Windows Vista introduced the Windows Experience Index, a method of comparing relative performance of several key hardware components in your system. Users who installed the Windows 7 beta on machines that previouslt ran Vista, will notice that their WEI figures have changed. In the latest post on the Engineering 7 weblog, Microsoft explains what has changed between Vista and 7 when it comes to the Windows Experience Index.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-08-29
I liked it. It feels faster, but it is beta software.
call me again when the final version is out and you have it installed for six months or more.
ah.. and it is still windows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-2C2gb6ws8
Member since:2007-05-28
Whilst pretty funny, especially for Mac fanbois, Apple were not the creators of these things. They copied and adjusted other people's ideas into OSX and then claim they created something wonderful.
How on Earth did mankind survive without the wonderful concept of a calendar, first created by Apple?
Gee, search was never around before OSX?
OMG, menus!! Awesome job, Apple.
About the only thing I can see in that video which Apple truely engineered was RSS via the Meta Content Framework back in 1995ish. Even then I'm sure someone can point out that news syndication is hardly new either.
And that cheap shot at the Windows logo, saying it's still Windows underneath the "aqua bubble", as if they created that as well...
*rolls eyes*
Member since:
2008-12-09
Member since:
2009-01-20
Why does the same GPU get a better score for gaming graphics than it does general graphics? I don't have Win7 beta yet, but I doubt it could possibly be any more demanding than Crysis or an equivalent game. The only thing I can think of is that general graphics are more important to the windows experience, and so have higher standards than gaming, which is not as integral. Alternatively, it could simply be coincidence that this was the case for the two computers mentioned and some GPU's will get better gaming scores than general scores. Still, I find it misleading, and I bet alot of people will find a 7.9 gaming GPU unable to run some games smoothly.
Edited 2009-01-20 14:00 UTC
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2007-03-26
So a maximum rating on Win7 isn't the same as a maximum rating on Vista?
Doesn't that also mean that an average rating on Win7 is numerically higher than on Vista?
If so, it's a clever way to fiddle the figures.
Say (for arguments sake) Win7 requires the same minimum spec as Vista did:
Users use Win7's index and notice they score higher than they did on Vista with the same hardware - then automatically think "wow! this new operating system is better/faster/whatever than Vista"
cynicism aside, I finally got round to installing the beta at the weekend. Looking forward to playing on in properly.
Edited 2009-01-20 15:29 UTC
Member since:2006-01-02
Member since:2007-03-26
Sorry, but I'm not sure I completely follow:
Do you mean an average rating on Vista would be aproximatly the same numerical value as an average rating with the same hardware on Win7 (despite Win7 having a greater numerical range) as the greater values on Win7 are (to grossly dumb down the point) reserved for bleeding edge technology?
If this is the case - and Microsoft adopt the same index in Win8, 9 and 10 (etc) - then the ratings system would be ever increasing with each new release?
Or was your point that the ratings would be a higher numerical value on Win7 as Win7 has a greater numerical range for rating the same perfomance percentage?
Member since:2006-01-02
Member since:2007-03-26
Member since:2005-11-09
uhhh....
Two different measurements means two different scales.
Is water colder when it is 100 C as opposed to 212 F?
the values from one map onto the other. 0 in one scale is a 0 on the other, and a 5.9 is a 7.9 on the other. What this scale change does however is to allow more granularity in the measurements. A greater resolution on the performance of pieces of hardware means that you have less chance of two systems reporting the same score, but have noticeably different performance to the end user, so maybe those two systems that rated a 4.5 last time, now rate a 5.3 and a 5.5 out of 7.9 respectively, thus showing that there will be a performance differential.
Member since:2007-03-26
Two different measurements means two different scales.
Is water colder when it is 100 C as opposed to 212 F?
the values from one map onto the other. 0 in one scale is a 0 on the other, and a 5.9 is a 7.9 on the other. What this scale change does however is to allow more granularity in the measurements. A greater resolution on the performance of pieces of hardware means that you have less chance of two systems reporting the same score, but have noticeably different performance to the end user, so maybe those two systems that rated a 4.5 last time, now rate a 5.3 and a 5.5 out of 7.9 respectively, thus showing that there will be a performance differential.
If that's true, then that only confirms my original point that, to a n00b who doesn't understand the complications of this service, an index score on Win7 looks more impressive than on Vista.
However, I suspect PlaformAgnostic's view on the scoring ( http://www.osnews.com/thread?344723 ) is more likely.
Edited 2009-01-21 21:04 UTC
Member since:2005-11-09
both views are compatible. I just got more geeky about it.
what was a 5.9 on an old vista machine will be older hardware and thus not score as well in Win 7. the only thing is... adding points to account for this is not needed. hardware moved down in capability over time, so, ones score on newer OSs should also be moving down as resource creep increases.
Because of this fact,it is still more likely that they added points on the scale to increase the resolution of the scoring system.
Member since:
2006-07-26
It seems Windows 7 is a bit kinder on my video card than Vista, and the max score increased for the harddrive.
Core 2 Duo 8400P, Intel GMA 4500MHD, OCZ Core v2 SSD, and I'm not sure about the RAM (800 Mhz?)
Processor: 5.7
RAM: 5.5
Graphics: 4.1
Gaming Graphics: 4.9
Primary Hard Disk: 6.3
Member since:
2005-07-17
It's good to see they're doing something about low performance on those drives... like lowering their score.</sarcasm>
Member since:2005-11-09
Member since:
2005-07-11
Host server is:
* 2x dual-core Opteron 2220 @ 2.8 GHz
* 8 GB DDR2-SDRAM
* 12x 500 GB SATA HD in RAID6
* 3Ware 9650SE PCIe RAID controller
KVM is configured as:
* 1 GB RAM
* 1 CPU
* 10 GB disk (IDE emulated on LVM volume)
* no paravirtual drivers installed
Scores are:
* Processor: 4.4
* RAM: 4.5
* Graphics: 1.0
* Gaming: 1.0
* Disk: 5.9
Member since:
2009-01-20
So far I love Windows 7, but then again, I wasn't too unhappy with Vista. After the service pack it was at least bearable.
Cpu: Intel Q6600 2.4ghz :7.1
RAM: 8gb DDR2 1066 :7.1
Video: ATi 3870 Desktop :7.9
Gaming :6.2
HD: 2x 74gb WD Raptors RAID 0:6.0
In the next month I plan on getting 2 more Raptors and adding them to the array, and probably a 4870x2. because I am a huge nerd 
80% of my PC use is for gaming, which is why I don't use Linux much. Once the Open Source ATi drivers get there, I'll probably switch, or at least dual boot.
Member since:2006-01-12
That score is just as ridiculous as it was in Vista.
Which is sad, because it might have helped to kill off those page-long system requirements on software and games.
Why are minor differences in RAM (in my case DDR2-800 rated at 6.7) as important as night-and-day differences in graphics (my 260 gets a 6.4 for gaming graphics)? In the end the WEI will continue to be ignored by everyone, I wonder why MS even bothers.
Btw. while we're talking about Windows 7:
Whoever told me that you can use middle-click on a taskbar entry to open a new window, thanks a lot. I didn't know that.
To Thom and the 3 other idiots who told me to use ctrl+n for a new window: Thanks for completely ignoring the point of my post (that I thought the taskbar lost an important feature).
