Windows Experience Index

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

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
 
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/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/experien
ceindex.mspx

Windows Vista Help: Understand and improve your computer's performance
using the Windows Experience Index
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/windows/en-us/community/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" <[email protected]>
| Subject: Windows Experience Index
| Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:17:23 +1000
| Lines: 39
| Message-ID: <[email protected]>
| 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:7851
| 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
|
|
 
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]" said:
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/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/experien
ceindex.mspx

Windows Vista Help: Understand and improve your computer's performance
using the Windows Experience Index
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/windows/en-us/community/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" <[email protected]>
| Subject: Windows Experience Index
| Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:17:23 +1000
| Lines: 39
| Message-ID: <[email protected]>
| 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:7851
| 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
|
|
Click to expand...
 
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" <[email protected]>
| References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
| In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
| Subject: Re: Windows Experience Index
| Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 03:25:23 -0400
| Lines: 156
| Message-ID: <[email protected]>
| 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:7959
| 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
|
|
| | > 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/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/experien
| > ceindex.mspx
| >
| > Windows Vista Help: Understand and improve your computer's performance
| > using the Windows Experience Index
| > http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/windows/en-us/community/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" <[email protected]>
| > | Subject: Windows Experience Index
| > | Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:17:23 +1000
| > | Lines: 39
| > | Message-ID: <[email protected]>
| > | 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:7851
| > | 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
| > |
| > |
| >
|
|
 
Back
Top