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.
The Windows Experience Index tests the performance of the processor, memory, graphics chip (both general and gaming/3D), and the primary hard disk. Since the WEI tests only tests specific components, and not how they interact with one another, the figures are not a good indication for how well a system works for your usage pattern.
In Windows 7, the ranges of the scores have been extended, from 1.0-5.9 in Vista, to 1.0-7.9 in Windows 7. This extension has been introduced due to the improvements made in various hardware components. Microsoft also fine-tuned the scoring rules, and this tuning is what makes the scores differ between Vista and Windows 7.
A common component to see a drop in rating is the primary hard drive. Based information gathered through performance feedback loops, Microsoft found that a lot of disk drives seem to suffer from a problem where continuous small write operations seriously clogged the drive in question, seriously hurting responsiveness of Windows. Unfortunately, this problem appears to be rather common, with early solid state drives leading the pack. To take this common problem into account, Windows 7’s WEI recognises the problematic drives, and caps their scores. In other words, if your hard drive score dropped between Vista and Windows 7, you might simply have a crappy drive.
At the danger of starting a nerd d*ck-waving competition, here are my scores for my two Windows 7 machines. My desktop:
My Aspire One netbook has the following scores under Windows 7:
What’s yours?
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
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*
i have w7 since the public beta day, it works well but it start having this “u ran tons of stuff on it and now its slow” feeling, even thus i dont really have any new overhead since install ^^
This said thats rather on par with wxp
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
Accelerated 2D vs. accelerated 3D, I’d guess.
I have an Asus N10 netbook (with the GeForce 9300 GS enabled). The hard disk (5400RPM) is the only component that has been swapped for a faster model (7200RPM):
Processor: 2.2
Memory (RAM): 4.5
Graphics: 3.5
Gaming graphics: 3.8
Primary hard disk: 5.5
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
The average rating of systems will go up because hardware improves over time. A given system should not have its rating go up aside from driver/firmware updates that improve performance or one of those rating realignments that Fortin mentioned.
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?
I’m saying that your first choice is accurate. Higher ratings are reserved for newer hardware. The ratings of old hardware will only improve if the drivers or firmware improve.
Ahh right. That would make logical sense.
Thank you.
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.
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
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.
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
It’s good to see they’re doing something about low performance on those drives… like lowering their score.</sarcasm>
Because software can improve bad hardware design.
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
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 4870×2. 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.
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).