Windows Experience Index

Ken,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think the original poster is fully
cognizant of the boilerplate information you posted. He's asking for
specific reasons why his two 10K SCSI drives are receiving, to his mind,
such a wide variance in WEI scoring. (5.6 to 4.7)

Shane - the only thought I have on this is: not all hw that claims to be "X"
delivers "X" performance. Honestly, I don't have much experience with SCSI,
but your two drives, Fujitsu and IBM, are going to have different drivers
for each drive, right? Unless they're both using a generic MS driver...
and... different drivers could very easily mean different performance.
Disclaimer: SWAG!

Lang


""Ken Zhao [MSFT]"" <v-kzhao@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:dnm87QIZHHA.544@TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...

> Hello Shane,
>
> Thank you for using newsgroup!
>
> From your post, it is hard to determine why the rate is dropping. The base
> score of your computer is determined by reviewing a collection of
> "subscores" assigned to various hardware components within your computer.
> Subscores are assigned to the following components:
>
> RAM random access memory
> CPU central processing unit
> Hard disk
> General graphics performance on the desktop
> 3D graphics capability
>
> Your computer's base score is determined by the lowest subscore. For
> example, if the lowest subscore of a hardware component in your computer
> is
> 2.6, then the base score of your computer will be 2.6. The base score is
> not an average of the combined subscores.
>
> For more related information, please refer to the following articles:
> Windows Experience Index
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...grade/experien
> ceindex.mspx
>
> Windows Vista Help: Understand and improve your computer's performance
> using the Windows Experience Index
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/win...unity/wei.mspx
>
> Thanks & Regards,
>
> Ken Zhao
>
> Microsoft Online Support
> Microsoft Global Technical Support Center
>
> Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
> <http://www.microsoft.com/security>
> ================================================== ==
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
> that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
> ================================================== ==
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------
> | From: "no spam" <nospam@hotmail.com>
> | Subject: Windows Experience Index
> | Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:17:23 +1000
> | Lines: 39
> | Message-ID: <12A05FDB-8525-43C1-B801-F193D7A12914@microsoft.com>
> | MIME-Version: 1.0
> | Content-Type: text/plain;
> | format=flowed;
> | charset="iso-8859-1";
> | reply-type=original
> | Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> | X-Priority: 3
> | X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> | X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.16386
> | X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16386
> | X-MS-CommunityGroup-MessageCategory:
> {E4FCE0A9-75B4-4168-BFF9-16C22D8747EC}
> | X-MS-CommunityGroup-PostID: {12A05FDB-8525-43C1-B801-F193D7A12914}
> | Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
> | Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
> | Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
> microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices:78 51
> | NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl 127.0.0.1
> | X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
> |
> | Hello,
> |
> | I have an Intel C2D E6600 CPU installed on an Asus P5W DH Deluxe
> | motherboard. I recently installed Vista Home Premium (32bit) with a
> hard
> | drive configuration of one Western Digital 10k SATA drive (for system
> and
> | application files) and two Seagate 320gig SATA2 drives. I had a spare
> SCSI
> | Fujitsu 10K 36gig drive (I connected it to a LSI SCSI adapter), so I
> thought
> | that I would configure a dual boot system with Windows XP and Vista -
> one
> OS
> | on each 10K drive. I did not have much success with getting the dual
> boot
> | function to work. However, I was able to install Vista on the 10K
> Fujitsu
> | SCSI drive and, provided the Fujitsu was set as the boot drive in the
> | motherboard's bios, I was able to boot into Vista. If I set the 10K
> SATA
> | drive as the boot device in the bios, I was also able to then boot into
> XP.
> |
> | When running Vista with this configuration, I noted that the Windows
> | Experience Index was rated at 5.6. I guess if I persevered with this
> | configuration I would have been able to get the dual boot function to
> work
> | (I had used VistaBoot Pro). Anyway, I thought that if both drives were
> on
> | the same interface, dual booting would be easier to achieve. So I took
> out
> | the 10K SATA drive and replaced it with a 36gig (10K) IBM SCSI drive
> | configured off the same SCSI PCI adapter. Both drives have seperate
> SCSI
> | IDs and are on the same channel with an active terminator at the end of
> the
> | connecting SCSI cable. I was able to install Win XP on the replacement
> | drive (IBM SCSI) and eventually was able to get the PC to dual boot to
> Vista
> | and XP (Vista being the default OS).
> |
> | Now after all that rambling, I was surprised to see that the Windows
> | Experience Index, with this configuration, drop to 4.7(being the primary
> | hard disk reading)! Considering that both drives are 10K drives as
> well
> as
> | being SCSI (which I though was the faster interface compared to IDE and
> | SATA), I am stumped as to why this is so.
> |
> | Would the installation of the PCI SCSI card itself which slows down the
> boot
> | process have anything to do with this drop in performance?
> |
> | Thank you,
> |
> | Shane
> |
> |
>

Hi Lang,

Thanks for your kindly input.

Thanks & Regards,

Ken Zhao

Microsoft Online Support
Microsoft Global Technical Support Center

Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security <http://www.microsoft.com/security>
================================================== ==
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ==
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.





--------------------
| From: "Lang Murphy" <lang_murphy@hotmail.com>
| References: <12A05FDB-8525-43C1-B801-F193D7A12914@microsoft.com>
<dnm87QIZHHA.544@TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl>
| In-Reply-To: <dnm87QIZHHA.544@TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl>
| Subject: Re: Windows Experience Index
| Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 03:25:23 -0400
| Lines: 156
| Message-ID: <83EC8E65-D78E-47DC-8E50-B352BEEF8D80@microsoft.com>
| MIME-Version: 1.0
| Content-Type: text/plain;
| format=flowed;
| charset="iso-8859-1";
| reply-type=original
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.16386
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16386
| X-MS-CommunityGroup-PostID: {83EC8E65-D78E-47DC-8E50-B352BEEF8D80}
| X-MS-CommunityGroup-ThreadID: 7653643C-E80F-4D35-ABD3-F600ACCE6834
| X-MS-CommunityGroup-ParentID: 74A03260-8721-4E2F-8EAD-D67AE82B457A
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
| Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices:79 59
| NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl 127.0.0.1
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
|
| Ken,
|
| Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think the original poster is
fully
| cognizant of the boilerplate information you posted. He's asking for
| specific reasons why his two 10K SCSI drives are receiving, to his mind,
| such a wide variance in WEI scoring. (5.6 to 4.7)
|
| Shane - the only thought I have on this is: not all hw that claims to be
"X"
| delivers "X" performance. Honestly, I don't have much experience with
SCSI,
| but your two drives, Fujitsu and IBM, are going to have different drivers
| for each drive, right? Unless they're both using a generic MS driver...
| and... different drivers could very easily mean different performance.
| Disclaimer: SWAG!
|
| Lang
|
|
| ""Ken Zhao [MSFT]"" <v-kzhao@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
| news:dnm87QIZHHA.544@TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
| > Hello Shane,
| >
| > Thank you for using newsgroup!
| >
| > From your post, it is hard to determine why the rate is dropping. The
base
| > score of your computer is determined by reviewing a collection of
| > "subscores" assigned to various hardware components within your
computer.
| > Subscores are assigned to the following components:
| >
| > RAM random access memory
| > CPU central processing unit
| > Hard disk
| > General graphics performance on the desktop
| > 3D graphics capability
| >
| > Your computer's base score is determined by the lowest subscore. For
| > example, if the lowest subscore of a hardware component in your
computer
| > is
| > 2.6, then the base score of your computer will be 2.6. The base score is
| > not an average of the combined subscores.
| >
| > For more related information, please refer to the following articles:
| > Windows Experience Index
| >
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...grade/experien
| > ceindex.mspx
| >
| > Windows Vista Help: Understand and improve your computer's performance
| > using the Windows Experience Index
| > http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/win...unity/wei.mspx
| >
| > Thanks & Regards,
| >
| > Ken Zhao
| >
| > Microsoft Online Support
| > Microsoft Global Technical Support Center
| >
| > Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
| > <http://www.microsoft.com/security>
| > ================================================== ==
| > When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
| > that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
| > ================================================== ==
| > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
| > rights.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > --------------------
| > | From: "no spam" <nospam@hotmail.com>
| > | Subject: Windows Experience Index
| > | Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:17:23 +1000
| > | Lines: 39
| > | Message-ID: <12A05FDB-8525-43C1-B801-F193D7A12914@microsoft.com>
| > | MIME-Version: 1.0
| > | Content-Type: text/plain;
| > | format=flowed;
| > | charset="iso-8859-1";
| > | reply-type=original
| > | Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
| > | X-Priority: 3
| > | X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| > | X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.16386
| > | X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16386
| > | X-MS-CommunityGroup-MessageCategory:
| > {E4FCE0A9-75B4-4168-BFF9-16C22D8747EC}
| > | X-MS-CommunityGroup-PostID: {12A05FDB-8525-43C1-B801-F193D7A12914}
| > | Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
| > | Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
| > | Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
| > microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices:78 51
| > | NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl 127.0.0.1
| > | X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
| > |
| > | Hello,
| > |
| > | I have an Intel C2D E6600 CPU installed on an Asus P5W DH Deluxe
| > | motherboard. I recently installed Vista Home Premium (32bit) with a
| > hard
| > | drive configuration of one Western Digital 10k SATA drive (for system
| > and
| > | application files) and two Seagate 320gig SATA2 drives. I had a
spare
| > SCSI
| > | Fujitsu 10K 36gig drive (I connected it to a LSI SCSI adapter), so I
| > thought
| > | that I would configure a dual boot system with Windows XP and Vista -
| > one
| > OS
| > | on each 10K drive. I did not have much success with getting the dual
| > boot
| > | function to work. However, I was able to install Vista on the 10K
| > Fujitsu
| > | SCSI drive and, provided the Fujitsu was set as the boot drive in the
| > | motherboard's bios, I was able to boot into Vista. If I set the 10K
| > SATA
| > | drive as the boot device in the bios, I was also able to then boot
into
| > XP.
| > |
| > | When running Vista with this configuration, I noted that the Windows
| > | Experience Index was rated at 5.6. I guess if I persevered with
this
| > | configuration I would have been able to get the dual boot function to
| > work
| > | (I had used VistaBoot Pro). Anyway, I thought that if both drives
were
| > on
| > | the same interface, dual booting would be easier to achieve. So I
took
| > out
| > | the 10K SATA drive and replaced it with a 36gig (10K) IBM SCSI drive
| > | configured off the same SCSI PCI adapter. Both drives have seperate
| > SCSI
| > | IDs and are on the same channel with an active terminator at the end
of
| > the
| > | connecting SCSI cable. I was able to install Win XP on the
replacement
| > | drive (IBM SCSI) and eventually was able to get the PC to dual boot to
| > Vista
| > | and XP (Vista being the default OS).
| > |
| > | Now after all that rambling, I was surprised to see that the Windows
| > | Experience Index, with this configuration, drop to 4.7(being the
primary
| > | hard disk reading)! Considering that both drives are 10K drives as
| > well
| > as
| > | being SCSI (which I though was the faster interface compared to IDE
and
| > | SATA), I am stumped as to why this is so.
| > |
| > | Would the installation of the PCI SCSI card itself which slows down
the
| > boot
| > | process have anything to do with this drop in performance?
| > |
| > | Thank you,
| > |
| > | Shane
| > |
| > |
| >
|
|

I have an Acer Aspire 5100 running Home Premium. My computer (laptop) has an
AMD Turion 64 MK-36 processor and ATI Radeon Xpress 1100 graphics. At the
time of purchase, my system had 1gb RAM installed. I have since upgraded the
RAM to 3gb (2gb + 1gb). Prior to the 3gb upgrade, i had a previous upgrade
where I upgraded the initial 1gb to 2gb (2 x 1gb). At the time of the 2gb
upgrade , my WEI was for graphics, and subsequently, for my whole system was
3.1. The RAM installed is DDR2 PC5300 (667mhz). When I installed the 2gb
module (bringing system memory to 3gb), the WEI dropped to 2.4. I really
didn't think it that big of a deal, except that I lost some functions in
Photo Gallery and Media Center (transition effects). I was told that having
different manufacturer RAM modules is not the sticking point; rather that as
long as both RAM modules are the same frequency then there wouldn't be any
performance degradation. Now I am beginning to believe different. Do I in
fact need to have same manufacturer, as well as frequency, to bring my WEI
score back up and regain that functionality that I have lost?

"marvin" wrote:

> I have an Acer Aspire 5100 running Home Premium. My computer (laptop) has an
> AMD Turion 64 MK-36 processor and ATI Radeon Xpress 1100 graphics. At the
> time of purchase, my system had 1gb RAM installed. I have since upgraded the
> RAM to 3gb (2gb + 1gb). Prior to the 3gb upgrade, i had a previous upgrade
> where I upgraded the initial 1gb to 2gb (2 x 1gb). At the time of the 2gb
> upgrade , my WEI was for graphics, and subsequently, for my whole system was
> 3.1. The RAM installed is DDR2 PC5300 (667mhz). When I installed the 2gb
> module (bringing system memory to 3gb), the WEI dropped to 2.4. I really
> didn't think it that big of a deal, except that I lost some functions in
> Photo Gallery and Media Center (transition effects). I was told that having
> different manufacturer RAM modules is not the sticking point; rather that as
> long as both RAM modules are the same frequency then there wouldn't be any
> performance degradation. Now I am beginning to believe different. Do I in
> fact need to have same manufacturer, as well as frequency, to bring my WEI
> score back up and regain that functionality that I have lost?

And let me add that I have tried to update my score configuring my computer
in various ways: changing/disabling indexing, changing display setting
(resolution, special effects, etc.), and changing the graphics card settings.
I have all drivers updated as well.

what i did was to replace the 1gb module with another 1gb module from the
same manufacturer. my index rose to 3.0 (it was 3.1 when there was only 2gb
installed). i'm not crying about the .1. thanks for the help marvin