I have a question - why don't you quit Microsoft Watch? It's pretty obvious that you don't have too many good things to say about the company and you would rather not use the products (but have to do so because of your job). Why don't you simply quit this job and start writing about Apple or Linux instead? I am not trying to be snarky here, but you writing for this site is almost like a Suns fan writing for an official/ unofficial Spurs site - he has to hold himself back from time to time for the fear of hurting the sentiments of the fans - not at all healthy.

You are gaming this whole thing. Your basic premise compromises your whole argument.

No one in his or her right mind would expect to walk into a retail outlet like Best Buy or Circuit City and buy a decent system off the shelf.

If you can do that with a Mac, that's fine, but then you remove yourself from over 90% of the user base, so that is not acceptable either.

If you are a writer for eWeek, then you *know* that you have to spec out exactly the system you want.

I just recently bought to Vista machines, very carefully speced out. They replaced two XP PIII machines that actually started life as WinME machines and still run perfectly fine, because they also were carefully speced out. I just wanted after five years to go to a current FSB speed like 667, up from what I had, 133.

Please do a better job next time you publish.

>>RSM

You know, I'm kinda getting tired seeing all these posts blasting Joe. sk, you do know that there are billions of other web sites out there, if you find this site to be disagreeable or not up to your standard, why don't you go read another (there are millions of sites that review Microsoft)? Every person can hold his/her own belief on the net, even Joe, if you find his posts to be biased, go elsewhere, such an easy solution, amazing you haven't thought of it. Or, even better, if you wish only to get positive facts about the great saviour Microsoft go here, to "Get their Facts" (link: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/default.mspx). There you can find all of MS's information about how good their product is and how unreliable linux is (very amusing reads :)).

Now, as for the article, I think its rather well written and poignant. It outlines a major flaw in the way computers are sold and advertised. Had you bothered to read it sk (doesn't seem like you did), you would have seen that Joe wished to demonstrate how the OEM's are sorrily cutting corners to save a buck, and doing so in the worst place that does adversely affect customer experience. It seems to me he was doing this because he wanted OEMs to pay attention and stop undercutting people's experience with Vista, so that more people like it and thus encourage its purchase. So in the end sk, I think Joe was really trying to help MS with the article, not blast them.

I suppose though, he does also partially lambaste MS for its "Windows Experience Index" which, I must say, seems just as worthless as the "ready for Vista" logo they stickered on those PCs before launch. I mean how well an operating system runs depends on so many different variables that must all be coordinated perfectly like a symphony that I find it hard to believe any index ever made could ever truly grasp it. MS could have easily put out guidelines as to what was a real minimum spec needed for optimal performance with Aero and all features turned on, but admitting the high specs might impact their bottom line.

In truth also, they have created an incredibly confusing system for buying the computer, the mere fact that there are 7 (or is it 6?) versions of one OS in conjunction with this index (which one must pay attention to lest he end up with a box good for only booting up and shutting down), makes for a very annoying experience. Look at apple, why is it they can only sells one version and then small packages that one can add on for a nominal fee to customize your experience/capability? Or even Linux, take Ubuntu for example, there is only one version for desktop and one for server with every release (in truth though they are one, only separated by the desktop package that is easily installed and removed). You can then add everything you like to it via easy modular installations. MS doesn't have to make picking an OS complicated, one version was good for all until XP (even then it only really had home and pro, that was ok), it can be fine again.

Anyway, I don't mind ya Joe, MS shouldn't always get positive reviews from everyone even when they do things wrong, and while I don't always agree with you, I liked to read whats happening and then find other sources covering the same topic, that way I get many views.

Keep up the work :).

Edit: Since Richard M posted right before I did, I just want to say that I know a lot of people who do buy off the shelf, there isn't any reason they or the average consumer shouldn't be able to get a PC like that and find it running perfectly (at least Aero and operational wise) when he gets home. Not everyone builds their own custom machines richard, I and you do, but not everyone. The average consumer simply doesn't have the time, interest or knowledge, they just want something that works.

Total Ratting 4.5
Intel Core2 CPU T5500 @ 1.66GHz -4.7
Memory (RAM) 2.00 GB -4.5
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS -4.7
Gaming graphics 527 MB Total memory -4.7
Primary hard disk (100G) -4.5

Running Vista Ultimate 32Bit

DV9033Cl with TV tuner costs $1499 at costco.

I totally agree with SK. Joe should quit writing for Microsoft Watch.

Another Guy: Applying your own logic, why do you read our comments and getting upset...only read these comments which are supporting Joe.

Joe I don't know why you compare MS and Apple in terms of OS ???? OS war between MS and Apple is already over in 1997. See this video and learn to accept things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY

Touche DD, I'll even go you one further, I won't bother posting anymore. It doesn't seem to do anything, it doesn't stop you people from asking Joe to quit/blasting him. And in return, how about you stop flaming Joe (flaming is childish and best done on forums where moderators can promptly ban accordingly), then we can both equally be happy and not bother with things that have no effect on this site. I say that, because I don't think after the many posts you have all written for Joe to quit that he has, so lets agree to disagree and not fill this place with pointless comments, and if you really don't like it, there are other sources of MS info. Maybe Joe should go one further and just disable comments, it doesn't seem to benefit him much (if at all), thats his choice though.

Oh and as for your claim that the war has been won... just look what complacency did to GM/Ford. They didn't even have a war to start with, and now their almost floundering. By that logic, MS should stop innovating and just ride its monopoly for the next 30 years :). I wish them luck with that, they may well need it.

Anyway, thats it for me. Goodluck Joe, barring something unbelievable/miraculous event, I guess I won't post anymore.

I wonder what is the direction of Eweek on the technology watch and review.

It is hardly see a commentable columnist from Eweek anymore

Eweek started as PCweek . I think their mindsets are still arguing whether Windows or Mac is the better OS.

Their mindsets and views anchored around desktop PC ONLY, lacking off enterprise view

Richard Mitnick, you're an idiot. Joe was talking about off-the-shelf notebooks. Everybody I know who has ever bought a notebook (including myself) has bought off-the-shelf. I know of no one who has spec'd out a specific machine.

Now the story is different for desktop computers. When I wanted a Vista PC, I spec'd out a pretty nice one, bought the components, and assembled it myself. But most consumers would never do that. And almost none would do that for notebooks.

Joe's investigation into notebooks at major retailers is revealing and insightful.

Whoa, the heat is growing at this site...haha. But anyways, I don't think it's fair to simply suggest a computer with a 4.0 score or higher, I just bought a new HP Notebook with a rating of 3.0, when the rest of the ratings are 4.5-5.8.
The reason being that just because I don't have the best gaming video card out there, Vista chooses my lowest rating for the video gaming as my index. Since I'm not a gamer, I should be more than happy with that score, since everything else is pretty darn good. Since your sister didn't seem to be a gamer, I don't know why you would determine a purchase without fully taking into account the rest of the scores.

To Joe: Next time, recommend HP's customize your own notebook service.

To Microsoft: It would be much more logical to base purchases on their score index if there was a comprehensive average with a more detailed scoring sheet.

sk, you're among those who criticize Microsoft Watch for every perceived slight against your precious Windows platform. Hey, get over it! This isn't a Microsoft fan magazine. It's Joe's job to survey events, both positive and negative, that relate to Microsoft's fortunes.

I've seen articles from Joe that were both positive and negative with respect to MS. If there are things to be critical of, I expect to see those things discussed here. And, frankly, there's a whole lot of things that are wrong with Microsoft and Windows!

DD, the reason Joe compares Windows and OS X is because these two platforms, and Linux as well, share the same IT market space. OS X and Linux are perfectly legitimate alternatives to Windows. As they affect Microsoft's fortunes, it is correct and appropriate to discuss them here.

The "war" between MS and Apple is hardly over. Apple has been gaining strength and street creds with OS X and MS is visibly worried. I've heard Bill Gates rebut Apple and you can almost hear the tremor in his voice!

> That Sony model, VAIO VGN-AR320E, looks loaded for bear with Best Buy advertised graphics of 335MB. But how many consumers or small business owners are going to know to look�as I did�and see that only 64MB is dedicated graphics?

Well, it looks like Windows Experience index is working, and working perfectly. It makes much easier for consumers to judge the performance and make the right decisions. And it exposes OEM's lies, like this Sony example, because the index will be bases on real 64Mb of dedicated graphics, not on Sony marketing.

Vivat Vista!

Good thought provoking article Joe !
DD
I love that link !!
It basically showed that Apple were close to "biting the bullet" and going out of business, and who steps in (and got plenty of "Boo's" for it, but Mr. Bill Gates).
Nowadays Steve Jobs doesn't say the same "nice" things about microsoft anymore, and I think it is about time that microsoft stopped being "nice" to them !
I have been waiting to do a hardware upgrade and this article was useful in that I now know exactly what specific items I need for my upgrade after looking up information on this topic, I came up with this site http://www.shareyourscore.com/
Now I now what I need !

Don't be a weiner!
Install Kubuntu Linux Today.
It's Vista without a rating.
Same thing.

EpsDel
You really don't understand do you ? You ever heard the saying "my computers better than yours" or that some people really love to have the best hardware that they can !
This is really what the rating index is all about !
It's not just the OS it's the hardware as well !
To give the owner the knowledge that their system is a good one (not to mention that Vista will run very comfortably on it, or anything else for that matter).
Whether it's Linux or Microsoft.
Talk about a "one eyed" Linux user....

I really tried to get to like Vista over a two month period - using a Dell XPS Gen-2 Laptop.

It had an "experience" rating of 4.0, which I thought was low. And the experience - well. Slow. Sluggish. Which I might have lived with.

Its the unreliablity, and the *constant* security pop-ups that I couldnt live with.

If your going to drop $2k on a new laptop, make sure that its not running Vista. By all means, ensure that it *can*, but wait another year, two or five for Vista to actually deliver something *new*.

My next laptop - after 25 years in IT - will be a Mac.

---* Bill

Bill
You say that the rating was 4.0 ... what were your actual components ?
For example how much ram ?
I do not understand how after 25 years with a pc you would drop everything and go to a MAC.
Your statements don't make sense.
If you have been in IT for 25 years you would know that what makes up the rating would make any system a "slow" system.
Please state for record your individual components and their rating.

Bill
I went to the "Dell" website and a lot of their notebooks have "shared resources" as far as the memory of their graphics cards.
Shared Resources cards are not good cards for any system let alone Vista.
It actually states on the microsoft website that graphics cards need a minimum of 128mb, and that shared cards only have 64 !!
This component alone would cause the system to be "slow" let alone the amount of RAM.
So tell us your system components.

"sk, you're among those who criticize Microsoft Watch for every perceived slight against your precious Windows platform."

My dear fellow, I did no such thing. I was only making an attempt to point out that if Joe didn't want to use a Windows PC and was doing so only because it was a requirementof his job, he should think about quitting the job. I actually like what Joe writes - all of his articles that show Microsoft in negative and a little less negative light. Please don't accuse me of saying things that I didn't. I merely made a humble suggestion that Joe would be better off writing for Apple Watch or Linux Watch.

Richard, my contention is the following:

If you are prejudiced about something right from the start, it affects your opinion about it (obviously!). For example, I didn't want to like Firefox 2.0 when it came out, so, when I used it first, I complained to my friends about minor issues, such as the UI, and after using it for a day or two, decided that it sucked and went back to IE7. I realized later that I didn't like FF because I didn't want to like it and not because it was a bad browser. I had a bias towards Microsoft, which made it hard for me to like competing products. I noticed that I wasn't the only one. Many others seemed to have a bias, either in favor of or against MS. I also noticed that people with a bias towards Microsoft seemed to be more objective when it came to reviewing MS products because when they criticed a feature or lack of it, it was actually motivated by a genuine desire to improve the product. The bias obviously didn't help when they were reviewing rival products.

Coming to Joe, he has a bias against Microsoft and though he tries to hide it, it comes out from time to time. It's hard for such people to be objective about Microsoft. While he does praise MS at times (about 35% of the time), when he criticizes MS, his motives are usually questionable because of his inherent bias. That's precisely why I don't trust Paul Thurrott's reviews of Apple's products - especially when they're negative in tone.

So, yes, just like everything else in the world, there's a whole lot of things that are wrong with Windows and Microsoft. But, on the other hand, there's a whole lot of things that are right too (whether you like it or not).

No fanboy of Microsoft, I'm not a frequent reader.

Contrary to the rhetoric of the comments, this article (rising on the charts of TechMeme) is informative and factual. Although professing no market research or survey methodology, it makes a quite valid point about off-the-shelf laptops and their mediocre graphics cards. The implications for Microsoft are serious.

In fact, I think Wilcox is complimentary of the experience rating system, characterizing the scoring as truth-telling about this serious situation.

I customized my current laptop, a Sony VAIO, for this very reason. And let me tell you, it was a bear on the Sony website. Most consumers do, in fact, buy off-the-shelf laptops.

The problem here is with system builders and retail outlets, not Microsoft. The Gates Keepers delivered an operating system dependent on superior graphics card performance, but failed to mandate a high enough hardware standard enforced by an "approved for Vista" moniker.

"Coming to Joe, he has a bias against Microsoft and though he tries to hide it, it comes out from time to time."

Like I said, every perceived slight against Microsoft is taken as bias. Has it occurred to anyone that the reason the bulk of Microsoft reporting is negative is because much of what goes on in the Microsoft world is highly questionable? I don't think there's a whole of things that are right with MS. They still behave as a monopoly, continuing with deceptive business practices. They struggle unsuccessfully to come up with true technical innovations (look at Vista as a warmed-over XP). They fail at creating new market opportunities, such as the soon-to-be-marginalized Zune. Even their popular Xbox franchise is failing to be profitable. As the markets in the developed world become saturated with Windows, their future growth is severly limited--Microsoft doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of making money in the Third World because of 1) piracy and 2) Open Source. This company is fast becoming the new IBM, a bloated, diseased, effectual corporate sow destined to disappear. (The Final Daze: click here.)

Er, I meant "ineffectual corporate sow." Sorry for the typo.

I noticed the same thing while shopping for laptops. Graphics is the weakest link and to make matters worse, you can't upgrade it.

Good point about "Vista Ultimate". The OS may be ultimate but not necessarily the machine.

I find people argue about PC vs Mac (or Microsoft vs Apple) because it gets attention. Nowadays, you'll find many writers intentionally comparing the two. It's an invitation for a lot of comments (and always works). I own both and find strenths and weakness in both. Regardless of platform, the bottom line is that you have to ask yourself is "what are your needs?".

Basically I ended up getting the MacBook Pro just to run Vista becuase of the lack of good laptops with performance. In the end I am kind of unhappy becuase I want to run the 64bit version of Vista which the HP would have done, but the resolution of the HP in the store wasn't good enough for me. Plus the fact, that I am a design freak and the HP did not look very pleasent. It looks like Acer and Asus are starting to go the right direction as far as asthetics and performance, so hopefully there will be more valid choices in the future.

These comments reek of astroturfing.

Do all you microsoft employees have to post snarky comments as part of your yearly performance evaluations now?

Astroturfing: is a term for formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising that seek to create the impression of being spontaneous, grassroots behavior. Hence the reference to AstroTurf (artificial grass) is a metaphor to indicate fake grassroots support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

Well, it goes to show you that when you don't make the whole widget, you can't control everything. In MS's defense, they don't make the computer, the manufacturers do. I'm sure that all of the electronic stores buy at a discount the low end configured systems to entice buyers. The problem is, these low cost computers do not have the proper hardware configuration to really take advantage of the new OS. If you were to try to configure it correctly, you could buy a Mac at that price and that is exactly what people are doing.

The comments posted here are from "seasoned" windows users, which in my opinion would never go into say a Best Buy and look for the cheapest laptop that they can afford, but would rather go online and have one custom made. That is the problem. The masses that do go into these stores and buy have NO idea about any of the points you mention, so what do they do? Most have chose not to buy a Vista based system, but actually buy a system that still has XP or they go out and get a Mac.

"In MS's defense, they don't make the computer, the manufacturers do.

Come on now, most box makers slavishly follow Microsoft's recommendations, so this is a hollow argument. The boys in Redmond are the ones who typically fail to deliver on promised features and performance goals. Look at what they promised three years ago in Longhorn compared to what they actually shipped in Vista.

Richard - again, not going to argue with you. I don't think you're getting my point. I also find it hard to believe that there's nothing positive to write about a company with 70,000 employees and $50 bn. in revenues. I'll argue that you'l be able to find as many positives as the negatives. You just have to look close enough. Unfortunately, Joe chooses not to, maybe because he's afraid he might find something.

And, no, I'm not an MS employee. Some idiots believe that anyone who'd choose to defend MS is an employee.

Oh Richard, it's "developing countries" an not "Third world countries". You do realize that offensive terms actually ... offend?

Whoy would India and China help Microsoft in its fight against piracy? Investment, brother. In your house, Microsoft may be a dying relic of the 90s. In the real world, its the most profitable software firm in the world.

Just to add to what SK said. Joe, if you can't say anything nice about Vista, then shut up and go crying back to your Mac. We're pretty sick of you so called "analysts" dishing out FUD on Vista when you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Got Vista. Like it.

Got Mac. Love it.

Perhaps it is time Microsoft re-think and re-tool their bloated Aero interface software.

Intead of licensing display postscript from Adobe, they went their own way and wrote a piece of bloat-ware, soaking up every video processing card in it's path.

Better yet, why not just get a Mac and call it a day.

BTW:Loved the honking portable comment. It is simple really - you get what you pay for.

sk, I didn't say there was nothing positive to write about MS. And I disagree with you that you can find as many positives as negatives. We shall simply have to agree to disagree.

As for piracy in the developing world, this is as much a cultural thing as an economic thing. "Investment" isn't going to do a damn thing, trust me.

What SK Said, as I mentioned earlier, Microsoft Watch isn't a Windows fan site. It is Joe's job to disclose information about Vista, even if it's unpleasant. Seems to me, he knows as much about Vista as you do, if not more. So do I. I've been intimately involved with Windows for the past 15 years. And with Vista, OS X, and Linux machines at home, I've been doing a lot of research on multi-platform stuff. Trust me, I can find plenty negative to say about all three platforms.

As Microsoft Watch's focus is on Windows, I expect plenty of coverage of Vista, including the good and the bad. And believe me, there's a lot of bad stuff...

This is freaking unbelievable!!! sd, DD and Neil I really don't understand what you're complaining about.

First off I have to apologize for ever calling any of you guys Microsoft shills. After this it is clear you don't work for MS, shill for MS or camp for MS. The proof being that your bash on Joe regarding this article is quite possibly the worst anti-MS statement you could ever make.

Joe is clearly using Microsoft's own measuring tools to show that those systems are not performing properly. That manufacturers are cutting costs on what impact's Vista's perception the most, GRAPHICS.

I think Joe is raising a valid point if not to the manufacturers (who knows if they'll listen) at least to the consumer. Don't fall into traps like these. Get a good graphics card and enjoy a proper Vista experience.

Yet somehow you send the opposite message. Don't listen to Joe, that's not really happening. Get your Vista PCs anyway they come. I believe the ultimate outcome of your position is negative to Microsoft.

The perception of the average user who sees someone or knows someone who uses these systems will be negative. They'll see what seems like a super laptop run Vista sluggishly. They won't look under the hood or too deeply into the matter. First impressions always matter most folks.

Ha,ha,ha ,Geraldo ,you had finished all the funny stuff ,shame on you, ha,ha,ha.(I was enjoying the dummy thing a lot.)

Gerardo,

It's not the content itself, but the tone. You can dismiss anyone who tries to argue with you as an MS shill or an employee. HEck, that's probably the easiest thing to do. "Your arguments carry no weight. You're an MS shill." It's as if you've known the person forever. I've posted a few comments on this site and have been consistent in a few aspects:
1. I've never bashed Apple or Linux.
2. I've never bashed any other commenter.
3. I've never even claimed that Microsoft makes the best software.

I use both Ubuntu and Windows and like both OSs. In fact, I've had no problems running Vista Business on laptops with a Windows Experience Index as low as 2.0. While at first Sight, Joe's article doesn't really seem all that negative, when you read it carefully, you notice that he's resorting to the same FUD campaign used by numerous pro-Apple sites, that to have a reasonable Windows Vista experience, you have to buy expensive hardware. That's just BS. If pointing that out makes me an MS shill in your opinion, so be it. In any case, I don't really think I need to prove anything to someone who can't argue without calling people names.

A not so subtle title for this article would be: "If you want to get a new computer, get a Mac. Joe tells you why!"

Funny, I don't see Joe recommending Mac over Vista. His piece does have the implication that a Mac is a pretty good alternative to a Windows PC. And that's absolutely true! I use Mac, Vista, XP, and Ubuntu, and I can testify that the Mac is a perfectly usable Windows alternative for most people.

Readers need to stop interpreting every mention of Mac or Linux as a slight against Windows. Is Joe supposed to avoid any such mention? The fact is, all three platforms share the same market space, the fates of all three are intertwined and therefore they bear coverage in this column.

sk wrote: "A not so subtle title for this article would be: 'If you want to get a new computer, get a Mac. Joe tells you why!'"

The point, sk, is for OEMs to get with it and make graphics more of a priority on new notebooks. Should your buying decision for a new car come down to the dealer disabled air conditioner (to save money) on one brand and the brand up the street where AC is part of the price?

Poor graphics is a poor excuse excuse for a bad Vista experience. I'm not advocating Macs here or even taking a position against Vista. But I am taking a position against bad configuration decisions. Given that notebooks sales are sizzling and margins are better than desktops, surely OEMs could save a few bucks somewhere other than graphics.

Joe

@Joe: "After eight months of testing Vista, I couldn't recommend buying another Windows PC."

Richard, that's more than a mention of the Mac. So, he starts out by saying that if you're in the market for a computer, you should buy a Mac. If you're foolish enough to consider a Vista PC, the rest of the article is for you. I'm not saying Joe should avoid mentioning the Mac and I'm not even saying he shouldn't be recommending it. That's up to him. My point is that if he really doesn't like Vista, he can stop using it instead of complaining about it. Moreover, why does he write for MS Watch if he doesn't even want to use Microsoft's products? Would you want Paul Thurrott writing for Linux Watch? Or Robert McLaws of Windows-Now writing for an Apple site?

I agree with you that OS X and Ubuntu are great alternatives to Windows and I've used OS X occassionally and liked it. I use Ubuntu and Vista regularly. I also plan to buy a Mac Mini to use as a Vista Media Center soon. Let's see how that goes.

On second thoughts, maybe I read too much into that statement. I guess I owe you an apology here, Joe (not being snarky).

Yes, Joe said he couldn't recommend Vista last October. Neither could I.

Even now, I strongly suggest people wait for Service Pack 1. That doesn't mean I don't like Vista, it just means Vista isn't quite ready for prime time.

There are three types of journalist you could choose to write Microsoft Watch: 1) someone biased in favour of MS; 2) someone perfectly neutral; 3) someone biased against MS. I defy you to find someone who is perfectly neutral.

Whom would you choose to write Microsoft Watch? Someone biased in favour of MS would likely take it easy on MS, ie, he would write "soft" pieces. I'd rather have "hard" pieces written by someone like Joe Wilcox. How else to uncover the unpleasant truths that lurk behind "psychotic corporations?" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation)

sk, I think its pretty clear. Joe makes a comment and also proposes a possible solution. That to me is constructive criticism. I think it is a fair comment and one of the things I also see in PC vendors. That is cutting down on graphics or RAM, hopping up on GHz and selling you a "multimedia experience" that is half baked.

If you look at my blog you'll see a comparison between a Dell and an Apple. Once you equate graphic performance the price gap is null between the two brands. So it is a way to trick the user into buying something cheaper, thinking he got a deal, when the truth be performance is mediocre.

Gerado
What is wrong with my statement "Good thought provoking article Joe !"
Why is this statement unbelievable ??
I thought it was thought provoking and it was !
If it wasn't ...why so many comments ??
Joe is right Laptop makers do not put in good graphics in their Laptops, business use ...fine ! Games you have got to be kidding !
As Joe said 64m on a graphics cards is not good enough these days and he is right !! It isn't !!
And so everything else suffers, and nowadays they put Vista on the same configuration and customers wonder why it is so SLOW, it is NOT the fault of Vista (as I said previously MS quote minimum requirement of 128mb and a lot of Laptops these days don't have that).

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.

And to prove my point, the comment from Bill saying his laptop was SLOW and he blamed Vista.
The funny thing though was that he did not state his configuration, why ? A number of reasons are possible, but as this article shows the slowness was most likely caused by either not enough RAM or not enough graphic power (RAM on the graphics Card).

Neil actually makes some good points here. But I would disagree that it really is Microsoft's fault that Vista is being installed on Laptops that clearly do not have video cards good enough to run vista.

After all, its MS that is certifying the video drivers as acceptable to run Vista. MS owes it to their custermers to make sure that Vista is not being sold on machines that clearly do not have the horsepower to run it and should in all actuality be running XP instead. MS made it hard for the OEM's to sell XP when Vista was first released to the public. Now Dell has started to release XP for now on some computers. MS should not have let Vista be installed on computers that scored below a certain level and insisted the OEM use XP instead.

Bill's Windows Experience Index is 4.0, which means the weakest component is still pretty good.

My brother's HP Slimline s3020n has the following rating:

o Processor: 4.8
o Memory: 3.9
o Aero graphics: 3.1
o Gaming graphics: 3.0
o Hard drive: 5.7

I find it to be sluggish. This machine has 1GB of system RAM and NVIDIA 6150LE graphics with 128MB of shared video memory. Seems to me, whatever Bill's configuration is, it has to be better than this.

My Vista machine has 2GB of RAM and ATI X1600 graphics with 256MB. It runs very well. The rating is:

o Processor: 5.3
o Memory: 4.9
o Aero graphics: 4.3
o Gaming graphics: 4.8
o Hard drive: 5.9

I therefore submit that you really want 2GB of system RAM for good performance. Even 1GB doesn't quite cut it. Also, you DON'T want "integrated" graphics--make sure you have "discrete" graphics, like my ATI card.

Richard
"Seems to me, whatever Bill's configuration is, it has to be better than this."
Good assumption ... but that's all it is ... an assumption !
Now considering that Bill got a 4.0 what was his lowest component or for that matter were they all low !
The hard drive would not slow down the system it had to be the system ram and or the graphics, and don't forget the sytem that Bill quoted was superceded by Dell in 2005, a lot has happened since then as far as hardware in concerned, especially on a laptop !
That's why I said that Bill mistakenly blamed Vista when in actual fact it was his configuration !
And even though your graphics had 128MB it was "still" shared !!
Microsoft state that it shouldn't be shared !
And I have yet to hear of a person that is happy with "integrated graphics" whether it's on a PC or Laptop !
All these things are detremental to a systems performance and as such you should not blame the OS (whatever it is) for the slowness of a machine.

A nicely balanced article. Some of the critics need to chill out.

Owned 5 Windows machines at least. The last three were XP. Nice machines till strangled by antivirus/spam/antitrojan software. Windows when it worked well was sweet.

Switched mostly to Macs now. Not always as fast (can't afford the top end stuff) but they run and run. Biggest joy is no registry!!!

Spec'd machines and demands for specs for troubled machines shows a level of knowledge that a majority do no have nor desire. Please enjoy yourself but chill out on the poor sods who have to deal with this weeks special at Best Buy. That is how most buy their machines and that is life. Joe is simply pointing out that the stores are not trying hard enough to give a quality experience. They are simply selling what their customers are looking for. It's like the number of pixels in that new digital camera. Meaningless if you don't know what else in on the camera but what customers start shopping experience looking for.

Till next time...

Iain
I disagree with you that "They are simply selling what their customers are looking for."
On your premise the customer does not know what they are looking for !
It is the savy people who want various configurations and these days the retailers are aware of it, and the good ones will give you what you want (for a price ...of course).
I have been looking around and now know what configuration I want, and that's what I am getting ...nothing off the shelf... never !

Neil, you obviously haven't checked out Dell's XPS line. Bill's laptop would have at least 1GB of RAM and 256MB of discrete graphics (assuming his laptop is 17" or bigger). (He might have a 12" laptop but I rather doubt it.)

Also, Bill's weakest component is a 4.0 which means that everything else is at least a 4.0. 4.0 is a very good score, therefore, Bill's machine ought to run Vista well.

Richard
Agreed ! I just don't know why not !
But one thing is for sure why didn't say what his components were and then (maybe) he could properly have blamed Vista.
But not on the scant info that he gave, I hope you agree ...
But as "Richard" said "I therefore submit that you really want 2GB of system RAM for good performance. Even 1GB doesn't quite cut it."
And that's how much ram I am getting 2GB !

Okay, Neil, I researched Bill's XPS Gen 2 laptop. It's a pretty damn impressive machine! 17" screen, 2.13GHz Pentium M, 1GB RAM, 256MB NVIDIA 6800 Go Ultra, 80GB hard drive. According to Bill, he uses it for serious gaming.

These are top-notch components, more than enough for Vista. Bill says it feels sluggish. I'd say the real limitation here is system RAM.

A score of 4.0 should be pretty good, regardless of the configuration that you harp on about.

I think the REAL point Joe is getting at is this:

Vista's hardware requirements are pretty stiff. OEMs are cutting corners in order to keep prices reasonable; otherwise, consumers won't buy.

While some of us (you and I) can afford to buy a PC with 2GB of RAM and 256MB discrete graphics, most people are reluctant to spend that much money.

If you're not rich, then I recommend sticking with XP or turning to Linux, both of which have much lower hardware requirements. Even OS X runs fine in 1GB of memory.

Richard
I completely agree with you "I'd say the real limitation here is system RAM."
Richard I just looked up the specs as well, and it has it as you say "except" for the RAM, which is stated as 512 MB of ram.... anyway it doesn't matter he "probably" got more at the time?
And as you say "Bill says it feels sluggish", mind you he did say in his comment "It had an "experience" rating of 4.0, which I thought was low. And the experience - well. Slow. Sluggish. Which I might have lived with."

An extra bit of ram (1Gb) and it would have fine, why blame Vista for that !
Now if he had upped the ram before why didn't this time around, surely he would have been aware of the extra requirements ?? And not that much either.

Richard
"If you're not rich, then I recommend sticking with XP or turning to Linux, both of which have much lower hardware requirements. Even OS X runs fine in 1GB of memory."

Oh ! come on ... an extra 1GB of ram was really going to cost a lot ... I don't think !
Mind you (currently) Xp runs fine on 1Gb of Ram, mind you when I had Win98 1Gb was "overkill".
Now it's really the minimum !

Richard,

I've used Vista on 4 different PCs and found that 1GB RAM is sufficient to run Aero well (it's good enough for Vista Business - maybe not for Ultimate). Memory usage on my computers usually doesn't exceed 750 to 800 MB, even with Aero turned on. I'd say most of the problems people are having with OEM PCs is not due to insufficient RAM, but due to crapware and bloatware. I actually bought a retail copy of Vista and installed it on a low end Compaq laptop with a rating of just 2.0. My other 3 systems have ratings of 3.8, 4.0, and 4.3. The performance has been surprisingly good. Ed Bott recently tried using Vista Basic on a laptop with 512MB RAM and had a pretty good experience, apparently.

sk
If "Bloatware" is loaded into the ram THEN you WILL need more than 1Gb agreed ??
Anyway as I said before it doesn't cost that much to get an extra gig of ram these days.
And then ... no problems !

"...he did say in his comment "It had an "experience" rating of 4.0, which I thought was low."

Neil, 4.0 is not low, it's pretty good. My Vista box has a rating of 4.3 and I'm very happy with it.

"...come on ... an extra 1GB of ram was really going to cost a lot..."

It doesn't matter whether or not *we* think 1GB costs a lot. The point is, major retailers are pushing machines with minimal configurations because they are trying to squeeze a profit and they are trying to get consumers to buy. Consumers won't spend the extra bucks for a better endowed PC. Blame them all you want but MS miscalculated in thinking that people would fork out extra cash in order to run Vista. In this sense, MS and Vista are to blame.

And you're right, XP runs great in 1GB. MS erred in not optimizing Vista's memory footprint, in causing enormous code bloat. (By comparison, Linux is downright slim and elegant!)

Neil;
Quote;
"...come on ... an extra 1GB of ram was really going to cost a lot..."

well lets add up the cost Neil. Since you intend to (from your post in another section) upgrade your computer, and both your children's computer, how much are you going spend?

You stated that you will need 3 256mb video cards, now 2 gig of ram for each machine, and larger hard drives to handle the "bloat." Perhaps new sound cards as well? Plus there is the little matter of the Vista licenses themselves, as I would doubt you will pirate it. Those licenses cannot be bought in Australia as cheap as the USA, and I doubt you are a Vista Basic sort of guy.

This is not going be a cheap upgrade for an average person to do, and still end up with a computer that is not a major upgrade from XP. It actually might even end up doing less.

It would probably be a cheaper for you to just buy new computers that already have Vista on them than to go the upgrade route, that way you have your old XP computers in case you don't like Vista as well.

Now you sound like you might be swimming in money, but I don't think the average computer user is, and wants more for their money than Vista.

Neil;
will you also need a new motherboard to handle that faster CPU for Vista as well? Maybe think about a 64 bit motherboard/cpu combo as well, as future versions of Windows (Vienna) are not likely to support 32 bit. Good Luck on your project, let us know how its coming along.

Neil;
I run XP and Linux with 256mb of total ram with very good results. In my desktop computer I have 1 gig of ram and a 128 mb ATI card, but XP doesn't really need this much horsepower, and I see no improvement really after about 512 mb of ram. Just my personal observation.

My suggestion to upgrade to Vista, throw everything away but the case, and start over.

sk said "I found that 1GB RAM is sufficient to run Aero well."

As the saying goes, "Your mileage may vary." Some people are particularly sensitive to performance issues. The important thing to remember is that, all things being equal, Vista will run more poorly than XP. So if you're upgrading an existing 1GB XP machine to Vista, be wary of the performance hit.

I would think twice about upgrading. You need to ask yourself this question: "Are the benefits of Vista worth spending more for hardware? Are the benefits worth taking a hit in performance?"

The same question applies to buying a new PC, as well.

Chips
Tell me something when DVD Burners came out ... did you buy one ? When the speed got faster .. did you buy one ?
Owning a computer, like any other piece of technical machinery whether it a cassette player or dvd player, etc.
You will always want to keep up (reasonably anyway) with the latest equipment.
I am sure that you don't use a 1x speed DVD player on your computer do you ? Neither do I ! Everyone at some point in time does an upgrade.
If you already have a laptop like Bill did, putting an extra 1 Gb of ram in it would be an awful cheap upgrade wouldn't it !
As far as myself is concerned as I have said previously I am saving up for the upgrades that I must do, and NO I am not rich, otherwise I wouldn't be saving up now would I ??
Now as far as the 32 bit OS is concerned Chips you may have misunderstood MS (and it has been reported here too) on this one Windows Server 2008 is the last "Server" to be 32 bit and NOT the client side ! It stays 32 bit (for the moment at least) ! I read that article too !

Neil;
I may have got that wrong, and you may be right about MS Windows Server 2008 is the last "Server" to be 32 bit and NOT the client side. As I was thinking it was the last OS in 32 bit as well.

Yes, I like my toys, and while I do buy things like DVD burners, I usually wait for awhile till the price comes down. Guess I am cheap. Just because something is new, does not always mean its better than the last model. Cars would be a good example of this. There are classic cars, and models after that that are almost worthless. Vista could also be that kind of product. Then again you might really like it. For myself its too expensive an option, and I just don't see anything innovative in it that I would want. In fact the DRM, WGA, and EULA in it, really turn me off. So I guess I will be stuck in the past for while.

But good luck on your project, and do let us know how things work for you.

Quote: Neil :
"Iain
I disagree with you that "They are simply selling what their customers are looking for."
On your premise the customer does not know what they are looking for !
It is the savy people who want various configurations and these days the retailers are aware of it, and the good ones will give you what you want (for a price ...of course).
I have been looking around and now know what configuration I want, and that's what I am getting ...nothing off the shelf... never !"

I think you walked into that one. Everyone I been shopping with is trying for the most bang for the buck. Stores will order what looks sweet or affordable but it takes some knowledge to understand the difference when it comes to the right combination. By your own admission, you "know what configuration I want, and that's what I am getting ...nothing off the shelf... never !" are not average. And that is what I have seen so many times.

Take care,
Iain

Chips
Both of my "kids" (one is 19 the other 14) are eligible for the "Academic" Version of Vista Premium and therefore it isn't a lot at all really.
AUD$159.00 each.
I to do not usually buy the most "up to date" I like to go for "middle of the road" that way it is not expensive and is able to last for around 3 - 5 years, and then it is due for another one !
And yes I will let you know thank you !

Iain
Most of the time (not always) people have a computer "guru" to rely on, I was self taught and read all the books including "PC's for Dummies" my god takes me back a ways, anyway several people since have used my knowledge and gotten a computer that has fulfilled their needs, and surely this is what people should do when buying something that they do not understand !
Take your time, find out the relevant information, seek out a computer "guru" who knows more than you do, and then look around as well.
By doing all this you will get a computer that is right for you.
I will take care thank you .

Hey Neil,
You hit it on the head. It's finding the guru that can steer you through the choice that is the problem. As Joe puts it and I reiterate, its "what's in the store for many buyers" because that is what the stores offer. And that is really what the article is all about. What stores order from the manufacturers is what the people see and buy from the stores. They (the stores) order by what has sold in the past and all the good intentions will count for naught if the customers skip that better videocard in order to get a bigger harddrive.
Take care,
Iain

I dunno guys, my experience going to various electronics retailers for a Vista lappy largely left me in the same boat. Other than a local chain with some nice high end Fujitsus the selection I found for "Vista experience" points was very similar.

I swear though, Windows Fanboys really give the Apple ones a strong run for the money sometimes on these forums. The comments here are REALLY over the top.

Stop writing MSWatch?!? Talk about EMO droids!!

Previously I wrote:

My brother's HP Slimline s3020n has the following rating:

o Processor: 4.8
o Memory: 3.9
o Aero graphics: 3.1
o Gaming graphics: 3.0
o Hard drive: 5.7

I find it to be sluggish. This machine has 1GB of system RAM and NVIDIA 6150LE graphics with 128MB of shared video memory.

I was in error. The NVIDIA 6150LE card has 128MB of dedicated graphics memory but Vista will allocate additional shared memory to bring the total graphics memory up to 319MB.

The point is, this is a fairly well-endowed graphics card and yet the Windows Experience Index rates it as a 3.1 which is not particularly impressive. Vista is very demanding!

Richard
Even at a full 128MB of "dedicated" graphics memory this is the "MINIMUM" requirement. Of course it's going to be slow/sluggish, 256MB would be no problem !
The extra shared memeory is still "shared memory" and think how it would if it was starting with 256 !!
Same thing goes for his system memory 1GB is the minimum of 512MB for Home Basic, 1GB for the rest, and that is a "minimum". And as everyone knows with microsoft's minimum requirements they are the absolute minimum, and therfore 2GB is more the idea.
And like you said "this is a fairly well-endowed graphics card", I like your choice of words here ... "Fairly" being the operative word, I really don't think so a real world situation.
You must stop thinking that the "minimum" is good enough ...it isn't and you know it !
It rated low because the specs are low so far as what Vista requires you know that.

Yes, Neil, I was expecting too much from a configuration that would otherwise run XP quite well (not to mention Linux!). Vista is truly a resource hog.

Forgive me, I'm still stuck in the mode of thought that 1GB of system RAM and 128MB of graphics memory are plenty for us regular folks. (FYI, my iMac G5 has 1GB of RAM and 64MB of graphics memory, and both my XP laptop and XP server/workstation have 512MB of RAM and 32MB of graphics memory. I'm happy with the performance of all three machines.)

Richard
My Xp has 1Gb of Ram and goes nicely, when I had Win98 all I needed was 512Mb, before I upgraded I was informed that Xp might need more.
Well Vista is here and it also needs more, not to mention the games my kids want to run, and they have ATI 9550 with 128MB ram graphics cards and have been complaining of slow peformance on Xp, I looked it up and the same cards run under Vista but I wouldn't want to use them. So the kids are getting nvidia 8600 cards (with the other upgrades of course).
You say that your G5 has 1GB of ram, macs didn't use to need this much did they, but as time goes by and applications (and games) are more demanding we upgrade all parts of our computers don't we ? !
I see Vista as no different.
When I had a 486 made to my specs I got a whopping 4 MEGABYTES of ram (everyone else had one or two megs), and then "DOOM" came out and I needed a boot disk because DOOM needed 4 MB of ram of its own to run, DOOM went on to be the largest selling game that year, but people had to upgrade to play the damn thing.
So what's so different now ... nothing at all !
There will come a time when 2GB of ram will be like 4MB of ram, you mark my words.

The solution to finding good hardware for Vista is pretty easy. Basically have at least a:

2Ghz P4 Processor (No Celeron)
2GB System RAM
Standalone AGP or PCI/E Video Card with a least 256MB of Memory.
7200 RPM HD with more than 50% available drive space after installation of Vista and apps of choice.

Also your going to have to tweak Vista services, startup items, scheduled tasks and more to really get Vista cooking.
_________________________________________

Follow those guidelines and you'll never be burned with slow performance using Vista.

Simple Solution
What do you know someone with some common sense (too bad it's not that common around here).
Good on ya simple solution !

I wish someone had warned me before buying a new laptop with vista. It is slow. Nothing new in it makes my job (of programming) easier. It crashes more and too many security pop ups.

Why did microsoft release it???

joe should be warning more people not to go to vista. I am going back to win 2000 - the one they got right. What a pain.

Is microsoft getting the picture??? People are unhappy.

Well, I loved the rating thing although it's inaccurate...

Anyway, after making "dramatic" improvments
(1G.B RAM --> 4G.B + Intel 64MB Graphics Card --> NIVDIA GeForce NX7600 512MB Dual Cell)...

My previous rating was 2.1, and I'm really eager to know the new rating!!! But it doesn't wanna work after installing a wrong INTEL Graphics Driver!!

How can I fix this??

Thanks Joe, for your honesty. You have greatly helped one consumer stressed out about spending hard earned money on a risky, but potentially fruitful purchase of a Vista computer

Hi,
Wel i still unable to understand how vista rate the hardware coz somthing happen wid me last night when me n ma friend install Windows vista Ultimate ma PC hardware was preety gud by ma friend like i have pentium D 3.0 65nm Technology wid havin 2*2 Cache processor but he has Pantium D 2.8 90nm technology processor wid having 2 MB cache He got the rating 4.7 for his processor and i rated 3.5 n i can,t understant how vista rate our processor.Anyone can gime Ans.

Thanx
SmartOne

vista is only a migrane for any being unfortunate enough to use it, i am one of the unfortunates, and if microsoft truely does stop making windows xp then i will just change OS entirely and never look back. between a crappy wireless router and vista having crap for networking capabilities i can never seem to be online at all which defeats any purpose i have for using my laptop (thank god its the only thing in my house with vista).
just needed to vent a bit, thanks for listening