Windows 7 Build 695x revealed at WinHEC 2008 China


Recommended Posts

Hmm... nice looking screenshots. I would have loved to watch a stream of that keynote though, is it available on demand yet?

An on-demand webcast of the opening keynote is available here: http://focus.it168.com/200810/WinHEC/index.html

well i got 4GB of of performance rams and i cant seems to break 5.5 yet

overclocked by any chance ?

i get 6.7 with Q6600 @ 3 Ghz

it is the former , as far as i know

i do take what he say over outsiders source since he is affiliated/working for MS

Performance rating is bull****. Again they can't do simple thing right. Performance rating should be measured on scale from 1 to 10.

Performance rating is bull****. Again they can't do simple thing right. Performance rating should be measured on scale from 1 to 10.

So a Q6600 in 2006 should be a 9 or something. A 8800 GTX should be a 10 in 2006.

What happens now that more powerful CPUs and GPUs have taken their place? Should they have their scores bumped down? The help files for the WEI state:

The base scores currently range from 1 to 5.9. The Windows Experience Index is designed to accommodate advances in computer technology. As hardware speed and performance improves, higher base scores will be introduced. However, the standards for each level of the index stay the same. For example, a computer scored as a 2.8 will remain a 2.8 unless you decide to upgrade the computer's hardware.

What you're suggesting will cause confusion amongst customers who go "HEY, but my system was a 9.0 base system when I got it! Why is it all the way at 5 now?"

They anticipate this WEI indexing system will last us for Vista and 7... so end of 2006's best of the best was capped at 5.9, and possibly the best of the best at Windows 7's RTM is at 7.9 or higher.

Performance rating is bull****. Again they can't do simple thing right. Performance rating should be measured on scale from 1 to 10.

yea right , you are better of doing there jobs :rolleyes:

So a Q6600 in 2006 should be a 9 or something. A 8800 GTX should be a 10 in 2006.

What happens now that more powerful CPUs and GPUs have taken their place? Should they have their scores bumped down? The help files for the WEI state:

What you're suggesting will cause confusion amongst customers who go "HEY, but my system was a 9.0 base system when I got it! Why is it all the way at 5 now?"

They anticipate this WEI indexing system will last us for Vista and 7... so end of 2006's best of the best was capped at 5.9, and possibly the best of the best at Windows 7's RTM is at 7.9 or higher.

It takes time to build a 7.9 machine

Exactly, the way they do the WEI is the right way, your scores won't change now unless you get newer hardware. Your current score won't get dropped or change much when they raise the cap from 5.9 to 7.9, which is the smart thing about it.

So a Q6600 in 2006 should be a 9 or something. A 8800 GTX should be a 10 in 2006.

What happens now that more powerful CPUs and GPUs have taken their place? Should they have their scores bumped down? The help files for the WEI state:

What you're suggesting will cause confusion amongst customers who go "HEY, but my system was a 9.0 base system when I got it! Why is it all the way at 5 now?"

They anticipate this WEI indexing system will last us for Vista and 7... so end of 2006's best of the best was capped at 5.9, and possibly the best of the best at Windows 7's RTM is at 7.9 or higher.

I'm glad you bring this up which prooves that rating system in Vista is pointless, stupidest idea MS could came up with. I have nothing against benchmarking but they should presented in a way 3DMark Vantage does it. Better hardware higher score, slower hardware lower score and so there is no limit of what your upper score can be. Use that number to measure how fast your hardware is but do not measure your hardware against OS which runs on it. MS should set minimum requirements and if they are not met simply refuse installation, so you send clear message to some idiot who wants to run Vista on 1Gb for example, aint gonna happen buddy cause your machine sucks.

What you said is actually happening sort other way around. My graphic system gets score 5.9 but also 8800GT gets 5.9. Now average Joe goes, Crysis runs on my card really slow and i have same score like Mr. Me with SLI GTX280. It's all because MS way of thinking is so ****ed up...as i said it goes beyond comedy. I have feeling that good idea from somebody there shows up and then upper management ****s it up for who knows what reason.

Solution:

Remove Performance Scoring. Your hardware is either capable of running Vista or not. There is no gray area. Keep benchmarking tool in Vista, extended it and show visually tests to customer. Do scoring as 3DMark Vantage does. Faster hardware gets better score, slower hardware lower score. No upper limit. Average Joe goes, oh my card scores let's say 14 but Mr. Me graphic card scores 25. Average Joe goes, that makes sense...that's why he runs Crysis much faster.

Edited by jjrambo
Exactly, the way they do the WEI is the right way, your scores won't change now unless you get newer hardware. Your current score won't get dropped or change much when they raise the cap from 5.9 to 7.9, which is the smart thing about it.

So GTX280 scores let's say 7.9 but also GTX380. What the hell is smart there about? In short what i said above, if they really want to keep performance rating and scoring they have now, remove uppper limit. Faster hardware higher score, is that hard to grasp?

So GTX280 scores let's say 7.9 but also GTX380. What the hell is smart there about? In short what i said above, if they really want to keep performance rating and scoring they have now, remove uppper limit. Faster hardware higher score, is that hard to grasp?

GTX380 wha? When did we get to the 380? Everyone understands a simple point system, 1-10 or 1-5 or w/e. Tossing out a fancy number like 3Dmark does it really doesn't register with everyone. If you just toss out a single score like that, then what? Or are you willing to break it down further and offer scores for every piece of the system like WEI does already?

And again, wtf, I mean WTF!!! Does the WEI have to do with Games? It's the WINDOWS experience Index, It's a score for how your system runs WINDOWS, it's got zero to do with overall game performance. If the top end last gen card scores a 5.9 and the newest card also does a 5.9 that just shows that both are at the top end when it comes to windows performance. It's not the damn Games Experience Index. Games have their own base requirement for running listed on their respected websites OR on the damn retail box. So people should READ those before they moan that some game doesn't run as good even if you have the same WEI as the next guy.

GTX380 wha? When did we get to the 380? Everyone understands a simple point system, 1-10 or 1-5 or w/e. Tossing out a fancy number like 3Dmark does it really doesn't register with everyone. If you just toss out a single score like that, then what? Or are you willing to break it down further and offer scores for every piece of the system like WEI does already?

And again, wtf, I mean WTF!!! Does the WEI have to do with Games? It's the WINDOWS experience Index, It's a score for how your system runs WINDOWS, it's got zero to do with overall game performance. If the top end last gen card scores a 5.9 and the newest card also does a 5.9 that just shows that both are at the top end when it comes to windows performance. It's not the damn Games Experience Index. Games have their own base requirement for running listed on their respected websites OR on the damn retail box. So people should READ those before they moan that some game doesn't run as good even if you have the same WEI as the next guy.

Whoa, calm down and check your facts. WEI was created to help get away from those cryptic game requirements on boxes. Take a look in games explorer - you'll see that the base and recommend WEI for running the games are listed there. The intent was to have those scores on game boxes as well so customers can easily see if their computer can handle it.

jjrambo - you're blowing this issue way out of hand. The score never goes down for a given piece of hardware, but it can be bumped up by simply updating the WEI system to account for higher numbers. This can happen in new versions of WIndows or through a Windows Update. It's not a big deal that its hard limited, and if anything, is advantageous to the customer as it keeps the WIndows team from artificially inflating perceived performance of a component.

GTX380 wha? When did we get to the 380? Everyone understands a simple point system, 1-10 or 1-5 or w/e. Tossing out a fancy number like 3Dmark does it really doesn't register with everyone. If you just toss out a single score like that, then what? Or are you willing to break it down further and offer scores for every piece of the system like WEI does already?

And again, wtf, I mean WTF!!! Does the WEI have to do with Games? It's the WINDOWS experience Index, It's a score for how your system runs WINDOWS, it's got zero to do with overall game performance. If the top end last gen card scores a 5.9 and the newest card also does a 5.9 that just shows that both are at the top end when it comes to windows performance. It's not the damn Games Experience Index. Games have their own base requirement for running listed on their respected websites OR on the damn retail box. So people should READ those before they moan that some game doesn't run as good even if you have the same WEI as the next guy.

Now you're contradicting whole story about Windows 7. It means Windows 7 should have scoring from 1 to 3.9 since it's gonna run better on the same hardware running Vista, right?

Open Games Explorer and look at right pane bottom screen for each game you click.

I just took some random name like GTX380 referencing future Nvidia video card which will be faster then GTX200 series.

Score should not have upper limit. How stupid is your argument and MS idea is example of having now scale from 1 to 7.9 so quad 2.6Ghz shows 7.2 so i guess for Windows 7 that CPU is not enough to actually score 7.9, which means it seems that have even higher requirements then Windows Vista.

Seriously your argumentation is EPIC FAILURE.

Whoa, calm down and check your facts. WEI was created to help get away from those cryptic game requirements on boxes. Take a look in games explorer - you'll see that the base and recommend WEI for running the games are listed there. The intent was to have those scores on game boxes as well so customers can easily see if their computer can handle it.

jjrambo - you're blowing this issue way out of hand. The score never goes down for a given piece of hardware, but it can be bumped up by simply updating the WEI system to account for higher numbers. This can happen in new versions of WIndows or through a Windows Update. It's not a big deal that its hard limited, and if anything, is advantageous to the customer as it keeps the WIndows team from artificially inflating perceived performance of a component.

Exactly. Performance rating score is confusing customers about their hardware ability to run games. In my book 8800GT can't have score 5.9 and GTX280 SLI setup as well so when you cross reference that with WEI it seems that Crysis can run on both equally good which is far from truth.

I have no single problem with benchmark MS uses or logic behind getting those numbers as long as they remove upper limit cap. Faster hardware gets higher number, slower hardware lower number. Very simple.

Exactly. Performance rating score is confusing customers about their hardware ability to run games. In my book 8800GT can't have score 5.9 and GTX280 SLI setup as well so when you cross reference that with WEI it seems that Crysis can run on both equally good which is far from truth.

I have no single problem with benchmark MS uses or logic behind getting those numbers as long as they remove upper limit cap. Faster hardware gets higher number, slower hardware lower number. Very simple.

Crysis has a recommended rating of 5.0, that means that if you have WEI of above 5.0 you have the recommended requirements to play the game. The score does not tell you at what settings you'll be able to play the game and the tool was not made to compare how 2 different machines would play a certain game. So who cares if you have a score of 5.3, 8.9 or 36 billion.

If it's above 5.0, then you're set to play this game. It's a SIMPLE benchmark tool for people who don't know anything about hardware.

Crysis has a recommended rating of 5.0, that means that if you have WEI of above 5.0 you have the recommended requirements to play the game. The score does not tell you at what settings you'll be able to play the game and the tool was not made to compare how 2 different machines would play a certain game. So who cares if you have a score of 5.3, 8.9 or 36 billion.

If it's above 5.0, then you're set to play this game. It's a SIMPLE benchmark tool for people who don't know anything about hardware.

+1

Crysis has a recommended rating of 5.0, that means that if you have WEI of above 5.0 you have the recommended requirements to play the game. The score does not tell you at what settings you'll be able to play the game and the tool was not made to compare how 2 different machines would play a certain game. So who cares if you have a score of 5.3, 8.9 or 36 billion.

If it's above 5.0, then you're set to play this game. It's a SIMPLE benchmark tool for people who don't know anything about hardware.

+1 as well

Crysis has a recommended rating of 5.0, that means that if you have WEI of above 5.0 you have the recommended requirements to play the game. The score does not tell you at what settings you'll be able to play the game and the tool was not made to compare how 2 different machines would play a certain game. So who cares if you have a score of 5.3, 8.9 or 36 billion.

If it's above 5.0, then you're set to play this game. It's a SIMPLE benchmark tool for people who don't know anything about hardware.

And since 8800GT gets 5.9 and actually barely runs that game in acceptable frames, so what is card with rating 5.0...tell you this -> absolute garbage which can't even run the game. Again you don't see point i want to make 8800GT and GTX280 can't have same score of 5.9 meaning benchmark or performance scoring in Vista is absolutely wrong and if you use it as crossrefence with Game Rating -> it's absolute wrong picture.

As I said Performance Rating should be used to measure performance of your hardware not against OS because that hardware as such is already Vista Capable, but to measure real time performance against benchmark apps/games as 3DMark Vantage does it then you can see that 8800GT is crap compared to GTX280 and as crossreference of such result people can get real picture of what they can expect in games such as Crysis.

But since you're just another person who will eat any **** MS is serving you...there is no point to discuss anymore.

And since 8800GT gets 5.9 and actually barely runs that game in acceptable frames, so what is card with rating 5.0...tell you this -> absolute garbage which can't even run the game. Again you don't see point i want to make 8800GT and GTX280 can't have same score of 5.9 meaning benchmark or performance scoring in Vista is absolutely wrong and if you use it as crossrefence with Game Rating -> it's absolute wrong picture.

Being able to play a game and playing a game at 2560x1600 with 16xAA/16xAF are two different things. Again, this is not targeted to hardcore gamers with self-built PCs, quad-SLI and Core i7s.

As I said Performance Rating should be used to measure performance of your hardware not against OS because that hardware as such is already Vista Capable, but to measure real time performance against benchmark apps/games as 3DMark Vantage does it then you can see that 8800GT is crap compared to GTX280 and as crossreference of such result people can get real picture of what they can expect in games such as Crysis.

No. Again, that's not their target.

But since you're just another person who will eat any **** MS is serving you...there is no point to discuss anymore.

But since you're just another person who will criticize any **** MS is serving you...there is no point to discuss anymore.

Being able to play a game and playing a game at 2560x1600 with 16xAA/16xAF are two different things. Again, this is not targeted to hardcore gamers with self-built PCs, quad-SLI and Core i7s.

No. Again, that's not their target.

But since you're just another person who will criticize any **** MS is serving you...there is no point to discuss anymore.

I'm talking about almost minimum settings here.

I know it's not their target, i'm saying they are doing it wrong, absolutely wrong.

I don't criticize any **** MS is serving me. I will give you an example. Backup feature in Vista is absolutely perfect solution and as I can see they are adding option to save your Image to some location on network which was missing in Vista i talked about after first day of Vista release. I found myself in situation where i didn't have any media to save my image but network location. As I said Backup Feature is brilliant but it seems nobody talks about it here. Another brilliant feature in Vista? Ability to resize partitions through disk management in real time? It's something i was waiting for since Windows 2000 is released. Again, nobody ever said anything good about it. It seems that majority of people on this forum actually saying that some things are great but actually they are utter crap or really bad or just bad.

And since 8800GT gets 5.9 and actually barely runs that game in acceptable frames, so what is card with rating 5.0...tell you this -> absolute garbage which can't even run the game. Again you don't see point i want to make 8800GT and GTX280 can't have same score of 5.9 meaning benchmark or performance scoring in Vista is absolutely wrong and if you use it as crossrefence with Game Rating -> it's absolute wrong picture.

As I said Performance Rating should be used to measure performance of your hardware not against OS because that hardware as such is already Vista Capable, but to measure real time performance against benchmark apps/games as 3DMark Vantage does it then you can see that 8800GT is crap compared to GTX280 and as crossreference of such result people can get real picture of what they can expect in games such as Crysis.

But since you're just another person who will eat any **** MS is serving you...there is no point to discuss anymore.

As you seem to have completely missed the point yet again as you did with WARP10, allow me to spell it out for you.

The WEI is a simple benchmark tool to give users a basic indication of the performance of their PC, it's in no way intended to replace or even compete with a tool such as 3DMark.

Each release of 3DMark returns a lesser score on the same hardware, this is fine for powerusers, overclockers and etc, however it is NOT good for the generic joe bloggs.

I'm talking about almost minimum settings here.

Dude I can run Crysis with fine framerates on my 8600GTS @ 1280x1024, and my pc has a rating of 5.2 (medium settings). The ratings are quite good.

jjrambo, the scores are intended as a rough guide for how powerful your PC is. If Crysis' rating was incorrect, take it up with the people who rated it.

The system itself is fine, and makes perfect sense (as long as the ratings are worked out in a sensible fashion).

The idea is for it to be reasonably future proof - the ratings don't change as time passes. However, the upper bounds for the ratings increase. Hopefully the updated stats get backported to Vista (I don't see any reason why it wouldn't).

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
    • Did you see their FAQ, its quite good. Have a look in the Advanced section. https://delta.chat/en/help
    • Just install Linux Mint that is a real blessing and many times cheaper because you can continue using your old Windows computer/laptop with the latest Linux updates.
    • Interesting share -- however it does not make sense: Email messages get stored somewhere, so how is Delta Chat "based on email" and decentralized without actually storing anything? By Web3 standard practices, the various Relays would require dedicated storage to make messages available to the recipients (like a large series of message queue channels, akin to racks of traditional post office boxes)... and Contacts must be two-way confirmed in order for encryption keys to be exchanged (ostensibly every key-pair is uniquely bound between sender and recipient) and the Relays would preserve the public keys in order to facilitate message carriage... or every device stores all sorts of keys and contact info. All of this to say, decentralized messaging is like running Bluesky nodes except instead of discovering/browsing public feeds by various posters (at the given node) these Delta Chats would be relaying encrypted messages (via Relays) that only trusted recipients would have the appropriate decryption key (their own private key) to read it. But this doesn't solve the "it's like email" sales pitch. The only way it's like email is that there's encrypted binary stuff being transported from your app into the federated ether of Delta Chat Relays for others to decrypt (hopefully only the intended recipient)... but outside of this federated relays framework, it is absolutely nothing like email.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      502
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!