Vista - FYI performance improvement

Peter Foldes wrote:

> Paul
>
> I have to agree with what Adam said. It can be very misleading. If you do performance score let us say 5 times a day for example you can get 2 or 3 different readings.
>

Really? I've done it on at least 15 different boxes now. Some 3-4 times
and the only time I get a different reading is when I change hardware.
Frank

Frank wrote:
> Peter Foldes wrote:
>
>> Paul
>>
>> I have to agree with what Adam said. It can be very misleading. If you
>> do performance score let us say 5 times a day for example you can get
>> 2 or 3 different readings.
>>
>
> Really? I've done it on at least 15 different boxes now. Some 3-4 times
> and the only time I get a different reading is when I change hardware.
> Frank


My unit went from a score of 1 (wouldn't play Aero) to 3 by
upgrading the Intel 950 driver from 6... to 7...

notaguru wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> I have to agree with what Adam said. It can be very misleading. If
>>> you do performance score let us say 5 times a day for example you can
>>> get 2 or 3 different readings.
>>>
>>
>> Really? I've done it on at least 15 different boxes now. Some 3-4
>> times and the only time I get a different reading is when I change
>> hardware.
>> Frank
>
>
>
> My unit went from a score of 1 (wouldn't play Aero) to 3 by upgrading
> the Intel 950 driver from 6... to 7...
>

Good deal!
Drivers can make a performance difference.
Nice to know that Vista picked that up!
Thanks
Frank

"Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote ...
> FWIW, here are Vista's performance benchmarks on a new system, before
> and after upgrading RAM. This might help you decide what to expect
> if you upgrade.
>
> RAM 2.0 4.9

Hi Peter

Thanks for the update. Based on what we discussed before (ie using machine
as non-dedicated file server etc) I believe this is a very worthwhile
increase in performance; it was definitely a good move!

Good luck with the new machine, hope it all works out well.
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
newsC6BBE4D-2C81-4E3D-97B2-1308EBCE9DEA@microsoft.com...
> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
> news:hs0u835sn2a0mp4pcc5e53iuoofogsvggk@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:14:53 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike wrote:
>>>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4rmt83h35m9hv5k3gk97lcm4r742slkrqe@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but Microsoft's so-called "performance score" is for all
>>>>> practical purposes can be misleading.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's worse than misleading - it's a useless joke. It should be an
>>>> average, not the lowest score.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>
>>>No it shouldn't show an average. That's not the purpose of the score or
>>>the "Windows Experience Index". The lowest score denotes the weakest
>>>link in the system, which usually is the video card. That's important
>>>info because of the way Vista handles video as compared to xp and all
>>>before. The lowest scoring hardware can then be upgraded.
>>>Once upgraded, you must change your settings by updating and refreshing
>>>your score.
>>>It is useful only if you know what it is telling you.
>>>Frank
>>
>> Poor Frank, always needs to defend Microsoft. I keep wondering why.
>>
>> It makes sense to show scores for individual categories so you can see
>> what needs improvement but makes absolutely no sense to use the lowest
>> as the overall rating. That's like some kid taking ten tests and
>> scoring over 90 in each except for one where he scored 70 and that
>> becomes his final grade.
>>
>>
>
>
> The lowest score is the bottleneck for that computer. It is a much better
> indication of how the computer will perform than an average.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>
>


Concur. When one is sitting at one's computer, it's the -perceived-
performance that matters most, imho. Throughout Windows' timeline, video has
always been the biggest bottleneck to perceived performance, again, imho.
And, as we all know, perceived performance is directly related to what it is
one is using the computer for. Mega database queries are going to benefit
from faster CPU's and faster hard disks. Video is less of a bottleneck in
that situation. But in "average joe" day-to-day usage, the performance of
the video subsystem is, generally, going to have far more of an impact on
perceived performance. That is, of course, unless your hard disk gets a 1.3
rating... ;-)

Lang

Adam Albright wrote:
>
> Poor Frank, always needs to defend Microsoft. I keep wondering why.
>
> It makes sense to show scores for individual categories so you can see
> what needs improvement but makes absolutely no sense to use the lowest
> as the overall rating. That's like some kid taking ten tests and
> scoring over 90 in each except for one where he scored 70 and that
> becomes his final grade.

So, a lickety-split, double-clutched machine accessing the internet via a
2400 Baud modem is, on average, um, "average?"

No, a computer is only as fast as its slowest part.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:18:47 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Poor Frank, always needs to defend Microsoft. I keep wondering why.
>>
>
>You poor idiot...I'm explaining something you have demonstrated you
>don't understand at all.

You explain something? That's funny Frank. Really it is.
>
>> It makes sense to show scores for individual categories so you can see
>> what needs improvement but makes absolutely no sense to use the lowest
>> as the overall rating.
>
>You don't get it do you?

You always need to pretend you know something that others don't. Damn
revealing isn't it.
>
>That's like some kid taking ten tests and
>> scoring over 90 in each except for one where he scored 70 and that
>> becomes his final grade.
>
>It's evident that you're completely lost as I've pointed out.
>Sober up a*shole!
>You might learn something!
>Frank
>

Poor Frank, All this loser got is calling other people names. How
pathetic.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:19:39 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The lowest score is the bottleneck for that computer. It is a much
>> better indication of how the computer will perform than an average.
>>
>
>You have a nice way with words!
>Thanks.
>Frank

Stupidity at work... what Frank excels at.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:38:07 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>notaguru wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> I have to agree with what Adam said. It can be very misleading. If
>>>> you do performance score let us say 5 times a day for example you can
>>>> get 2 or 3 different readings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really? I've done it on at least 15 different boxes now. Some 3-4
>>> times and the only time I get a different reading is when I change
>>> hardware.
>>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> My unit went from a score of 1 (wouldn't play Aero) to 3 by upgrading
>> the Intel 950 driver from 6... to 7...
>>
>
>Good deal!
>Drivers can make a performance difference.
>Nice to know that Vista picked that up!
>Thanks
>Frank

Frank trying to act intelligent.

Try harder.

A lot harder!

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 07:17:50 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:
>>
>> Poor Frank, always needs to defend Microsoft. I keep wondering why.
>>
>> It makes sense to show scores for individual categories so you can see
>> what needs improvement but makes absolutely no sense to use the lowest
>> as the overall rating. That's like some kid taking ten tests and
>> scoring over 90 in each except for one where he scored 70 and that
>> becomes his final grade.
>
>So, a lickety-split, double-clutched machine accessing the internet via a
>2400 Baud modem is, on average, um, "average?"
>
>No, a computer is only as fast as its slowest part.
>

I really do feel sorry for the dopes that post here that can't
understand even simple concepts.

The point that zooms over the Neanderthal crowd (your typical fanboy)
is the ranking system needs to be looked at category by category.
Period. The total ranking of the "system" looking at all five then
ranking based on the lowest is simply stupid and meaningless.