Buying a computer for Vista ... and beyond

Starting at the core

Let's start by tossing out all of the processor choices that include single-core CPUs -- even those with hyperthreading, which let you pretend you have a two-core model. Although single-cores are getting cheaper as they're being pushed aside, don't succumb to the temptation. They'll carry the weight right now, but not in a year or two.

It would also be wise to ignore the quad-cores for at least the next six months to a year. Wide-eyed gamers with slack jaws and spasmodic thumbs are always waiting to dip into the bleeding edge. More often than not, there's no need for it until well after the fact, when software finally acknowledges the hardware's existence. It hasn't happened yet for the quads.

Last caveat: You might still be able to find some AMD dual-core (X2) 939-pin processors. Don't go looking for them, and ignore them if you happen upon them. The AM2 versions (a 940-pin model, socket "AM2" device that supports DDR2 memory) are current.

As for dual-core in general, both Intel and AMD are touting performance-per-watt as the benchmark of a great CPU. Balderdash. Short pipelines, large L1 cache and a quick clock speed make fast processors. Stay as much above 2 GHz as your budget will allow. For example, the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800 (with AM2 socket) or Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, both clocked at 2.4 GHz, would make excellent choices.

You could jump up to Intel's Extreme or AMD's FX versions, but unless you're doing mega graphics manipulation or video processing as more than a hobby, it's a bit overindulgent. On the other end, processors closer to 2 GHz will get the job done, but you might start to feel the drag in 10 to 14 months as software catches up to the hardware.

If you're talking laptops, you may naturally have to make some adjustments to the suggested processor specification. We are often willing to give up performance for longer operating time before the battery goes dead, and that means slower CPU clock speeds. Even so, try to stay at least 10 percent to 15 percent above Microsoft's suggested minimums -- and don't forget to factor in any clock speed fallback that might occur as a result of power management. If your unit lowers processor speed to conserve power when it doesn't think you're running a demanding application, you could find yourself slipping below Microsoft's recommended minimum.