Windows Vista Performance Rating (Built in benchmarking in Vista?)

[gsellis]

4.5 overall on 2x3.06 Xeon, 1GB, ATI X800XT AIW, booting on PATA 250GB 8MB,

 

[loup garou]

1.0 :laugh:

I'm running RC1 on a POS PIII 1GHz/512MB Compaq laptop, and--no kidding--it doesn't run that bad at all, regardless of the rating. IE7 is quick and can handle half a dozen or so tabs, and amazingly Office 2007 Beta 2 runs great. Outlook opens faster on this crapbox than my work desktop (3GHz P4, 512MB)...go figure...however my desktop is operating in cached Exchange mode, whereas this is not (probably explains it). Whatever the basic visual scheme is looks very nice, much more professional than Luna. Sidebar with all the gadgets uses a constant 12-20% cpu though. Otherwise, I gotta say, I'm impressed. Bootup seems faster than the XP install that was on this thing before, but who knows what junk was loading on startup previously (it's an old laptop a client was going to throw away).

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: loup garou
1.0 :laugh:

I'm running RC1 on a POS PIII 1GHz/512MB Compaq laptop, and--no kidding--it doesn't run that bad at all, regardless of the rating. IE7 is quick and can handle half a dozen or so tabs, and amazingly Office 2007 Beta 2 runs great. Outlook opens faster on this crapbox than my work desktop (3GHz P4, 512MB)...go figure...however my desktop is operating in cached Exchange mode, whereas this is not (probably explains it). Whatever the basic visual scheme is looks very nice, much more professional than Luna. Sidebar with all the gadgets uses a constant 12-20% cpu though. Otherwise, I gotta say, I'm impressed. Bootup seems faster than the XP install that was on this thing before, but who knows what junk was loading on startup previously (it's an old laptop a client was going to throw away).

I think vista automatically disables features if your computer's specs cannot handle them. That's why it does the performance test when you first install.