After installing Windows Vista on my new machine I discovered the Windows Experience Index, a numerical measure of how well a computer system will be able to run Windows Vista and other software. This is a pretty cool feature if it measures something useful, and despite disparaging comments around the net it appears that it does.
The Windows® Experience Index is a new feature built into Windows Vista™. It is designed to help consumers understand how well Windows Vista and the software running on it will perform on a specific PC. The index achieves this by assessing the performance of the PC and assigning a score to it. The higher the score, the better the PC will perform.The overall PC performance is represented by the base score. The base score is derived from 5 sub-scores for each of the following 5 attributes:
- Processor: calculations per second
- Memory: operations per second
- Graphics: desktop performance for Windows Aero graphics
- Gaming graphics: 3D graphics performance. Useful for gaming and 3D business applications
- Primary hard disk: The data transfer rate of the primary hard disk
The numbers are determined by actual tests run on your system, not by just looking at the types of components you have installed. The goal is that the scores for a given system will stay constant unless the hardware is changed, so future systems with new technology will be able to be compared on an ever-expanding scale. Good idea, if implemented properly.
What does Vista do that XP doesn't, to justify its much larger resource consumption?
Ben,
There are a number of things that contribute to its greater resource consumption, but arguably the single biggest resource hog is the pervasive searching feature. When you go to the Start button in Vista and type the name of a document, a program, or a word/phrase within a document it will immediately display the results.
Beyond that, the other resource hog is the Aero interface. The entire way that the interface is drawn on the screen has been overhauled. When you play a video, for example, it is available within the live preview (hover the mouse over a Taskbar icon for the movie) while it's playing in the open window. Move the movie around the screen and the motion of the movie doesn't get jerky or otherwise interrupted.
Also significant, but probably not much of an additional resource consumer, is the way Vista handles background services and running programs. Services and programs run in a "sandbox", where their overall impact on the system in the event of hijack or corruption is negligible.
All told, these are nice features. Whether or not they're compelling enough to upgrade is a matter of personal opinion, however.
The Experience Index is pretty good at telling you where the performance bottleneck is in your system.
If, for example, your CPU score is at or near 5.0 and your graphics score is at a 3, upgrading the video adapter would be sensible and upgrading the CPU would not.
It should be noted that you can run vista without aero. I quite like XP, despite being primarily a GNU/linux user.I'm not a pirate, but I'm concerned by all of the DRM nonsense included in vista (their notion of fair use does not coincide with mine); and when I run windows, it's usually because I'm doing something media intensive -- creating audio or video -- and the last thing I want is some index daemon getting in the way of the disc. I expect that can be turned off or to a reduced priority...
DRM is a mess, the associated compatibility and usability issues of which will only lead more people to use pirated media.
Jez, I'm in a similar situation. I always push the limit on RAM and processor with multiple spreadsheets, Java apps, a dozen or so browser windows, email, and word processor. If I wanted a helpful, easy-to-use computer, I'd get a Mac. Why would I buy a big, powerful computer and then throw away half of it so that Microsoft can annoy me with its helpfulness?