Want a good Windows Vista experience?

If it's a laptop you want, bring money -- lots of it.

According to my new favorite Microsoft site, a $1,500 laptop won't get 'er done.

Joe Wilcox of Microsoft-Watch says you need to bring $1,999 to the bar to get adequate graphics performance for Windows Vista:

I surveyed computer after computer, even several desktop PCs, with Windows Experience Index ratings falling between 2.1 and 3.3. In every case, graphics hardware dragged down the scores. Again, I contend graphics is the wrong place to shave margins.

In my Vista testing, there is noticeable performance benefits on computers with 256MB dedicated graphics compared to those with 64MB or 128MB discreet graphics and shared memory for the remainder. More importantly, at some time in the future there will be more applications tapping into Aero and Windows Presentation Foundation—and that's when customers are going to feel the graphics pinch.

While pricey, Best Buy had one notebook that rated above 4.0—the Pavilion v9260nr, for $1,999 at the store in Bowie, Md. It was the first Vista computer I've seen for sale where the graphics accelerator wasn't the lowest-rated component. The hard drive brought the score down to 4.5 (the NVIDIA GeForce Go 7600 graphics rated a 4.6). The HP notebook, with 17-inch display, 2GB SDRM, 200GB hard drive and TV tuner, came with Vista Ultimate 64-bit. It's one really honking portable.

Consumers shouldn't have to spend two grand to get the ultimate Vista machine. But they should expect—and get—more from a $1,500 or $1,600 notebook. 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?

Wow. And I'm complaining that $400 laptops are too pricey.

For another interesting perspective from Joe Wilcox, check out Is Vista One Step Ahead? In this article, Wilcox looks at Bill Gates view of Microsoft being "ahead" of the curve, and how that generally means software that won't run on current hardware. He cites Gates' 2003 unveiling of Longhorn (which would become Vista), which would need the following:

4-6GHz processor

2GB+ memory

1TB hard drive

Graphics processor 3X today's performance

1GB Ethernet, 54Mbps wireless networking

And while Wilcox suggests that hardware makers step up and give Vista users what they need to really experience Microsoft's new OS (and give application developers the incentive to produce software that goes beyond what XP can do), I wonder if its a case of the tail wagging the dog ... albeit profitably for Microsoft and the PC industry throughout the years.

In Gates' (and Wilcox's) defense, most of these hardware benchmarks are here -- especially with the latest Intel and AMD CPUs, the unveiling of the first consumer-oriented TB hard drive, the proliferation of 1 GB Ethernet hardware (even if corporate America's existing cabling won't support it) and the rise of 802.11n.

Here's Wilcox's assessment:

In my experience, most Vista problems are a result of insufficient computing power or incompatible software applications or drivers. I resolved the former by moving to the lovely Lenovo ThinkPad T60p. Vista still is a dog getting out of the gate, meaning slow bootup or wakeup, but she's a gallant race horse once moving.

Are you ready to saddle up?

I'm not, but I know that in five years, it'll all be old hat.