Staredit Network > Forums > Technology & Computers > Topic: Post your comp ratings
Post your comp ratings
Jun 11 2008, 2:27 pm
By: Jello-Jigglers  
Polls
What is your rating?
What is your rating?
Answer Votes Percentage % Voters
0-1(<--- suckers) 3
 
17%
None.
1-2 0
 
0%
None.
2-3 0
 
0%
None.
3-4 0
 
0%
None.
4-5 5
 
28%
None.
5-6 3
 
17%
None.
6-7 1
 
6%
None.
7-8 2
 
12%
None.
8-9 1
 
6%
None.
9-10 0
 
0%
None.
10+ 3
 
17%
None.
Please login to vote.
Poll has 18 votes. You can vote for at most 1 option(s).

Jun 11 2008, 2:27 pm Jello-Jigglers Post #1



Hey so I just got a new laptop and I wanted to see how it compaired to the rest of sen's stuff. Rate your laptop, not your desktop if you can.
First lappy so, naturally, it's titled lappy 401 lolz. So here's the stats. Feel free to post your stats as well :) (obviously, score is not average, it's lowest subscore)
[attach=1137]

Let me know if this is ok cause I really have no idea :lol:

Attachments:
Comp Stats.jpg
Hits: 0 Size: 53.08kb



None.

Jun 11 2008, 3:59 pm ClansAreForGays Post #2



Is that what windows vista's system info looks like, or is it a website that you didn't bother to list.




Jun 11 2008, 4:01 pm chuiu Post #3



Its a vista thing, so those of us who don't have it would naturally score higher. :P



None.

Jun 11 2008, 4:01 pm Sael Post #4



An 8400 GS gets 4.1, and an 8800 GTX only gets 5.9. Of course, it just tested Aero and stuff. 3dMarks it isn't!



None.

Jun 11 2008, 4:05 pm dumbducky Post #5



It's a Vista thing. The scale only goes up to 5.9, anyway.
Processor - 5.7
Memory - 5.0
Graphics - 5.9
Gaming Graphics - 5.8
Primary Hard Drive - 5.9



tits

Jun 11 2008, 5:13 pm Jello-Jigglers Post #6



Oh also probably specify laptop or desktop, and system specs if you can:)



None.

Jun 11 2008, 5:19 pm chuiu Post #7



Quote from dumbducky
It's a Vista thing. The scale only goes up to 5.9, anyway.
5.9? Could they have made a more arbitrary number than this? On a scale of 1 through 8.3, how much much do you think thats ridiculous.



None.

Jun 11 2008, 7:30 pm Sael Post #8



Vista also says that 5.0 is the highest performing computer that was available at the time of Vista's release, but I built my computer before Vista was released by nearly half a year, and I still get a 5.7 rating.



None.

Jun 11 2008, 8:27 pm Phobos Post #9

Are you sure about that?


Translation: (remember that 5.9 is the max :P)
Processor - 5.9
RAM memory - 4.8 (I'm getting 2 more GB latter, I only have 2 now)
Graphics - 5.9 >=)
Gaming Graphics - 5.6 >=O
Hard Drive 5.6

So, since it's based on the lowest number, I got 4.8




this is signature

Jun 11 2008, 8:34 pm Atlos Post #10





I thought 3GB of RAM was fine, guess not. Maybe it's the quality of the RAM, idk. I have 4GB installed but only 3GB is recognized by 32 bit Vista.



None.

Jun 12 2008, 3:31 am dumbducky Post #11



Vista judges it by the speed of the RAM, not by the amount. Or, atleast amount doesn't have a very large effect.



tits

Jun 12 2008, 4:27 am Corbo Post #12

ALL PRAISE YOUR SUPREME LORD CORBO

Mine's 4.9 everyone with more than that is a bitch. :P

Quote from chuiu
Quote from dumbducky
It's a Vista thing. The scale only goes up to 5.9, anyway.
5.9? Could they have made a more arbitrary number than this? On a scale of 1 through 8.3, how much much do you think thats ridiculous.
Ideally you could have more than 5.9 because it is just calculated by the ammount of X stuff you have and then it makes an average to show you your rating. the only thing is that parts to go higher than 6 have not yet been created :P



fuck you all

Jun 12 2008, 11:35 am ShadowFlare Post #13



I don't have my laptop on right now, so I won't bother getting the scores from that one. Here's the info for my main system:

Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+ - 5.0
Memory (RAM): 4.00 GB - 5.9
Graphics: RADEON X850 Series - 5.9
Gaming graphics: 1535 MB Total available graphics memory - 4.9 (my video card has 256 MB on it :rolleyes:)
Primary hard disk: 15GB Free (186GB Total) - 5.6
Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate

It must be related to speed in some way, because mine says 5.9 on ram and I have the same amount available to Windows as many others here. 3 GB of my 4 GB is available for Windows to use, but I'm on service pack 1, so it reports the full amount there even if it can't use it.



None.

Jun 12 2008, 12:26 pm fatimid08 Post #14



The computer I work with at my dad's office has a 2.0 rating (aero graphics). My home computer doesn't quite have the video requirements to run Vista, so I guess that gives it a 0.



None.

Jun 12 2008, 2:44 pm Jello-Jigglers Post #15



Quote from Corbo
Mine's 4.9 everyone with more than that is a bitch. :P
Agreed lolz. Ya I'm sure people can get higher than 5.9, but above 5.0 is superfluous.



None.

Jun 12 2008, 4:52 pm dumbducky Post #16



Quote from Corbo
Ideally you could have more than 5.9 because it is just calculated by the ammount of X stuff you have and then it makes an average to show you your rating. the only thing is that parts to go higher than 6 have not yet been created :P
No, the scale only goes up to 5.9. There is nothing higher. The overal score is not an average, it is your lowest component score. So if your hard drive gets a 1, and everything else gets a 5.9, your score is a 1.



tits

Jun 12 2008, 5:25 pm Jello-Jigglers Post #17



Well the only reason you can only get a 5.9 is because some things cannot get passed 5.9 ... yet. so the scale is infinite, but the current max is 5.9.



None.

Jun 12 2008, 8:10 pm dumbducky Post #18



No, it goes to 5.9. It isn't infinite, it doesn't got to ten, it stops at 5.9.

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/458117.aspx



tits

Jun 12 2008, 8:50 pm Sael Post #19



How did an X850 get a 5.9 GPU score? That makes no sense whatsoever! An X850 probably can't even run Crysis at more than 800x600 with everything on low (and I'm sure it struggles even there).



None.

Jun 12 2008, 9:20 pm dumbducky Post #20



It doesn't rate hardware on how powerful it is, it rates it on how well it can run Vista.

That link I posted helps explain why it goes up to 5.9. If the base score is 1-1.9, it's a "1" computer, 2-2.9, it's a "2" computer, and so on.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 12 2008, 9:22 pm by dumbducky. Reason: ADD MOAR



tits

Options
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[02:13 pm]
Vrael -- pee poo sibling
[07:00 pm]
Symmetry -- poo poo papa
[02:46 pm]
lil-Inferno -- pee pee child
[2026-6-27. : 6:10 pm]
Ultraviolet -- sweet summer child
[2026-6-26. : 10:31 am]
NudeRaider -- blessed innocent soul knows nothing of the strife we had before EUDs were discovered :teehee:
[2026-6-23. : 3:29 am]
DarkenedFantasies -- Probably just didn't care. For example, at some point before release, they've updated the graphics of some of the Protoss buildings (Forge, CyberCore, Citadel, Observatory, Arbiter Tribunal), but instead of properly re-rendering them with edited 3D models, they did crappy copy-paste jobs on the rendered graphics.
[2026-6-22. : 8:35 pm]
Ultraviolet -- :wob:
[2026-6-21. : 11:38 pm]
Symmetry -- :wob:
[2026-6-21. : 4:56 am]
Ultraviolet -- I suppose we'll likely never know, but my guess would be that they already saw it operating successfully and there was no monetary incentive to finish the original work. And the dev cycle in old school Blizzard was so hectic, it's possible it just got forgotten about after the original game got released. Plus there's an element of existing MPQ files that were packaged with the original discs becoming outdated if they updated it. And it's not like they remade the original MPQs, they just made new ones for BW specifically
[2026-6-21. : 4:26 am]
Oh_Man -- so that makes me think maybe the theory they are unfinished is not true and its a deliberate design decision, coz why not finish them wen ur making brood war?
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Vrael