Tech Off Thread

8 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Vista system classification

Back to Forum: Tech Off
  • User profile image
    WillemM

    I just installed beta 2 on my normal workstation, just for fun. It runs great, but there's one weird thing I noticed:

    The system classification is a little off in my opinion.
    I have a classification 2 for the following configuration:

     - Dual Xeon 2.8 Ghz 2 MB cache 800MHz FSB
    - 1GB DDR Registered ram
    - 320 GB Raid 0 drive setup
    - Geforce 6500 PCI-e 16x
    - Audigy soundcard
    - DVD burner
    - Gigabit LAN

    Rather weird Tongue Out
    It runs ok for the rest, so I just ignore that part.

  • User profile image
    troposphere

    I have a 512 MB top of the line GeForce 7900 GTX video card, but Vista thinks the card is only capable of the Basic UI, and it gives the card a rating of 1.

    So you are not alone

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    troposphere wrote:
    I have a 512 MB top of the line GeForce 7900 GTX video card, but Vista thinks the card is only capable of the Basic UI, and it gives the card a rating of 1.

    So you are not alone


    Methinks Vista's classification system uses a reference table, rather than actually testing the hardware components.

    Perhaps Microsoft should add a "Year" and "Rating" fields to display drivers. (A per-year "Rating" number makes more sense since it doesn't mean redefining what "10" or "1" means every so often)

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    W3bbo wrote:
    Methinks Vista's classification system uses a reference table, rather than actually testing the hardware components.

    Not true. It uses several tests (if you run "winsat" manually you can see what they are), and for example in beta 2 my video card rating went from 5.1 to 5.6 after installing new drivers and running the rating again.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    How bout this:

    most of my systems parts get number like 5.9 4.8 etc...

    but my "overall" is a 3

    nothing in this list is less than a 2.

    most of it is at least a 4.xx

    actualy I think most of it is a 5.xx as I recall....


    so why a "3" ??

    I'd think it would be a 4.5 for example.


  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    As my old Dutch teacher used to say about how she graded papers: "It uses a complex system that factors in the colour of your eyes and your telephone number"

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    You are the weakest link, numerically.
    The overall is always just the lowest number.

    I got a 4.4 on my 2 year old Alienware Area-51 7700, (video = 5.9) !

    (I used XP drivers for the SATA RAID and InProcomm wireless devices.)

    My slowest item is the 3.6ghz P4 CPU !


    figuerres wrote:
    How bout this:

    most of my systems parts get number like 5.9 4.8 etc...

    but my "overall" is a 3

    nothing in this list is less than a 2.

    most of it is at least a 4.xx

    actualy I think most of it is a 5.xx as I recall....


    so why a "3" ??

    I'd think it would be a 4.5 for example.


  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    This topic is already more than a year old and the rating system that was used back than was different than what we have now.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.