself, but technically the bells and whistles in every OS are secondary to their base, and Vista's base IMHO is easier for me to work with than that of *nix OSes base.


    Its true, I do know Linux better than I know Windows mostly because in comparison Microsoft products all seem to have 'features' that work in an unexpected ways (such as WEI which claims to be a system performance benchmark but gives the same score no matter how much you overclock).

    Also it seems to me all MS products have terrible GUI designers as they all hide the basic/most commonly used functionality behind layers of less-used stuff. Microsoft Word and Windows Media player especially come to mind here as being exellent examples of terrible bloated app/bad GUI design.

    So yeah i guess your "just sophisticated with non-microsoft" description fits me fine.

    I'm very interested in your claim that its possible to turn off those annoying "are you sure?" type of pop-up dialog boxes you keep getting in Vista. I have looked and looked but not found how to turn those off so I ended up assuming you couldn't.

    Quote:

    (does the phrase "Don't show this message every time Windows starts" sound familiar?)


    No it really doesn't.
    I'm trying to get rid of the stupid dialog boxes you get in Vista for example when you rename the extension part of a filename, or that warns you about overwriting files when you copy a file to another folder also containing a file with the same filename. I just want it to work without all the redundant interaction that repeatedly double-checks if you really meant to do it or whatever, which is basically assuming you don't know what you're doing or are more likely to be making a mistake than not.

    Please clearly explain exactly how you prevent those from coming up, as you have already claimed its possible.
  48. Hmm, what DDR2 667 memory did you guys test?

    I have Corsair Value Select 2 x 1024 MB Dual Channel ram and my X64 Vista only picks it up as a 4.8 on the WEI... It's my lowest score...

    Edit: Never mind, I just updated my scores (and my BIOS), and Windows now picks up my memory as a 5.5 (From a 4.8) and my CPU as a five (from a 4.9).
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Performance Windows Vista Components Systems Product