Vista - Re: RAM Subscore of Windows Experience Index

03-27-2008

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:42:33 -0000, "CJM"
<cjmnews04@xxxxxx> wrote:

Quote:

>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:fe6lu3te4415tkl4t4fal87vioskcuf9hp@xxxxxx

Quote:

> > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:16:28 -0000, "CJM"
> > <cjmnews04@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >

Quote:

> >> I upgraded from 2GB to 4GB then to 6GB.

> >
> >
> > Are you running 32-bit Windows or 64-bit Windows> 32-bit Windows can't
> > use more than 4GB (actually somewhere around 3.1-3.5GB)
> >

>
> Then I must be running x64...
>

Quote:

> >

Quote:

> >> Performance initially increased by 0.1 units,

> >
> > No, the *score* (or rating) increased. Scores are not necessarily the
> > same as performance.
> >

>
> Yes, quite.
>

Quote:

> > Personally, I wished Microsoft had never instituted this Windows
> > Experience Index rating system. In my view it's extremely misleading.
> >

>
> It's fine providing it's not abused (or taken too seriously).

That's exactly the problem. It *is* taken too seriously. The average
computer user has nothing else to go by. He thinks a higher number is
always better, and that isn't always true.

Quote:

> > Right! And that's why I say that it's extremely misleading.
> >

>
> I wouldn't go that far. The WEI is the simplest form of benchmark, and if it
> stops the less enlightened users from expecting Crysis to run on their Intel
> onboard gfx chipset, then that can only be a good thing.
>
> Imagine if retailers started list WEI ratings when they are selling
> machines... Don't think they will ever let it happen but it would be
> interesting and beneficial to the average consumer.

I don't agree. I don't think it would be beneficial to the average
consumer at all; it would confuse him. WEI ratings are like
benchmarks. They reflect performance only under some narrow set of
conditions, and are often misleading.

System A may have a higher WEI rating (or other benchmark score) than
System B, yet while doing some particular task, System B may
outperform System A. The actual performance that a particular user
experiences depends greatly on what tasks he uses his computer for. A
system with very high graphics performance may be great for some
particular user who plays computer games, but that extra graphics
performance may be near meaningless for someone who just run
text-based office applications. Benchmarks, and WEI ratings, don't
take this into consideration.

If you have ratings that are divided finely enough into categories,
and you have a user who is savvy enough to understand how the various
components of the rating effects *his* use of the computer, then it
might be useful, at least as a guideline (still not an absolute
measure of performance). But to the average user, I think it's
extremely misleading.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

03-27-2008	#1 (permalink)
Ken Blake, MVP n/a posts	Re: RAM Subscore of Windows Experience Index On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:42:33 -0000, "CJM" <cjmnews04@xxxxxx> wrote: Quote: > > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxx> wrote in message > news:fe6lu3te4415tkl4t4fal87vioskcuf9hp@xxxxxx Quote: > > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:16:28 -0000, "CJM" > > <cjmnews04@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Quote: > >> I upgraded from 2GB to 4GB then to 6GB. > > > > > > Are you running 32-bit Windows or 64-bit Windows> 32-bit Windows can't > > use more than 4GB (actually somewhere around 3.1-3.5GB) > > > > Then I must be running x64... > Quote: > > Quote: > >> Performance initially increased by 0.1 units, > > > > No, the score (or rating) increased. Scores are not necessarily the > > same as performance. > > > > Yes, quite. > Quote: > > Personally, I wished Microsoft had never instituted this Windows > > Experience Index rating system. In my view it's extremely misleading. > > > > It's fine providing it's not abused (or taken too seriously). That's exactly the problem. It is taken too seriously. The average computer user has nothing else to go by. He thinks a higher number is always better, and that isn't always true. Quote: Quote: > > Right! And that's why I say that it's extremely misleading. > > > > I wouldn't go that far. The WEI is the simplest form of benchmark, and if it > stops the less enlightened users from expecting Crysis to run on their Intel > onboard gfx chipset, then that can only be a good thing. > > Imagine if retailers started list WEI ratings when they are selling > machines... Don't think they will ever let it happen but it would be > interesting and beneficial to the average consumer. I don't agree. I don't think it would be beneficial to the average consumer at all; it would confuse him. WEI ratings are like benchmarks. They reflect performance only under some narrow set of conditions, and are often misleading. System A may have a higher WEI rating (or other benchmark score) than System B, yet while doing some particular task, System B may outperform System A. The actual performance that a particular user experiences depends greatly on what tasks he uses his computer for. A system with very high graphics performance may be great for some particular user who plays computer games, but that extra graphics performance may be near meaningless for someone who just run text-based office applications. Benchmarks, and WEI ratings, don't take this into consideration. If you have ratings that are divided finely enough into categories, and you have a user who is savvy enough to understand how the various components of the rating effects his use of the computer, then it might be useful, at least as a guideline (still not an absolute measure of performance). But to the average user, I think it's extremely misleading. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup
My System Specs

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum
windows experience index	Vista General
Windows Experience Index	Vista Games
Windows Experience Index goes down	Vista performance & maintenance
Windows experience index	Vista General
Windows Experience Index	Vista installation & setup