I thought that my new computer was smokin fast and with all the bells and
whistles I would have a much better score.
why is it so low?
(btw, I had no idea what this was until the guy at Futureshop explained it
to me... not to well I guess or it went right over my head).

--

HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17" widescreen
.... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!

Windows Experience Index: An In-Depth Look
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...es/458117.aspx

The Windows Experience Index rating may inherit an incorrect value
after you make a change to your computer's hardware configuration
or you start Windows Vista for the first time
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933478

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Paul" wrote:

I thought that my new computer was smokin fast and with all the bells and
whistles I would have a much better score.
why is it so low?
(btw, I had no idea what this was until the guy at Futureshop explained it
to me... not to well I guess or it went right over my head).

--

HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17" widescreen
.... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!

In article <edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, "Paul" <p@p.com>
wrote:

> I thought that my new computer was smokin fast and with all the bells and
> whistles I would have a much better score.
> why is it so low?
> (btw, I had no idea what this was until the guy at Futureshop explained it
> to me... not to well I guess or it went right over my head).

The overall score is just the lowest individual score of the listed
components. Which component has the 2.4 score?

It makes no sense to me either. Personally, I take the 5 scores and
average them. My Vista desktop has a 5.2 score.

Mike

My graphics scored 3.1/ gaming graphics scored 3 now that I lowered the 3D
settings, was 2.4 when I posted this but got a tweak tip since. with 335MB
for my graphics. Hmmm, I think it's pretty stupid actually.

If I average them I get 4.14

--

HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17" widescreen
.... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!
"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message
news:no-D86F30.12180512082007@news.supernews.com...
> In article <edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, "Paul" <p@p.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I thought that my new computer was smokin fast and with all the bells and
>> whistles I would have a much better score.
>> why is it so low?
>> (btw, I had no idea what this was until the guy at Futureshop explained
>> it
>> to me... not to well I guess or it went right over my head).
>
> The overall score is just the lowest individual score of the listed
> components. Which component has the 2.4 score?
>
> It makes no sense to me either. Personally, I take the 5 scores and
> average them. My Vista desktop has a 5.2 score.
>
> Mike

A 1.8gz cpu is pretty slow for Vista and there are many other features of a
graphics card that affect the pixel speed than memory, besides on a laptop
the memory is usually shared.

"Paul" <p@p.com> wrote in message
news:uWEsS$P3HHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> My graphics scored 3.1/ gaming graphics scored 3 now that I lowered the 3D
> settings, was 2.4 when I posted this but got a tweak tip since. with 335MB
> for my graphics. Hmmm, I think it's pretty stupid actually.
>
> If I average them I get 4.14
>
> --
>
> HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
> Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17"
> widescreen
> ... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!
> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message
> news:no-D86F30.12180512082007@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, "Paul" <p@p.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I thought that my new computer was smokin fast and with all the bells
>>> and
>>> whistles I would have a much better score.
>>> why is it so low?
>>> (btw, I had no idea what this was until the guy at Futureshop explained
>>> it
>>> to me... not to well I guess or it went right over my head).
>>
>> The overall score is just the lowest individual score of the listed
>> components. Which component has the 2.4 score?
>>
>> It makes no sense to me either. Personally, I take the 5 scores and
>> average them. My Vista desktop has a 5.2 score.
>>
>> Mike
>

An average is not a good indication of how a system will perform. The item
with the lowest score will be the bottleneck that determines how the system
performs over a broad range of tasks. Depending on what you do with your
computer the lowest item may not affect what YOU do with the computer. The
computer I'm typing this on has a gaming graphics score of 3.0. This would
be terrible if I was using the computer for gaming. I don't. It's a general
purpose business laptop. The most important thing for me is to have many
programs running at the same time. This is RAM intensive where I have a
score of 5.1. The Experience Index is a tool to make sure the computer has
the resources to do what you need it to do.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"Paul" <p@p.com> wrote in message
news:uWEsS$P3HHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> My graphics scored 3.1/ gaming graphics scored 3 now that I lowered the 3D
> settings, was 2.4 when I posted this but got a tweak tip since. with 335MB
> for my graphics. Hmmm, I think it's pretty stupid actually.
>
> If I average them I get 4.14
>
> --
>
> HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
> Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17"
> widescreen
> ... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!
> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message
> news:no-D86F30.12180512082007@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, "Paul" <p@p.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I thought that my new computer was smokin fast and with all the bells
>>> and
>>> whistles I would have a much better score.
>>> why is it so low?
>>> (btw, I had no idea what this was until the guy at Futureshop explained
>>> it
>>> to me... not to well I guess or it went right over my head).
>>
>> The overall score is just the lowest individual score of the listed
>> components. Which component has the 2.4 score?
>>
>> It makes no sense to me either. Personally, I take the 5 scores and
>> average them. My Vista desktop has a 5.2 score.
>>
>> Mike
>

>
is your system date wrong??? all your posts are coming up after current
posts.

Dave

Paul wrote:
> I thought that my new computer was smokin fast and with all the bells
> and whistles I would have a much better score.
> why is it so low?
> (btw, I had no idea what this was until the guy at Futureshop
> explained it to me... not to well I guess or it went right over my head).
>
dude, the score reflects the slowest portion of your pc.

Paul [Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:41:57 -0400] wrote:

>My graphics scored 3.1/ gaming graphics scored 3 now that I lowered the 3D
>settings, was 2.4 when I posted this but got a tweak tip since. with 335MB
>for my graphics. Hmmm, I think it's pretty stupid actually.
>
>If I average them I get 4.14

Think of a chain.
On average, the chain might be pretty strong, but that wouldn't make
sense, because when you pull on the chain, that chain will always break
at its weakest link.

In a computer, the individual components are all chained together by the
system bus, but the overall performance can only be as fast as the
slowest (weakest) component.

Marco

oops!! yep, it had the wrong date.
I just bought it Friday night so I have been playing with it since then,
lol, my weekend has been not much more than a few beers and this computer.

Thanks Dave, I didn't notice that.

--

HP Pavilion V9000 Entertainment Laptop
Vista Home Premium/dual core 1.8/160GB/2GB ram/335MB Graphic/17" widescreen
.... and a whole wack of bells and whistles :) SWEET!!
"David" <david@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:S9Gdne_eUdx40CLbnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>
> is your system date wrong??? all your posts are coming up after current
> posts.
>
> Dave

"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:uoqFcSQ3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>A 1.8gz cpu is pretty slow for Vista and there are many other features of a
>graphics card that affect the pixel speed than memory, besides on a laptop
>the memory is usually shared.

Actually, clock speed isn't an especially important indication of how a
processor might perform, except perhaps as a way of ranking otherwise
identical processors. A 1.8Ghz Core Duo type processor will run Vista just
fine; I've got a 2.0Ghz Core Duo Apple MacBook here that kicks in the teeth
of several computers with higher clock-speed pentiums and celerons when it
comes to running Vista well.

I'd agree with the comments about memory and graphics cards. I'd also
suggest to the original topic starter that they don't fixate too much on the
scores. Whether or not they're useful to some people, at the end of the day
if the computer does everything you need in a satisfactory manner then it's
"fast enough" no matter what the score says. If it doesn't perform
adequately for your needs then it's "not fast enough", again regardless of
the score.

>
> Actually, clock speed isn't an especially important indication of how a
> processor might perform, except perhaps as a way of ranking otherwise
> identical processors. A 1.8Ghz Core Duo type processor will run Vista just
> fine; I've got a 2.0Ghz Core Duo Apple MacBook here that kicks in the
> teeth of several computers with higher clock-speed pentiums and celerons
> when it comes to running Vista well.

Very much depends on what you are doing on the computer. I had a 3500
single core that with the processing I do, was constantly hanging several
seconds many times. My biggest complaint is that Vista doesn't seem to
allocate well between the cores on my current cpu, so if I don't manually
set the affinity I still get hanging, with the affinity set it runs all
tasks with no hanging.
>
> I'd agree with the comments about memory and graphics cards. I'd also
> suggest to the original topic starter that they don't fixate too much on
> the scores. Whether or not they're useful to some people, at the end of
> the day if the computer does everything you need in a satisfactory manner
> then it's "fast enough" no matter what the score says. If it doesn't
> perform adequately for your needs then it's "not fast enough", again
> regardless of the score.

Agree. If it does what you need, then it matters not what the score is.
>
>

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:18:05 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:

> In article <edjsCoP3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, "Paul" <p@p.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I thought that my new computer was smokin fast and with all the bells and
> > whistles I would have a much better score.
> > why is it so low?
> > (btw, I had no idea what this was until the guy at Futureshop explained it
> > to me... not to well I guess or it went right over my head).
>
> The overall score is just the lowest individual score of the listed
> components. Which component has the 2.4 score?
>
> It makes no sense to me either. Personally, I take the 5 scores and
> average them. My Vista desktop has a 5.2 score.



It depends on what you are doing, but in general, the lowest score is
much more meaningful than the average. Think of that lowest score as a
bottleneck. You can't go any faster than what that bottleneck allows.

Actually I wish Microsoft hadn't included this scoring in Vista. My
advice is to subjectively assess the performance you are getting. Are
you happy with it? If yes, forget about the numbers on that scoring
screen.

Only if performance is unsatisfactory should you worry about things
like this.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Robert Moir" <usenet@REMOVE2EMAILrobertmoir.com> wrote in message
news:e2u1FMR3HHA.1484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:uoqFcSQ3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>A 1.8gz cpu is pretty slow for Vista and there are many other features of
>>a graphics card that affect the pixel speed than memory, besides on a
>>laptop the memory is usually shared.
>
> Actually, clock speed isn't an especially important indication of how a
> processor might perform, except perhaps as a way of ranking otherwise
> identical processors. A 1.8Ghz Core Duo type processor will run Vista just
> fine; I've got a 2.0Ghz Core Duo Apple MacBook here that kicks in the
> teeth

The Duo Core is less efficient than the Core 2 Duo....which does he have?

"Telstar" <none@none> wrote in message
news:OpbTgMS3HHA.4400@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> "Robert Moir" <usenet@REMOVE2EMAILrobertmoir.com> wrote in message
> news:e2u1FMR3HHA.1484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
>> news:uoqFcSQ3HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>A 1.8gz cpu is pretty slow for Vista and there are many other features of
>>>a graphics card that affect the pixel speed than memory, besides on a
>>>laptop the memory is usually shared.
>>
>> Actually, clock speed isn't an especially important indication of how a
>> processor might perform, except perhaps as a way of ranking otherwise
>> identical processors. A 1.8Ghz Core Duo type processor will run Vista
>> just fine; I've got a 2.0Ghz Core Duo Apple MacBook here that kicks in
>> the teeth
>
> The Duo Core is less efficient than the Core 2 Duo....which does he have?

I think he's got the Core Duo. Not as good as the core2duo, you're right,
but plenty good enough.