Who the hell decided to make it out of 7.9 instead of 10? Seriously, what the hell were they thinking?
Well, the !&#% with that. Mine shows only 5.9, and the computer is only ~1 month old. :duh2: :green: :sick2: :fail: :scowl: etc.
However, my personal Windows experience is ~20 years, LOL
A two-year-old SSD gets 7.8, though :huh: .
Nope, you're wrong... a 2 year old SATA II (3Gbps)SSD will only get 7.2 (because 2 years ago we didn't have SATA III)thats what my friends Corsair SATA II SSD gets... an up to date SATA III (6Gbps)SSD like my OCZ Agility 3 gets 7.8.
Ran this on my Dell laptop which is about 4 years old and got 1.0!
The WEI just doesn't do it for me. I've worked on too many machines where it gave a high rank and the machine was a dog or a lower rank when it ran great. The amount of RAM you have and your typical application load have a lot to do with it.
A few months ago I was troubleshooting slow disk performance in a corporate VMware cluster and I came up with a quick benchmark I could do on all windows boxes to test HD write speed, which is really what matters. Open MS paint, create a 6000x6000 blank image, and save it to a the drive of your choice as a 24-bit BMP. This is roughly a 105meg file. I was astounded to see this could vary 500-600% on new hardware running Server 2003 or Win 7, with SANs or SSD based boxes taking around 2 seconds to save. Some new workstations right out of the box are taking 9 seconds or longer to just to save, so there is obviously some serious issues with HD controllers / drivers out there.
You guys with SSDs and non SSD computers should try this to see just how lousy HD write speeds can be and how benchmarks can lie.
For the record, the latest HP thin clients I deployed running embedded Windows 2008 scored a lofty 2.8 - yippee!
OCZ Agility 3 SATA III SSD
Which explains the write speed
The only hardware I see producing fast results (.5-2sec range) are either SAN's, or SSD's. I'm seeing SATA desktop speeds all over the place, and this just doesn't make sense given the hardware isn't that variable. More cores and faster FSB doesn't translate into faster HD speed.
My suspicion is it's a partition alignment issue given so many Win 7 machines come preconfigured and imaged from XP based cloning tools at the factory. SDD's are typically configured by the user.
The WEI just doesn't do it for me. I've worked on too many machines where it gave a high rank and the machine was a dog or a lower rank when it ran great. The amount of RAM you have and your typical application load have a lot to do with it.
A few months ago I was troubleshooting slow disk performance in a corporate VMware cluster and I came up with a quick benchmark I could do on all windows boxes to test HD write speed, which is really what matters. Open MS paint, create a 6000x6000 blank image, and save it to a the drive of your choice as a 24-bit BMP. This is roughly a 105meg file. I was astounded to see this could vary 500-600% on new hardware running Server 2003 or Win 7, with SANs or SSD based boxes taking around 2 seconds to save. Some new workstations right out of the box are taking 9 seconds or longer to just to save, so there is obviously some serious issues with HD controllers / drivers out there.
You guys with SSDs and non SSD computers should try this to see just how lousy HD write speeds can be and how benchmarks can lie.
For the record, the latest HP thin clients I deployed running embedded Windows 2008 scored a lofty 2.8 - yippee!