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

    • Amazon Prime Day 2026: Best Dolby soundbar deals from Sony, Samsung, JBL, Polk, and more by Sayan Sen Yesterday we covered the JBL BAR 800 which is a 5.1.2 Dolby Atmos/Vision soundbar. The unit is on sale for its lowest ever price of just $800 making it a solid offer. However, there are many more options to choose from and in this article, we have made a compilation of the best deals including from Sony, Polk, Yamaha, Denon, Samsung and more. Sony's BAR models are currently at their lowest prices which makes them solid offerings. The company's BRAVIA Theatre Bar lineup is designed to suit different home cinema needs. The Bar 5 is an entry-level 3.1-channel soundbar with a wireless subwoofer, supporting Dolby Atmos®, DTS:X, S-Force PRO Front Surround, and Vertical Surround Engine for immersive audio with clear dialogue. The Bar 6 upgrades to a 3.1.2-channel configuration by adding dedicated up-firing speakers for more convincing overhead Atmos effects while retaining the wireless subwoofer. At the premium end, the Bar 7, Bar 8, and flagship Bar 9 are single-soundbar solutions featuring Sony’s 360 Spatial Sound Mapping technology, which creates phantom speakers for a wider surround field. Bar 7 includes nine speaker units, Bar 8 increases this to eleven, and Bar 9 offers thirteen speaker driver units promising the most expansive soundstage and acoustic performance. All models should integrate seamlessly with compatible BRAVIA TVs and support the BRAVIA Connect app for setup and control. Get them at the links below: Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 9 Soundbar (HT-A9000): $998.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $1498) Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 8 Soundbar (HT-A9000): $798.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $998) Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 7 Soundbar (HT-A7100): $618.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $768) Sony BRAVIA Theater System 6: $548.00 | Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 6: $448.00 Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 5 (HT-B500): $278.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $348) Sony HT-S400 2.1 soundbar: $198.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $248) Aside from those, we also have more discounts including from Samsung, Polk Audio, and more: Samsung Q-Series Soundbar HW-QS90H 7.1.2: $797.99 (Amazon US) (Was: $998) Polk Audio Signa S4: $336.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $449) Hisense AX3120Q: $229.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $259) Check out more soundbar deals that you may like at this link. Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Stellarium 26.2 by Razvan Serea Stellarium is a free open source planetarium for your computer. It shows a realistic sky in 3D, just like what you see with the naked eye, binoculars or a telescope. It is being used in planetarium projectors. Just set your coordinates and go. Stellarium key features: Realistic simulation of the sky, sunrise and sunset Default catalogue of over 600,000 stars Downloadable additional catalogues for up to 210 million stars Catalog data for all New General Catalogue (NGC) objects Images of almost all Messier objects and the Milky Way Artistic illustrations for all 88 modern constellations More than a dozen different cultures with their constellations Solar and lunar eclipse simulation Photorealistic landscapes (more are available on the website) Scripting support with ECMAScript (a few demo scripts are included) Extendable with plug-ins: 8 plug-ins installed by default, including: artificial satellites plug-in (updated from an on-line TLE database) ocular simulation plug-in (shows how objects look like in a given ocular) Solar System editor plug-in (imports comet and asteroid data from the MPC) telescope control plug-in (Meade LX200 and Celestron NexStar compatible) The major changes of this version: Added new sky culture Added new plugin: Planes Many improvements in plugins Many improvements in Core and GUI Many updates in sky cultures. [full release notes] Download: Stellarium 26.2 (64-bit) | 456.0 MB (Open Source) View: Stellarium Home Page | Other Operating Systems | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      418
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!