http://blog.jciv.com/2006/06/11/vista-beta-2/ just some junk no one will ever read Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:13:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://blog.jciv.com/2006/06/11/vista-beta-2/#comment-6 jciv’s thoughts » Vista Pre-RC1 Mon, 04 Sep 2006 01:34:13 +0000 http://blog.jciv.com/2006/06/11/vista-beta-2/#comment-6 [...] It does seem a good bit faster than the last build I tried. My system still rates a 1.0 on the Performance Score even though the average of the components is 3.22, but now there is an explanation why. The “Base Score” is “determined by lowest subscore.” That does make sense since a major bottle neck can slow down the system significantly. But in my case, all I loose is gaming graphics and Aero. For many users that would not be a big deal. Since the scoring system appears to start at 1, you would expect that system to totally suck. But Microsoft says, “a computer with a base score of 1 or 2 usually has sufficient performance to do most general computing tasks…” So how do users differentiate the really horrible systems from the not so bad ones? [...] [...] It does seem a good bit faster than the last build I tried. My system still rates a 1.0 on the Performance Score even though the average of the components is 3.22, but now there is an explanation why. The “Base Score” is “determined by lowest subscore.” That does make sense since a major bottle neck can slow down the system significantly. But in my case, all I loose is gaming graphics and Aero. For many users that would not be a big deal. Since the scoring system appears to start at 1, you would expect that system to totally suck. But Microsoft says, “a computer with a base score of 1 or 2 usually has sufficient performance to do most general computing tasks…” So how do users differentiate the really horrible systems from the not so bad ones? [...]

]]>