captaincranky: Yea, inflating the WEI index is very stupid actually.
It was hailed as a way to simplify the requirements of games and applications with Vistas release.
But if they change the numbers worth with each release of Windows it isn't going to make any sense.
Say Crysis requires a 5.0 (made up number)
In Vista your system only gets 4.0, so you upgrade to Win7 and there it gets a 5.0, and in Win8 it gets a 6.0.
Guess what, it's still gonna be too slow to play Crysis!
This logic is flawed for two very salient reasons. First, Windows 8 isn't even aimed at someone that can read benchmarks. The Fischer-Price toy interface is a dead giveaway there. And second, where exactly are you going to find a gamer who wants to play "Crysis", willing to tolerate minimum requirements?
And then there's this; my Core i530, (on the IGP), blows up a 5.2 (!) on the gaming graphics WEI score...! You look at that and say wow, integrated graphics have come a long way! (And in truth they have).The trouble is with the desktop @ 1920 x 1200, when you try to patch full 1080p to the TV, the Intel graphics driver starts pasting up warnings to drop the res or break something...
So, I wasn't actually wanting to play Crysis, just watch recorded TV. But, I was hoping to run 2 monitors at 1080p, no such luck. Although, I suppose I could assume Intel is just trying to save warranty costs and do it anyway.... I could tell them that my WEI said it was OK....!
So, let's say the WEI index is no different from that of Win 7. However now we're using an OS, (evaluation release), that doesn't have as many running processes as our day to day OS. Methinks, with less running, you might be able to pull a better score with less taxed hardware. (Not sure though). I'm still up for somebody's explanation as to exactly how Marnomancer's CPU score went up, with ostensibly the same CPU at the same clock. PLease tell me these were both 64 bit OSes used in the test. Pretty please.
I also realized another thing with Win8
They reduced the startup time by doing a hybrid hibernation of sorts when the system is shutdown (You notice this because it takes a little longer to shutdown vs Win7)
But thus when you install security updates that require a reboot, and shutdown your PC for the night.
The next day you boot it up it will automatically reboot when you login.
And that "clean" boot actually takes atleast as long as Win7 does for me to boot...
It's a very small nitpick of course, but it might be worth to keep in mind that if an application really requires a reboot.
Then you really need to do a reboot, not shutdown your PC on day one and start it on day two and think "presto done"
A while back, some rookie programmer with Mozilla, figured out a way to make Firefox seem as fast as Chrome. This involved changing the startup order of running processes or something. Point being, this Win 8 shutdown issue, prima facia, seems to be the same sort of charade. Perhaps he's moved on to bigger and "better" things. Say for example, M$ R & D.....
Despite my lack of true technical expertise, a while back I declared Vista a stinker. Got a lot of flack for that, and now here we are, Vista dead and buried, XP still going strong. Fancy that.
And BTW, this "hybrid sleep / stutdown" scheme sounds, in concept, very similar to Vista's pre-caching of memory for expected programs. That was an epic fail, if only for the fact that it showed very little "available memory". This is screwing with the whole boot process, for the same imaginary, or perceived benefits. Look how fast it wakes up. A few thousandths of a second only really matter in a gunfight. Or perhaps to a hedge fund computer.