Very wierd performance rating

> Was your SATA drive connected through an add-in PCI card, by any chance?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
> Quote from George Ankner:
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
>
>
> "Will Schuitman" <willsch@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:64B947C7-A935-45DB-B53D-596B73B9A16B@microsoft.com...

>> On my previous installation of windows vista beta2 build 5384. my primary
>> harddrive which was a 250Gb sata drive rated at 2.8
>> Now I have RC1 installed on a 40GB ide drive and it rates at 5.4
>>
>> Why such a huge diference ? seeing the sata drive has a much higher data
>> transfer rate shouldn't it have a higher rating than the IDE drive?
>>
>> and also my cpu a p4 3.0 Ghz with prescott core with HT enabled had a
>> rating of 3.2 under build 5384
>> and under RC1 it all of a sudden has a rating of 4.4
>>
>> So out of build 5384 and RC1 which gives the most accurate results ?

>
>

> On my previous installation of windows vista beta2 build 5384. my primary
> harddrive which was a 250Gb sata drive rated at 2.8
> Now I have RC1 installed on a 40GB ide drive and it rates at 5.4
>
> Why such a huge diference ? seeing the sata drive has a much higher data
> transfer rate shouldn't it have a higher rating than the IDE drive?
>
> and also my cpu a p4 3.0 Ghz with prescott core with HT enabled had a
> rating of 3.2 under build 5384
> and under RC1 it all of a sudden has a rating of 4.4
>
> So out of build 5384 and RC1 which gives the most accurate results ?

> Free space on the drive has, I think, an impact on the rating...
>
> Lang
>
> "Will Schuitman" <willsch@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:64B947C7-A935-45DB-B53D-596B73B9A16B@microsoft.com...

>> On my previous installation of windows vista beta2 build 5384. my primary
>> harddrive which was a 250Gb sata drive rated at 2.8
>> Now I have RC1 installed on a 40GB ide drive and it rates at 5.4
>>
>> Why such a huge diference ? seeing the sata drive has a much higher data
>> transfer rate shouldn't it have a higher rating than the IDE drive?
>>
>> and also my cpu a p4 3.0 Ghz with prescott core with HT enabled had a
>> rating of 3.2 under build 5384
>> and under RC1 it all of a sudden has a rating of 4.4
>>
>> So out of build 5384 and RC1 which gives the most accurate results ?

>
>

> As long as there is 15% free space for Volume Shadowcopy files. Beyond
> that shouldn't matter.
>
> "Lang Murphy" <langmurf@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:%23YjpUQR1GHA.4972@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Free space on the drive has, I think, an impact on the rating...
>>
>> Lang
>>
>> "Will Schuitman" <willsch@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:64B947C7-A935-45DB-B53D-596B73B9A16B@microsoft.com...

>>> On my previous installation of windows vista beta2 build 5384. my
>>> primary harddrive which was a 250Gb sata drive rated at 2.8
>>> Now I have RC1 installed on a 40GB ide drive and it rates at 5.4
>>>
>>> Why such a huge diference ? seeing the sata drive has a much higher data
>>> transfer rate shouldn't it have a higher rating than the IDE drive?
>>>
>>> and also my cpu a p4 3.0 Ghz with prescott core with HT enabled had a
>>> rating of 3.2 under build 5384
>>> and under RC1 it all of a sudden has a rating of 4.4
>>>
>>> So out of build 5384 and RC1 which gives the most accurate results ?

>>
>>

>
>