Continued from Part One, here are the other final two items from my list of lingering--and annoying--Windows Vista issues.

Poor Performance From Internet Explorer 7

Now we're back where I began, with Ed Bott's post relating to Internet Explorer 7. To be fair, there are no showstopper problems which prevent IE7 from doing a fairly decent job as your primary Web browser.

However, if you ask me, "Is IE7 as good as it can possibly be?," the answer is clearly no. Back that up, you say? Okay:

True, these have all been fixed, otherwise there wouldn't be these Knowledge Base articles. It's also true that Firefox has been amply patched itself.

The main problem I have, which I can't quantify, but I defy you to tell me I'm wrong, is that IE7 simply doesn't perform as well as either IE6 or Firefox 2.0.0.5. Pages . . . load . . . more. . . slooooowly. (Sometimes, really slowly. Bad browser. Very bad.)

The Need For More Memory

How much memory one actually needs to run Vista adequately is one of the great mysteries of life. The official word from Microsoft is that "Vista Capable" PCs need at least 512 MB or memory and "Vista Premium Ready" PCs need at least 1 GB.

"Capable" is defined by Microsoft as "will be able to run at least the core experiences" of Vista. "Premium Ready" means "including Windows Aero," which is the translucent, Mac-like user interface presentation. (If you ask me, you pretty much need Aero if you want Vista to be Vista.)

Microsoft's memory requirements raises two issues. The first is, while Microsoft says "at least," people pretty much ignore those two words. Thus, there's the expectation that a PC outfitted with Vista Home Basic and 512-MB of RAM will run just fine. Many bloggers have disputed that, though I should point out that Ed Bott, the respected Windows expert I linked to above, says that 512-MB is indeed okay for Vista Home Basic

My experience is with Vista Ultimate, so I'll stick to that. I can say that 1-GB is adequate, but that anyone who wants a decent experience with Ultimate should really get 2-GB. That's what I'm currently running, and I'm soon planning to upgrade further.

My suspicion is that Microsoft is underemphasizing the hardware requirements one needs to really enjoy Vista. Along with more than the minimum suggested memory, you'd do well to buy the hottest graphics card you can afford. It's not necessarily bad that you have to have all this stuff--though the added costs have clearly been an impediment to corporate adoption of Vista--it just is. But Microsoft should be more upfront about it, the better not to disappoint newbies, who will be impressed when they see what Vista can really do when it's running unfettered. Like I said, Redmond has nothing to apologize for, so why downplay the truth?

[Click here if you missed Part One.]