Meta !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#289,866
Easy to use benchmark for the tech-illiterate. It eliminates all that confusing nonsense about gigahertz and megabytes and reduces it to simple numbers. I don't think it ever caught on though, and I don't think most (non-neckbeard) people know it exists.
Also, scoring a computer by its lowest number is kind of stupid, but I suppose Microsoft didn't want to confuse people with too many numbers.
My Windows Experience Index is 5.9, btw.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#289,917
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
It's even good for the tech literate though, since it's not easy to convert those numbers to real performance without running several different benchmarks, or to find out where the real bottleneck in performance is, which bring me to my next point. The reason it scores the computer by its lowest score is because figuring out where the bottleneck is is probably the most useful aspect of the Windows Experience Index. It give you a good idea of what you should upgrade if you want to improve your experience with the computer.
dw !AIy/L67q.s (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#289,974
i want an ssd so i can increase my windows experience index
henn joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#290,000
@289,917 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
If only I cared enough...
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 27 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#290,004
It's something they cooked up when Vista was introduced, as it required far better hardware than XP.
Probably an attempt to blame hardware for the crappyness of Vista.