But just how good is Chrome? How does it differ from IE and from less popular, but still important, browsers like Mozilla’s Firefox and Apple’s Safari?

I’ve been testing Chrome for about a week, trying out all its features and using it side by side with Microsoft’s latest iteration of IE, which came out just last week.

My verdict: Chrome is a smart, innovative browser that, in many common scenarios, will make using the Web faster, easier and less frustrating. But this first version — which is just a beta, or test, release — is rough around the edges and lacks some common browser features Google plans to add later. These omissions include a way to manage bookmarks, a command for emailing links and pages directly from the browser, and even a progress bar to show how much of a Web page has loaded.

Chrome’s interface has some bold changes from the standard browser design. These new features enhance the Web experience, but they will require some adjustment on the part of users. For instance, Chrome does away with most menus and toolbar icons to give maximum screen space for the Web pages themselves. Also, Google has merged the address bar, where you type in Web addresses, with the search box, where you type in search terms. This unified feature is called the Omnibox.

One striking difference in Chrome is how it handles tabs, which display a single Web page. In Chrome, each tab behaves as a separate browser. The bookmarks bar, Omnibox, menus and toolbar icons are located inside the tab, rather than atop the entire browser. The tabs appear at the top of the computer screen. Chrome also groups related tabs. If you open a new tab from a link in a page that’s already open, that new tab appears next to the originating page, rather than at the end of the row of tabs.

Despite Google’s claims that Chrome is fast, it was notably slower in my tests at the common task of launching Web pages than either Firefox or Safari. However, it proved faster than the latest version of IE — also a beta version — called IE8.

Meanwhile, Microsoft hasn’t been sitting still. The second beta version of IE8 is the best edition of Internet Explorer in years. It is packed with new features of its own, some of which are similar to those in Chrome, and some of which, in my view, top Chrome’s features.

Google’s Chrome browser displays thumbnails of a user’s most-visited pages when a new tab is opened, rather than a blank page.

For example, while IE8 also groups related tabs, it assigns a different color to each such tab group and allows you to close them all with one click. It has a “smart” address box of its own, that drops down a list of suggestions as you type, though it retains a separate search box.

IE8 also has breakthrough privacy features that exceed Chrome’s, and includes a new technology called Accelerators, which allows you to take rapid action on any selected word or phrase on a Web page, such as generating a map for a place name, without switching to a new page.

As they develop, each of these browsers has a good chance of besting Firefox 3.0, which I have regarded as the best Web browser for Windows, the only operating system on which Chrome currently runs. But they will have to get faster at loading pages. And, to best Firefox on the Macintosh, Google will have to make good on its promise to produce a Mac version of Chrome, something it says it will do in the coming months. Microsoft has no plans to produce a Mac version of IE8.

Chrome and IE8 are far more advanced than Apple’s Safari. Safari is speedy on both Mac and Windows platforms, but lacks many of the key intelligent features of its newer Google and Microsoft rivals.

Why is Google igniting a new browser war? There are two main reasons, and both involve competing with Microsoft. First, the search giant fears that because its search engine and other major products depend on the browser, Microsoft — with its rival online products — might be able to gain an advantage by altering the design of IE, which has roughly a 75% market share.

Second, and more important, Google sees the Web as a platform for the software programs, or applications, that currently run directly on computer operating systems, notably Microsoft’s Windows. It says current browsers lack the underlying architecture to enable future, more powerful Web applications that will rely more heavily on a common Web programming language called JavaScript. Chrome was designed to be the world’s speediest browser at handling JavaScript.

That move might one day make Chrome a sort of online operating system that competes with Windows. “Think of Chrome as more than a simple Web browser,” Google declares. “It’s a platform for running Web applications.”

Microsoft’s IE8 has an “Accelerator” feature that lets users select any Web text and then map, translate, search or email their selection without leaving the page.

I tested Chrome, and IE8, on a plain-vanilla Lenovo ThinkPad laptop running Windows XP, and equipped with a modest processor and one gigabyte of memory.

To gauge Chrome’s speed at loading Web pages, I launched two large groups of typical Web pages simultaneously, each site opening in its own tab. One group included 15 sports sites, the second 19 news sites. In both tests, Chrome’s speed fell in the middle, at 35 and 44 seconds, respectively. IE8 was slower, taking 49 and 75 seconds to open the two groups of sites. But Firefox and Safari were much faster, notching identical speeds of 19 seconds for the 15 sites and 28 seconds for the 19 sites.

Google claims that future, more sophisticated Web applications relying more heavily on JavaScript than today’s sites do would run faster on Chrome. Of course, I couldn’t test any claim about future scenarios, but I did run Chrome on several JavaScript test sites, used by developers. It handily beat the other browsers. However, Google doesn’t claim users would see much difference on current Web application sites.

I also tested Chrome’s compatibility with scores of common Web sites. In general, it did well, rendering the sites properly. But I ran into problems with video. Some video sites refused to recognize Chrome, because its development has been a secret. On others, like Major League Baseball’s site, videos mostly played properly, but sometimes didn’t.

IE8 also has some compatibility issues, for different reasons. It’s the first version of Internet Explorer to hew closely to Web standards. Earlier versions used some nonstandard ways of rendering Web sites, prompting some site designers to adopt techniques that made their pages work in IE, but look odd in Firefox and Safari. Now, ironically, these pages also look strange in IE8. So Microsoft was forced to build in a special Compatibility View button that users must click to see the sites properly.

Chrome is built on three core design principles. The first is its spare user interface: just two menus and a handful of toolbar icons. IE introduced a similar approach in its version 7, but with a difference. Microsoft allows users to restore a traditional menu bar; Google doesn’t. The only toolbar icon you can add in Chrome is a Home button.

The second principle is that a user can type anything into a single place, the Omnibox, and instantly get suggestions on where to go, gleaned from the user’s own browsing history and Google’s rankings of popular sites. Whether you type in a Web address or a search term, the Omnibox is very smart. In my tests, it sometimes came up with the right destination after I typed only one or two letters of the name of a site I often visited.

The Omnibox has another cool feature: Tab-to-Search. If you type in the name of another site that includes its own search feature, like Amazon.com, the Omnibox lets you just press the tab key to search within that site, without opening it first. Chrome, through its Options settings, also lets you change the default search engine used by the Omnibox. Instead of Google’s own search service, you can use Microsoft’s Live search, Yahoo search, or others.

The third big principle behind Chrome is that each tab runs, under the hood, as a separate browser. Tabs can be dragged off the main browser and turned into separate windows. If one tab crashes, the rest of the browser keeps running. But this doesn’t work perfectly. In my tests, all of Chrome died on me when I tried watching an Olympics video on the NBC site.

You can even make a tab a standalone application that runs from the Start Menu, or the desktop, as if it was a separate program.

Chrome has a few other key features. When you open a new tab, you don’t get a blank page, but a set of thumbnails for your most-visited pages, plus lists of recent search engines you’ve used, recently used bookmarks and recently closed tabs.

Like other browsers, Chrome puts up a warning when you try to visit a malicious or phony Web site, and it has a private browsing mode, called Incognito, which allows you to browse without leaving any history on your computer — a feature popularized in Safari.

Chrome also has a pop-up blocker, but it’s annoying because it flashes a notice that a pop-up has been blocked. IE also does this, but unlike in Chrome, the warnings are much less intrusive.

Internet Explorer 8 has some new features Chrome lacks. Its private browsing mode, called InPrivate, is the first I’ve seen that not only leaves no traces on your own computer, but also bars Web sites from collecting some types of information on where you’ve previously been surfing.

While IE8’s address box and search box remain separate, each also offers rapid suggestions; and both are organized better than Chrome’s. For instance, the suggestions that drop down from its address bar are divided neatly into categories drawn from the browser’s own guess, your history and your favorites. One downside: For this to work in Windows XP, you must first install Microsoft’s desktop search product.

Like Chrome, IE8 lets you switch your default search provider, but it also allows you to switch search engines on the fly. When you type in a search term, icons for alternate search engines appear at the bottom of the suggestion list, and you need only click on these to see search results from, say, Google, instead of Microsoft’s own Live search engine.

IE8’s Accelerators feature presents a blue-arrow icon above any text on a Web page that you have selected. Clicking on the icon brings up a list of actions you can take using the selected text, such as posting it to a blog, emailing it, mapping it or searching it. While these actions are set by default to use Microsoft’s own Web services, you can change them to use Google’s, Yahoo’s, or those from other companies.

Microsoft also has built in a feature called Web Slices. These are portions of a Web site that a site developer can designate to appear in the IE8 Favorites bar and to constantly update themselves. An example might be bidding on eBay.

Like Chrome, IE8 also displays useful information whenever you create a new tab, including a list of recently closed tabs and a list of Accelerators.

With the emergence of Chrome, consumers have a new and innovative browser choice, and with IE8, the new browser war is sure to be a worthy contest.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

This contrast has appeared sharper in recent years, as Microsoft’s Windows Vista operating system received a tepid critical response compared with Apple’s Leopard platform and as the company’s Live Web search service has slipped further behind Google’s. In addition, Microsoft’s cellphone software, Windows Mobile, looks old and creaky compared with Apple’s sleek iPhone and Google’s forthcoming Android mobile operating system.

But innovation does exist at Microsoft’s sprawling Redmond, Wash., campus. For instance, last year’s daring and radical redesign of Microsoft Office has been a critical and commercial success.

Now, there’s a sort of guerrilla team inside Microsoft designed to churn out innovative products more often and more rapidly. Called Live Labs, the unit is a small operation that aims to turn technology theories into real, Web-based products relatively quickly. It has only about 125 employees, and even that modest number is broken up into smaller teams tackling specific projects.

This week, Microsoft Live Labs is releasing its first broad consumer Web service, called Photosynth. This service turns multiple photos of a scene or site — say, an art gallery or a building — into a 3-D scene you can virtually “walk” through on the Web.

Unlike a simple 2-D panorama, which many photo programs can create from several pictures, a Photosynth creation, called a “synth,” is a virtual 3-D environment. It gives you the feeling you are in the middle of a room looking around, or circumnavigating a building or object. You can travel through a scene both laterally and vertically, and zoom in to see detailed, higher-resolution views of objects inside the synth, such as paintings on a wall.

For instance, you don’t just see a long, flat picture of Stonehenge or the Grand Canal in Venice. You are made to feel you are there, moving through these places, looking up at the sky or down at the ground, and pausing to examine more closely a particular stone, boat or building.

Such 3-D walk-through images have been around for awhile; they are used on some real-estate Web sites, for example, to show houses virtually. But Photosynth allows anyone to create them using any standard digital camera, and even using pictures you already possess that weren’t created with Photosynth in mind. You could even use photos of the same site taken by several people. The software will analyze the pictures, figure out which ones overlap and in what order, and then turn those shots that match up into a 3-D synth.

Photosynth, based on technology Microsoft acquired in 2006, is entirely free, and it’s entirely based on the Web, at photosynth.net (where it will be launched at midnight EST Thursday). At that site you can view not only your own synths, but the synths created by every other Photosynth user.

I’ve been testing this service for about a week, and while it has its flaws, I believe that Photosynth offers a dramatic new way to use your photos and to share them with others.

Photosynth works within a Web browser, using a small plug-in you install. Currently, it works only in Windows, using Microsoft’s own Internet Explorer browser or its rival, Firefox. A Macintosh version is in the works, but for now, you can’t even view others’ synths in the Mac operating system.

When Photosynth works right, the results are wonderfully satisfying. But it takes some skill to get a set of photos the service can match up well, a quality Microsoft calls being “synthy.” Ideally, portions of each slice of a 3-D scene should show up in at least three photos, with 50% overlap between them. After you upload your pictures and Photosynth does its best to make them into a 3-D scene, the service assigns them a percentage number that indicates how synthy they were.

In my tests, I tried both collections of photos I already possessed and some I snapped with Photosynth in mind. My pictures of a piazza in Verona, Italy, were only 38% synthy, while ones I took of a hotel room specifically for Photosynth use were 73% synthy.

One gripe I had was that Photosynth doesn’t tell you how synthy your pictures are until after you have uploaded them and waited until the system merges them, a process that can take a long time over a slow Internet connection. It would be much better if the service could tell you in advance how synthy the pictures are. Another objection is that Photosynth has no privacy settings. All your synths are open to viewing by everyone who uses the service.

But, overall, Photosynth is an impressive new way to view and share photos, and an encouraging sign that innovation and creativity still live in Redmond.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

But what if you only have a standard cellphone with a lousy Web browser — or even the best Web-browsing phone, but it lacks a fast data connection? What if you’re speeding down the road in a car, where typing is dangerous?

Now, there’s a way to get your questions answered despite those hurdles. It’s a free cellphone service that lets you ask any question answerable via a Web search, using any cellphone, by simply making a voice call. It’s called ChaCha, and I’ve been testing it out.

To use ChaCha, you just dial 800-2chacha (800-224-2242) and state your question. In a few minutes, you’ll get an answer via text message. In one test, I asked ChaCha who was the winning pitcher in the previous night’s Red Sox victory against the Yankees. In a few minutes, I received a text message with the correct answer: Daisuke Matsuzaka.

ChaCha requires no registration and works on any cellphone carrier. It needs no special codes or key words. You just state your question as if you were asking a friend. If you prefer to type your question, you can text it to “ChaCha,” or 242242. Though ChaCha itself charges no fees, your phone carrier may charge for the minutes you use, or for the text messages.

The service works by routing your questions to one of 10,000 hired “guides” — students, stay-at-home parents, retirees and others — who look up the questions on the Web and reply. They get paid 20 cents per answer.

Naturally, these guides vary as to their speed and accuracy. If you don’t like the answers they give you, or you want related information, you can call back or reply to the text message with a follow-up question. For instance, after learning which pitcher had won for Boston, I asked who lost the game for New York. I was quickly informed it was Phil Hughes.

Overall, I liked ChaCha. In most cases, I received fast, accurate, useful answers. But it has two weaknesses. One is that the low-paid, part-time guides can provide inconsistent service. When I asked for the best Mexican restaurant in D.C., for example, ChaCha came up with a choice that few locals would cite.

The other is that, unlike many other cellphone information services, ChaCha doesn’t automatically know your location. So, unless you include a location in your query, it’s clueless about questions such as “Where’s the nearest drugstore?”

ChaCha is hardly the only information service for cellphones. Google offers a text-message service where you can ask questions on a wide variety of topics, and a voice-based service that locates businesses near your location. Microsoft’s TellMe subsidiary just introduced a voice-based service that answers location-specific questions about businesses, weather, traffic and movies, and displays the answers on the screens of BlackBerrys.

But these competitors are more limited than ChaCha in key respects. Google’s broader mobile-search service, Google SMS, requires that questions be sent via text message using special key words. Its voice service, Goog411, finds only local businesses. TellMe’s new service is limited to location-based information and works only on certain phones.

I tested ChaCha using three very different phones: a cheap, bare-bones Samsung flip phone from Sprint; a midrange Motorola Razr from Verizon; and an Apple iPhone running on AT&T. I asked questions via voice and text from various locations, including my car, where I used a hands-free microphone.

I asked about sports, TV shows, journalism, history, weather, nutrition, demographics and shopping. ChaCha handled most of these inquiries correctly and was able to fix most of its errors after I asked follow-up questions. For each question, it sends two text messages: one restating your query and saying it’s working on it, and the second containing the answer.

Each ChaCha answer is accompanied by a Web link. If your phone has a decent browser, you can go to that link to learn who the guide was, and what his or her Web-site source was.

ChaCha gave me the weekend weather forecast in Boston, the date of death of Abigail Adams and the cast of the TV show “Brothers & Sisters.” It provided Peyton Manning’s salary and the sodium content of a McDonald’s quarter pounder. Its most impressive performance came when it correctly answered an obscure historical question: “When was the Gaspee burned?” The Gaspee was a British tax-collection ship burned in Rhode Island in 1772 in what is often considered the first act of war of the American Revolution.

The company is working on adding automated location knowledge, at least on certain carriers and phones. For now, you can tell it your location by sending a special command via text message. But even without the location features, ChaCha is a fun and useful service.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

Corrections & Amplifications

ChaCha, a mobile-phone search service, is incompatible with several small U.S. cellphone carriers. This column incorrectly said that the service works on any cellphone carrier, based on incorrect information supplied by the company.

Starting this week, just such a smarter navigation box is hitting the market. Called the Dash Express, this $400 product looks a lot like units from better-known firms such as Garmin (GRMN) and Magellan. Like them, it uses GPS satellite signals to locate your car on an easily seen map, and to route you to destinations and places of interest, using both visual and spoken instructions.

But, unlike any other in-car navigation device I’ve seen, each Dash Express, from a Silicon Valley start-up called Dash Navigation, becomes part of a network, connected to the company via the Internet. Each device not only receives and displays information, but transmits it as well, acting as a “probe,” as Dash calls it, to measure local traffic speeds. This information is compiled by the company and then broadcast back to all other Dash units in your area, almost instantly painting streets on your map with color codes to indicate traffic speeds.

I’ve been testing a Dash Express in and around my home base of Washington, D.C., and, while it isn’t perfect, I like it a lot. If the company sells enough units to create a solid network, Dash could radically improve in-car navigation.

That “if” is the big catch with Dash — in order to get its special benefits, enough units must be sold in your city to feed the network with sufficient traffic data. According to the company, for most cities just “several hundred” units would be enough to provide more than half of the significant traffic data it requires for major roads during normal commuting hours.

Meanwhile, Dash, like some of its competitors, makes use of limited traffic data provided by a commercial vendor. This information, which mainly covers major highways, is presented as a dotted line on the Dash maps, to indicate that it may be stale. By contrast, fresh input from Dash’s own network is presented as a solid line.

For the next 30 days, the Dash Express will be available exclusively at Amazon.com (AMZN) for $399.99. You get three free months of Dash’s service, including traffic and other features, such as wireless map updates. After that, the service costs between $9.99 and $12.99 a month. That fee includes the cost of the Internet connection used by the Dash Express, which is achieved using both cellphone and Wi-Fi networks.

To test the Dash, I had to create a tiny two-car network. My colleague Katie Boehret and I each drove the same route in Dash-equipped cars, about 15 minutes apart. The route included everything from the smallest residential streets to large local commuter arteries to the jammed Washington Beltway.

Katie went first, and by the time I retraced her route, my Dash unit’s screen was ablaze with solid-color streets indicating the traffic speeds she had encountered: green for free-flowing traffic, yellow for moderate congestion, red for stop-and-go conditions. Even two-lane local roads, the kind where traffic data are almost never available, were colored in.

Once Dash begins selling, the company won’t rely much on the information provided by a single driver like we did. It will average and weight the information it receives, to eliminate odd results from especially fast or slow drivers, and to emphasize the newest data. Each Dash reading will time out after no more than 25 minutes, turning solid lines into dotted ones as a warning that the information may be old.

I did run into a couple of glitches during the test. For one small road Katie had traveled, I received no Dash data. And on the return trip, Dash tried to route me right into a Beltway traffic jam, even though its screen showed that area in red. The company is working a future feature, called My Route, that would allow savvy drivers to order the device to use the local routes they prefer, to avoid such jams.

Dash Express has a host of other nice features, explained online at dash.net. Instead of giving you one route to your destination, it offers three choices, one of which supposedly incorporates current traffic conditions. It allows you to type in a destination on a personalized MyDash Web page and have that address sent wirelessly to your Dash unit, ready to be selected. You could even have a colleague or friend send you a destination while you are driving, so you don’t have to pull over to type it in or, worse, try typing while driving.

And the Dash also connects to the Internet to perform searches for local businesses, and then routes you there. Plus, you can create your own lists of favorite places and points of interest, or share those created by others and send these to your Dash from the MyDash Web site.

Dash Express finally brings the power of the Internet, and of community information, to auto navigation. If it becomes popular, it could be a big deal.

• Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. Find all my columns and videos online, free, at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

There are two models for this legal Internet distribution. Some shows and movies can be purchased or rented from services like Apple’s iTunes or Amazon’s Unbox. You pay a fee for these downloads, which don’t have commercials, and you can keep any videos you buy to watch repeatedly even without an Internet connection.

The other model, common on the Web sites of the TV networks, is free, ad-supported streaming directly within a Web browser. In this approach, you pay nothing, but you have to watch commercials that can’t be skipped. You must be connected to the Internet while watching, and you don’t get to keep the video.

This week, the ad-supported, streaming approach took a big leap forward with the launch of a Hollywood-backed service called Hulu, at hulu.com. Hulu aims to be a legal, one-stop shop for streaming of TV shows and movies from numerous networks and studios. It’s intended as an attractive antidote to pirate sites and to Google’s YouTube service, which has angered the media companies by allowing users to post all or parts of movies and TV shows without permission or payment.

Hulu is a joint effort of two big media conglomerates, NBC Universal and News Corp., each of which operates multiple networks and studios. (News Corp. also owns The Wall Street Journal and the Web sites where this column is published.) But Hulu contains programming from other companies as well, including Sony and Time Warner. All told, it offers full episodes or clips from about 400 TV series, plus 100 feature films.

I’ve been testing Hulu, and I am very impressed with its design and ease of use, and with the fact that it allows users to edit and re-publish its content on their own sites. Despite some drawbacks, it’s the first Web property I’ve seen from mainstream studios or networks that shows a real understanding of both modern Web design and the Internet’s culture of sharing. In my view, it’s far better than the typical network or studio Web site.

Even though Hulu lacks programming from ABC, CBS and many cable networks, it has a fair selection of popular shows, such as “30 Rock,” “The Office,” “The Simpsons,” “Battlestar Galactica” and “Saturday Night Live.” Its movie catalog includes old favorites like “The Usual Suspects,” “The Big Lebowski” and “Sideways.”

The site is organized in a clean, elegant manner. You can browse shows alphabetically, by genre or by network, or you can use an excellent search system. The search system even brings up links to videos of shows on other sites, such as ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy,” that are missing from Hulu’s own collection.

Watching the material is a pleasure. You can view it in a fixed window or in full-screen view. You can also “pop out” the viewing window so you can place it anywhere on your screen and resize it to your liking. A feature called “lower lights” grays out everything on the computer screen but the video itself.

Even the advertising is relatively painless. TV shows contain just 25% of the commercial time that’s on regular TV. And Hulu allows you, in some cases, to choose the advertisers whose commercials you see, or else to opt to watch a movie trailer at the start of a video in exchange for seeing no further ads during that viewing.

In a break with Hollywood’s past rigidity, Hulu makes it easy to share, even edit, shows and clips. You can repost an entire video, or any portion of it, on your own blog or on social networking sites.

But Hulu also has some major downsides. Most important, Hulu lacks depth. Even with TV series from its owners’ own networks, Hulu typically contains only a small number of full-length episodes, and mainly offers short clips. In some cases, episodes expire after a while. For some shows, such as “Saturday Night Live,” there aren’t any full episodes, only clips. And the wildly popular “American Idol” isn’t in Hulu at all, even though it airs on News Corp.’s Fox network.

This stands in stark contrast to the depth offered on iTunes, where you can find multiple seasons of full episodes of many shows. And it doesn’t begin to compete with pirate sites, where you can find nearly everything.

Also, Hulu requires a decent broadband connection — a speed of at least 1 megabit per second is recommended, and even higher speeds are needed for some content. That means that using Hulu over the slowest DSL lines or cellphone modem cards will likely provide a poor experience.

Another problem is that, unlike iTunes or Amazon Unbox, Hulu can’t be used via a TV set-top box or a portable player. And shows can’t be saved for offline viewing, such as during flights.

Still, Hulu is a good start for Hollywood in finally providing a better experience for Internet streaming of TV and movies. If the service can add a lot more content and make viewing possible in more scenarios, it might strike a real blow against piracy.

Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. Find all my columns and videos online, free, at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

Back in January, when I reviewed the massive new operating system, which took more than five years to develop, I called it “unexciting” because many of the breakthrough features Microsoft had planned for it had been jettisoned, and most of the rest were already present in the rival Apple Macintosh operating system, OS X.

But I also said it was “worthy,” and better than prior versions of Windows, because it has a stronger security system under the hood and better integrated searching.

Over the ensuing months, however, Vista has proved to be a disappointment, even though Microsoft says it’s selling like hotcakes. Based on my own experience and on reports from readers, it’s clear that many Vista PCs start up more slowly than new PCs running its predecessor, Windows XP, or than even well-worn Macs. And there is still a significant compatibility problem: Too many software and hardware products still don’t run, or don’t run properly, with Vista.

So, if you’re shopping for a new Windows computer, one of your first decisions is whether you want to get Vista, which comes on almost all new models, or to stick with Windows XP. PC makers are still offering XP on a few new consumer PCs. For instance, Dell offers four consumer laptops and two consumer desktops that can be ordered with XP.

Buying XP will likely result in fewer frustrations in the short run. But buying Vista may be the better choice for the long run. Over time, more and more products will be released that are tailored to the new system.

Your other option is to shun the Windows dilemma and buy a Macintosh. I regard the Mac operating system as superior to Windows, and Apple embeds it in beautifully designed machines. Macs have been spared the plague of viruses and spyware that afflicts Windows, and have better built-in multimedia software.

But, if you’re thinking of buying a Mac, it makes sense to wait a few weeks or months to gauge the early reviews and user reactions to Apple’s own new version of its operating system, called Leopard, due out Oct. 26. After that date, Apple won’t build in the current version of OS X, called Tiger, on new machines.

Here are some tips if you’re shopping for a new Windows PC this fall. They apply to desktop PCs and to most mainstream laptops, though there are additional considerations, such as size and weight and battery life, for smaller laptops meant primarily for travel. As always, these recommendations are intended for average consumers doing average tasks, not for heavy gamers, video professionals, or corporate buyers.

Operating system: If you opt for Vista, the best choice for average consumers is a version called Home Premium, which includes all of the new graphics and multimedia features. Many low-end PCs have only a stripped-down version called Home Basic. Some people may need Vista Business, a version that can link to some kinds of corporate networks that the two Home varieties can’t. If your budget allows, you can get an expensive version called Ultimate that includes the features of both the Home and Business versions.

Junk software: Most Windows consumer models are stuffed with “craplets” — crippled trial versions of programs. They take up space and can slow down the machine. One way to avoid these is to buy a so-called business PC, like one of Dell’s new Vostro models. Dell also allows you to opt out of trial software, especially when ordering its pricier XPS models. Many other manufacturers make this hard or impossible, especially if you buy a PC at a retail store. But the stores may clean up a new PC for a fee.

Memory: Buy at least one gigabyte of memory for Home Basic and at least two gigabytes for all other Vista versions.

Video: Vista’s flashy graphical interface works best with a separate, or “discrete,” graphics card that has its own memory. Some “integrated” graphics systems work fine, too, but they claim some of your main memory via an approach called shared memory.

Processor: Any “dual-core” processor from Intel or AMD should be fine for Vista. Don’t worry about processor speed. Buying added memory does more for performance.

Hard drive: Don’t scrimp on storage space, unless you are absolutely certain you won’t be saving many photos, songs or videos. Even an average PC should come with 300 gigabytes of hard-disk space for a reasonable price.

Performance: If you’re shopping in a retail store, try to check the performance rating Microsoft builds into Vista. It’s available by clicking “Show more details” in Vista’s “Welcome Center” screen. If this rating is below 3.0 on a Home Premium model, avoid the computer. For best results, shoot for 3.5 or higher.

Price: You can get a bargain-basement computer for under $400. But, for a versatile Vista PC with Home Premium, two gigabytes of memory, discrete video, a large hard disk and a dual-core processor, you should expect to spend $800 or more.

Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. Find all my columns and videos online free at the new All Things Digital web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

The result is a polished, fairly powerful email program that I prefer to Google’s much-hyped Gmail, which is undergoing an even longer gestation. It has been in beta status since April 2004.

I’ve been testing the new Yahoo Mail on both Windows and Macintosh computers. It has some downsides, but it beats Gmail, in my view, both in terms of features and in terms of its ability to act like a standard computer program rather than a Web page, something for which Gmail often gets more credit.

A closer competitor to Yahoo Mail is actually Microsoft’s Hotmail, now called Windows Live Hotmail. But Yahoo tops Hotmail, too, in my opinion.

The new Yahoo Mail, which works in Internet Explorer and Firefox on Windows, and in Firefox on the Macintosh, is now more than just an email program. Like Gmail, but unlike Hotmail, it has a built-in instant-messaging module. You can choose to communicate with any of your contacts via a real-time chat, right from within Yahoo Mail, as long as that contact is online and has an IM account on either the Yahoo or Microsoft instant-messaging networks. You don’t need to be running your IM program.

Unlike either of its competitors, however, the new Yahoo Mail also allows you to exchange text messages with people on cellphones, although the message exchange must be initiated from Yahoo Mail.

Yahoo Mail offers unlimited storage of emails and attachments free of charge, and a very fast and good search capability — like Gmail’s — so you can keep years of messages on hand and retrieve them quickly. Gmail offers 2.9 gigabytes of storage free. It sells extra storage for prices ranging from $20 a year for six gigabytes to $500 a year for 250 gigabytes. Hotmail is in the process of boosting its storage to five gigabytes, free, and 10 gigabytes for $20 a year.

With Yahoo Mail, you can send attachments of up to 10 megabytes per message and 20 megabytes if you opt for a $20-a-year plan that also eliminates the annoying banner ads that litter the free version. Gmail offers attachments of up to 20 megabytes free. Hotmail allows 10 megabyte attachments and 20 megabytes under its $20-a-year plan, which also banishes ads. Gmail has no banner ads, just text ads that run alongside the emails and can’t be eliminated.

This new Yahoo Mail is gradually being rolled out in coming weeks. The company still plans to retain the older version of Yahoo Mail, now called Classic, for people who prefer it, or for those using browsers that are incompatible with the new version, such as Apple’s Safari.

The new Yahoo Mail allows you to do things that once were impossible in a Web-based email program. For instance, you can drag messages to new folders, or select a group of messages in the same way you would with a standard email program, to delete them or mark them as read or unread. Unlike in Gmail, when you right-click on a message you get a list of options that pertain to the mail program — like “Reply to Sender” — instead of options that pertain to the use of the browser — like “Add to Favorites.”

Also, Yahoo Mail features a very nice tabbed interface that Gmail and Hotmail lack. With this interface, which is separate from the browser’s own tabs, you could have your inbox in one tab, an instant-message or text-message conversation going on in another and a new email you are composing occupying yet another. You can move among these tabs without losing the content in any of them.

And like Hotmail but not Gmail, Yahoo Mail offers a preview pane, like Microsoft’s Outlook, so you can see the contents of an email without opening it. Gmail offers just a “snippet” of the message content. Unlike Gmail, which forces you to view your emails as bunched-up “conversations,” Yahoo Mail — like Hotmail — displays them as a standard email program does, sorting them by date, sender, subject or size.

So what are the downsides of Yahoo Mail?

Well, the biggest is probably that unless you pay for the $20-a-year premium plan, you can’t view your Yahoo mail account in a standard email program such as Outlook or Apple Mail. Gmail allows this free of charge. Hotmail allows it free in Outlook and in Windows Mail, though it will soon announce the capability for other email programs for premium members and, eventually, for free members as well.

Also, I found Yahoo Mail could sometimes be slow. When I created a new folder and tried to drag 200 emails into it, I was warned that I couldn’t do that because the new folder was “still being created.”

But overall, Yahoo did a really good job making its online mail program versatile, powerful and accessible.

Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. Find all my columns and videos online free at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.