Your Vista Score

Ok, now this brings up a good point. Is the test skewed by what features the user has enbabled/disabled?

If so, and this is not a true consistent test then this whole thing is just plain useless.

-Larry

stopmenow said:
i got a "4" when i disabled eye-candy features. woohoo! :D
Click to expand...
 
My intel in my sig scored a 3.

Also had a 3 with and AMD 3500+, x1600 (512mb), 2gb ram, abit at8

Oh yeah, 32bit versions for both. The 64bit errors out on both systems.
 
This makes no sense to me. Its worse than 3Dmark...

CPU: 5.2
Memory: 5.9
HD: 3.8 (installed on a backup drive, not my Raptor)
Graphics: 5.8
Gaming Graphics: 5.9

Overall score? 3. Nice...
 
Proxy said:
Ok here come's the n00b question but, what is all this scoring about? I heard it once else where too.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I believe the idea is that software makers will be able to put a label on the box with for example the number '3' on it and then that software should run on any PC with Vista that gets a score of 3 or higher.

Like a sort of highly simplified system requirements system... which could be usefull as these days the average PC user seems to have problems with the current system, due to not knowing what the hell is in that prebuilt machine they bought at the supermarket :rolleyes:
 
I'm not at home now, so I can't remember exactly, but isn't it :

right click on computer, and click properties... should be there somewhere. I think... :p Don't quote me on that
 
5.2 Processor (AMD A64 4400+ x2 @2.25 GHz)
5.7 RAM (2 gb)
5.9 HDD (4x 36 gb Raptors, RAID 0, 101.64 gb free)
5.9 Graphics (GeForce 7800 GT) (2x)
5.9 Gaming Graphics (256 mb memory)

Overall score: 5

.
 
fallguy said:
This makes no sense to me. Its worse than 3Dmark...
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense if you think about it. When it comes to compatibility, your computer is only as strong as its weakest link. If they took an average score, then someone's videocard might skew the rating when in fact they may not have enough system ram to support software X. Having a fast videocard is not going to in anyway help the fact that you don't have much memory, so taking an average would just defeat the purpose of having this numbering system as a baseline.

If software makers absolutely need a computer with a rating of "2", but recommend a rating of "3", then people will know exactly whether their computer will run the software, run it well, or not at all.
 
I really don't think my 10K RPM 74gb Raptor with nothing on it but the vista install should be given a 3 rating. Especially when there is another 160gb internal drive.

I got a 4 overall with the following specs

Opti 165 - 5.x
Ram 2gb - 5.x
Raptor 74gb - 3.x
7900GTX - 5.9
 
stopmenow said:
lol :p :D ;) :) guy above got 1, you got a "?" ??? hahaha lol
Click to expand...
That was on my laptop, the rest of the system is OK, but the slow ass 5600RPM drive and integrated video shot my score to shit.

_G_ said:
Hmmm, got a question mark.
Click to expand...
Erm...its reading your processor as an AMD K6? That cant be right, there's no way a processor that old could run Vista. I have one here acting as a file server and it has trouble running Windows 2000.
 
why cant a K6 run Vista? Sure, it wont be fast, but itll run it... Maybe I'll install Vista on my K6-2 when I get home just to spite you :p

My laptop got a 1 too, damn you MR7500!
 
Yes that is a k6(K6II366) :D

Long story short, dug up an old gateway In had in the pile for a smoothwall firewall box.
Threw a spare optical drive in it(that had my lost vista disk in it) and fired it up.
before i could hit the eject button it was giving me the option to boot from cd/dvd and the rest is history lol
It runs stable but verrrrrrry slow, and it even ran (in low res mode) on the onboard vga
thats part of the uli chipset :eek:
lol It only detects half the processor speed.
 
vista.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top