Overall performance rating - why low?

[Doodles Malone]

Hi. I have Beta 2 (5384), working on my laptop, and I'm just wondering why
the overall rating is lower compared to the sub-ratings. Here are my scores:

Processor (5.0) - Genuine Intel CPU [email protected]
Memory (4.4) - 2.00GB
Primary HD (3.5) - 31GB Free (60 GB Total)
Graphics (5.9) - ATI Mobility Radeon X1600
Gaming Graphics (4.8) - 256 MB Graphics Memory

Yet, my overall score is only 3. The OS is working nicely though, with Aero
glass and everything.

 

[Andre Da Costa [Extended64]]

You are lucky, thats a very good rating, my system got a 2:

3.2 Ghz P4 - 3.6
2.5 GBs of RAM - 3.4
20 GB Parition - 3.8
nVidia Geforce FX 5200 128 MB AGP - 2.5
Graming graphics 128 MB - 2.4

Its still a work in progress though:
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6077216.html
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

 

[Lang Murphy]

Have you rerun the performance measuring tool? When I first installed 5308
it gave my system a 2 or 3. After rerunning the tool, it gave me a 4.

 

[Zack Whittaker]

Mine's constantly stayed the same - except for one x86 machine which got a
2, then a 1, then a 2 again - 2 being the "acceptable" amount for what I
expect from the system....

.... the mind does boggle )

--
Zack Whittaker
» ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
» MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org
» Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk
» This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not
of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared
that up!

--: Original message follows :--

 

[Guest]

DM [Fri, 26 May 2006 15:09:36 -0400]:

Yet, my overall score is only 3

Your machine (score) is only as good as its
weakest link. Your low was a 3, you are a 3!

 

[Mark Gillespie]

You are lucky, thats a very good rating, my system got a 2:

3.2 Ghz P4 - 3.6
2.5 GBs of RAM - 3.4
20 GB Parition - 3.8
nVidia Geforce FX 5200 128 MB AGP - 2.5
Graming graphics 128 MB - 2.4

My Sony Vaio only got a 2, but that was because the amount of graphics
memory was incorrectly reported.. It's got one of the Geforce FX6200GO,
with Turbocache, it's spec'd as 128MB, but Vista beta 2 reports it as
32MB, and refuses me AeroGlass :-(

 

[Guest]

I have a similar setup, with a "3". Part of the problem is that you have a
dual processor chip (T2500, like myself) but only one processor has been
picked up by Vista. Right click on "Computer" (formerly My Computer) and
click properties. It will show only one processor. If you load up the
Performance Diagnostic Console, that only allows you to view on processor
instance - because it only thinks you have one processor.

This is a pretty big error...

Laurie Miles

 

[Zack Uribe]

Actually no. The ratings that you have has NOTHING to do with your
Processor.

This rating system is not meant to replace Winstone or other total
performance ratings.
It is trying to help NEWBIE computer users be able to decide on which
software is viable on their machine, not us bleeding edgers who run beta
software.

At this time , the scale only goes up to 6(I believe) and they plan to keep
adding numbers as stuff gets faster, so your computer that is a 3 now, will
still be a 3 at the end of Vista's lifecycle.

They currently are erring on the side of caution(lowest denominator which in
this case is the Hard drive, no matter how fast your CPU is) of the machine
to try to meet customers expectations. They hope to have software vendors
use these numbers on their packaging instead of listing current min system,
suggested system, etc on packaging

 

[Guest]

Thanks for this info.

Interestingly, this thread has highlighted another problem, about which I
have posted in another thread (Missing 2nd Processor)

The T2500 should be listed as two processors. On my dual boot T2500 laptop,
only one processor is listed in Vista, AND only one processor is now listed
in XP, where previously two were listed. Vista appears to be disabling the
sceond processor at boot.

Laurie Miles

 

[Guest]

Apparently your video card and ram are the culprits, i got 3 and here are my
specs

3.0 Ghz P4/ht - 3.6
2 GB Ram - 4.7
27 GB Free (39.06 Total) - 3.8
Radeon 9600 Series - 3.7
256 MB Graphics Mem - 3.8

 

[Guest]

I can't understand my laptop's low rating either. It rates the processort (a
Pent iv 3.08 GHZ at 3.5, Memory (865) at 3, Hrd Drive 3.7 (a 100 GB 7200rpm),
Grahics at 2 (ATI Mobility Radeon 9000), and gaming grahics at 1, but the
overall rating is 1!! Who is doing the math with this! I notice others with
higher scores running slower processors. I'm pretty much ignorning this
rating.

 

[Zapper]

This rating is a Marketing number. Therefore it has to take into account the
weakest link in your system.
They are trying to set up a VERY basic number scheme so non-technical
users...no one who is running the beta(since you are supposed to be a
technical pro to run the beta) will be able to figure out what
games/software will work on your machine. So if you were to go to CompUSA,
you would be able to buy any application that meets your number and have an
acceptable experience...so the games you could buy would be solitaire,
spider solitaire and maybe mah jong

 

[Todd]

Start -> Welcome Center -> More Details -> Windows System Performance Rating

It will give you a rating for Processor, Memory, Hard Drive, Graphics, and
Gaming Graphics. Which ever one is lowest will give you your overall
rating.

Todd

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

My rating seems a bit high. They must not have factored in the user.

 

[Todd]

My overall rating is 1.0. What does that mean.

 

[Guest]

Hi
is your x1600 agp, or pci, I am having trouble getting vista to indicate
gaming graphics on my card and my ratings are 1 or 2, also what driver for
the vid card are you using I have dropped my back to the original install
dated jan 2006 all the ms wddm and ati beta drivers give me a code 43 stop