Vista Users: Post your Windows Experience Index

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Chris, Jun 14, 2008.

  1. Chris

    Chris New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    14,711
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas on my mind
    At work my boss is considering upgrading some of our older computers to Vista, they are Dell Optiplex GX280's if anyone cares, which is basically a 3.0 P4 with 1GB of RAM and an 80GB SATA hard drive.

    So I installed Vista Enterprise on one of them before I left yesterday and Vista rated it a 2.2 overall, but that was only because of the Radeon X300 graphics card (which can be upgraded fairly cheaply because it is PCI-E), the rest of the ratings were over 4.

    Im asking others to post there score and how responsive they feel Vista is with that score, because they only Vista machine Ive ever really used is my home computer, but its a Quad Core with 4GBs of RAM, that rates 5.9 on every score except for video which is a 5.2. As a result I personally dont really feel Vista is sluggish at all.

    Adding 1GB of RAM would probably be the first thing to do
     
  2. BladedThesis

    BladedThesis New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    9,497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thinkpad T61
    Lowest score was the Nvidia Quadro NVS.
    Saved it as a .gif to save space, didn't know how large it would be at first, so excuse the shitty picture.
    [​IMG]
     
  3. critter783

    critter783 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    280s run Vista just fine. Just do a little tweaking and it runs great.
     
  4. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    I ran it on my 4-year-old intel desktop and got a 4.4 :coold:

    It was the processor that returned the lowest score.

    processor (p4 3.4) 4.4
    memory (3gb) 5.0
    aero (5.9)
    3d gaming (5.5)
    disk data xfer (5.5)
     
  5. wabash9000

    wabash9000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    14,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Overland Park, KS
    5.9 All across the board.
    edit:
    q6600 oc to 3.5
    4gb of 935mhz memory
    ati hd-3870 hd 512mb
     
  6. Huggy_B

    Huggy_B AUS crew

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    7,932
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    west coat of oz town
    I got a 4.1 (graphics), but I use mine as a HTPC and don't play any games.

    Athalon x64 4600+ 2.4GHz (5.0)
    4GB DDR2 800MHz Ram (5.9)
    ATI HD3450 (4.1)
    Samsung 750GB (5.7)

    No issues with it thus far.
     
  7. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    huggy_b > what is your hd3450 rated so low? I have a HD2600XT that rates as a 5.9/5.5.
     
  8. MSTRBKR

    MSTRBKR New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    7,584
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cydonia
    [​IMG]



    God knows why my memory is the lowest. It's 800mhz too. The graphics card is 18 months old for goodness sake :rofl:
     
  9. DAN513

    DAN513 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    10,089
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    204
    I run it at home and it runs great, I've got a 5.9 with a Q9450, 4GB of ram and a 512MB 8800GTS.
    With a 3.0GHz P4 and a gig of ram, you'd need more ram to make it run smoothly.

    Is there a reason he wants to upgrade it?
     
  10. bowrofl

    bowrofl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    6,555
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, Canadia
    5.9 CPU (Quad Q6600 @ 2.4)
    5.6 RAM (one of my score bottlenecks, 2GIG)
    5.9 GFX (GeForce 8800GTS)
    5.9 Gaming
    5.6 Disk (another bottleneck, not sure why)

    5.6 overall
     
  11. ssj4gogita4

    ssj4gogita4 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Messages:
    32,515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    TX
    If it was based on average, I'd be up to 4.5 or above.

    Currently 3.0 :o
     
  12. Jkuao

    Jkuao New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't game so the graphics card is the oldest component. No overclocking except to get the RAM up to 800Mhz. RAID striping on primary partition.
    [​IMG]
     
  13. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    How is this ran? Off the disk, or link?
     
  14. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's in one of the control panels, I don't remember which one.

    EDIT: Performance and Somethingorother.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2008
  15. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    You didn't just admit to running your OS on a RAID-0. No, I'm sure that's not what you meant.
     
  16. thebox

    thebox New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    45,695
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
    i do [​IMG] i dont give a fuck if it breaks. :coolugh:
     
  17. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    I sure hope you don't care.

    The irony is that you'd get the same speed from a RAID-5 with the cost of a third disk, and you'd never have to worry about the array crashing.
     
  18. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, and here's my score:

    [​IMG]

    :rofl:

    Yeah, this is definitely on a four year old work laptop.
     
  19. dorkultra

    dorkultra OT's resident crohns dude OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    22,743
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    yinzer / nilbog, trollhio
    oh boy, here we go with another raid fight. :rofl:
     
  20. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I'm not Jolly. I'm not going to spend five pages insulting him if he fails to agree with me. I said what I said, and that's it. I can't save him from himself.
     
  21. dorkultra

    dorkultra OT's resident crohns dude OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    22,743
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    yinzer / nilbog, trollhio
    its an e2200 stock speeds with a gigabyte p35 mobo and 2gb of ram, i forgot the speed. plus a generic 7600 gs 512mb card. shitty old pata hard drive because i'm not sure if i want to keep vista and i lack an extra sata drive.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  22. Jkuao

    Jkuao New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's backed up on alternate days and my work files are mostly in Eclipse or in VPC environments meaning I would be restored and running within an hour or so. The rest of the time it's just a media server so I really don't care that much if I lose a few tv shows that are actually on that drive array.

    I forget if I have to get an identical disk or not to redo the array to RAID5. Doesn't make a huge amount of sense to buy a 3rd 250GB at these prices...since it's got 2 x 500GB data disks right now and an external 400GB for backup. Have to do most of my work on my notebook anyway which is remote backed up daily. I'm a bit more worried that the hard drive on that would crap out.
     
  23. eof

    eof New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Installing vista now... :hs:
     
  24. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, at least you're smart about it. Backups are good, but you could still have any kind of failure tolerance (RAID3/5 for low hardware cost, RAID10 for speed and full redundancy) and come out ahead because you wouldn't even have an hour's downtime.

    You don't have to have an identical disk, just one that has at least as much space (preferably close to the same size, to avoid wasting money) as one of the original disks. Identical disks are slightly less likely to report false failures due to differences in response times between disks, though.

    One thing you can do to expand and upgrade the RAID-0 is:

    1. Put in a new, bigger third disk;
    2. Expand the RAID-0 into a RAID3/5;
    3. Replace each of the original two disks with new, bigger disks (allowing for rebuild time after each swap);
    4. Delete the RAID, but don't erase the disks;
    5. Recreate the RAID to occupy the extra space on the new disks, making sure to use identical settings, and DO NOT INITIALIZE the new array;
    6. Use Norton PartitionMagic to expand the partition to occupy the full space on the new array.

    I did this on several servers to great effect. In theory, any RAID card can let you delete and recreate an array with identical settings, and without initializing afterwards, but RTFM just to make sure.
     
  25. thebox

    thebox New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    45,695
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
    meh. it would be nothing more than a couple of hours worth of reinstalling a few programs/games. it seriously doesn't matter. :wiggle:
     

Share This Page