The arrival of a large update like this isn’t a sign of trouble, or even unusual. Microsoft has routinely issued these large “service packs” periodically for Windows. And just this week, its competitor, Apple, unleashed an even larger update for its new operating system, Leopard.

Even though they can take a long time to download and install, such updates are generally a good thing for consumers. Microsoft will automatically deliver SP1, as the company calls it, through its normal updating mechanism, built into Windows. The update is free.

However, based on my tests of Vista SP1, I believe that for most average consumers, it will likely be a nonevent, and for others it will be disappointing. Many of its benefits are aimed at corporations and power users, or are under-the-hood fixes that are hard to discern. For mainstream users, it adds no significant, visible features to Vista, and changes little or nothing about the way the operating system looks and works.

Also, SP1 doesn’t resolve some of the most annoying flaws in Vista, including slow start-ups and reboots, and a security system that nags you too much and requires add-on anti-virus software. I guess these problems will either never be fixed fully or will have to wait for SP2.

While Vista SP1 does deliver some performance improvements in certain scenarios, it can actually temporarily degrade performance — including making reboots even slower — because of a quirk in the update process. This slowdown should go away in a few days, the company says.

On balance, the update is probably worth installing, especially since Microsoft will deliver it automatically. But I wouldn’t rush to grab it and I wouldn’t expect much from it. One note: you can’t install SP1 until you have installed a couple of other patches first. These will also be distributed automatically.

I installed Vista SP1 on two computers that had come with the original Vista preinstalled: a 10-month-old Sony Vaio SZ laptop and a two-month-old Dell XPS One desktop. Because the automatic download distribution isn’t yet in place, Microsoft sent me the update on a disk, which also included the prerequisite patches. In each case, the upgrade took a little over an hour and went smoothly. During the process, the computers rebooted multiple times, but it was all automatic and didn’t require user intervention.

After the installation, the computers functioned normally. I tested three of the performance improvements Microsoft claims for SP1. The first involved speeding up the copying of hefty folders containing large numbers of files. On both machines, copying a folder containing over 700 files totaling almost 700 megabytes took less than half as long with SP1 as it had with the original Vista.

I also tested how long it took both machines to awaken from a hibernation or sleep state and be ready for work. For these tests, I began with each machine running Microsoft Word, Microsoft Outlook and the Firefox Web browser, then I forced them into sleep and hibernation mode.

By my definition, “ready for work” means that Vista’s circular delay indicator has gone away, the software that loads at start-up has finished launching and the computer has fully reconnected to its wired or wireless network. On both of my test machines, SP1 improved the recovery time from sleep or hibernation, shaving one to 10 seconds from the procedures.

Microsoft doesn’t claim SP1 will improve the speed of cold starts and reboots under Vista, but I tested these anyway. To my horror, I found that SP1 actually made rebooting — already slower than on comparable Windows XP computers or Macintoshes — even slower.

Microsoft explained that this was due to the fact that installing SP1 erases certain data used by Vista to speed up program launching. It takes the system a few days to build this data back up, the company says. Until then, it says, overall performance, including reboots, can be slower under SP1 than under original Vista.

Microsoft provided me with a method that would rebuild this program-launching data more quickly, at least for the common programs I was using in my tests. Once I followed that method, rebooting time returned to its former state — still too slow for my taste, but at least not worse.

In briefing me on SP1, Microsoft made a big point of saying that great progress had been made in the past year in making Vista work properly with add-on devices, such as printers. I tried my 2003-vintage Hewlett-Packard printer, which hadn’t worked properly with the original Vista. It still didn’t work well with SP1.

So, Vista SP1 is a step forward, at least after a few days of use. But it’s not a big step.

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.

But in recent weeks, I’ve been bombarded by reader emails asking for Mac-buying advice. So, here’s a quick guide — a sort of Mac FAQ — to shopping for a Macintosh. As with my Windows guides, this is aimed at average, mainstream users doing typical tasks, not techies or businesses or hobbyists.

Q. Who should consider a Mac?

A. Pretty much every average consumer using a computer should at least look at the Mac. It combines gorgeous hardware with an operating system I consider superior to Windows, with better built-in software. It can even run Windows programs if you buy and install a copy of Windows. And unless you do that, you won’t be vulnerable to the vast array of viruses and spyware that threaten Windows users. Only a handful, so far, have been written to run on the Mac operating system, OS X.

Q. Who shouldn’t consider the Mac?

A. People who spend much of their time playing cutting-edge games should stick to Windows computers, because there are far fewer games written for OS X. Apple doesn’t offer hardware tuned for serious gaming. People looking for the lowest-price PCs should also avoid the Mac, because Apple’s cheapest model, the Mac Mini, costs $599.

Another group that should shun Apple’s computers are people who depend for support on corporate IT departments that are either ignorant about, or hostile to, the Mac. Finally, if you know and like Windows, and expect mainly to use Windows programs, stick with a Windows PC.

Q. Can I run Microsoft Office on a Mac?

A. Yes. Microsoft makes a Mac version of Office, which uses the same file formats that Word, Excel and PowerPoint for Windows have used for years. A new version of Office for the Mac is due in January and it will handle the new file formats Microsoft introduced this year. But the Mac version of Office omits Outlook. It has a similar program called Entourage, but Entourage can’t use Outlook data files. If you want a Mac but must have Outlook, you will have to install Windows.

Q. Can I use all my Windows files on a Mac?

A. Out of the box, Macs can handle all the common file types Windows machines create, including text files, pictures, songs and Adobe PDF files. The Mac even comes with a simple word processor that can open Microsoft Word files.

However, some specialized Windows programs create files that the Mac can’t handle out of the box. And the Mac version of Quicken has a difficult time properly handling Windows Quicken files. If you are a Quicken fan, install Windows and run the Windows version.

Q. Can I mix Macs and Windows on the same home network?

A. Macs can plug and play with most brand-name wired and wireless routers, and can share Internet connections with Windows PCs.

Q. How are Macs at Web surfing?

A. Fine. Apple’s built-in Safari browser is very good and the Mac version of Firefox is essentially identical to the Windows version. However, Macs lack an up-to-date version of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, so you will have to install Windows if you need IE.

Q. Can Macs run standard peripheral hardware?

A. Macs can run nearly all keyboards, mice and printers that use USB connections, even ones that don’t explicitly say they run on Macs.

Q. What desktops does Apple offer for consumers?

A. Apple’s main consumer desktop is the one-piece iMac, which I regard as the best consumer desktop on the market. It comes in four models, with built-in 20-inch or 24-inch, flat-panel screens at starting prices ranging from $1,199 to $2,299.

Q. How about Mac laptops?

A. There are two. The entry-level MacBook has a 13-inch screen and a starting price of $1,099. The high-end MacBook Pro comes with either a 15-inch or 17-inch screen and starts at $1,999. Apple currently doesn’t offer a smaller laptop for road warriors, but there are persistent rumors that it will do so soon.

Q. What minimum specs should I look for on a Mac?

A. All Macs come with at least one gigabyte of memory — twice the minimum required for the new version of OS X, called Leopard. If you can, get two gigabytes. Apple charges a lot for extra memory, but you can buy it for less at stores and online providers.

Macs use the same dual-core Intel processors and graphics systems as many mainstream Windows computers; and, as with Windows, I wouldn’t pay extra for greater processor speed.

The iMac comes with at least a 250-gigabyte hard disk, and Mac laptop hard disks start at 80 gigabytes. Mainstream Windows desktops typically start with larger hard disks. But Apple offers much larger disks as options, which you should consider if you store a lot of photos, music and video files.

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.

Kodak’s main weapon in this new war is cheaper ink. Traditionally, H-P and other makers have sold the printers for relatively little, then made most or all of their money on the ink cartridges.

So, Kodak decided to reverse that business model. Its three new printers start at $149.99, not sub-$100 bargain prices. But its black ink cartridges cost just $9.99, and the color ones — which combine five color inks — just $14.99. And these are standard-capacity cartridges, not small or starter versions. Comparable H-P cartridges vary in price, but can easily cost double that, or more.

Kodak hopes consumers will be willing to spend more upfront for the printer to save later on the ink.

In a counter-move, H-P announced Tuesday that it will also be introducing new lower-price cartridges. But these new low-end cartridges will work only on future printers (and a few very recent models). And they will hold less ink than today’s standard. Plus, they will still cost more than Kodak’s cartridges: $14.99 for black and $17.99 for the combined color versions. H-P will also start selling larger-capacity “value” cartridges for the new printers that will cost about twice as much as the low-end ink, but print up to triple the number of pages.

How good are Kodak’s new printers? After all, cheaper ink isn’t really a bargain if the printer is lousy. To find out, I’ve been testing Kodak’s midrange model, the EasyShare 5300, which costs $199.99. It’s an “all-in-one” machine that combines a printer with a flatbed copier and scanner.

I compared this new Kodak with a roughly comparable all-in-one H-P model, the Photosmart C6180. This particular H-P model costs $100 more than the Kodak, because it includes some additional features. But H-P says that this printer has the same printing, scanning and copying quality and speeds, in the typical scenarios I tested, as H-P’s C5180, the direct competitor of the Kodak 5300, which costs the same.

My conclusion was that the Kodak EasyShare 5300 is a pretty good printer, with a good enough combination of quality, speed and functionality to satisfy people attracted by the lower ink costs. In my tests, it was better than the H-P at some things and worse at others.

One caveat: I didn’t try to verify Kodak’s claim that, overall, its printouts cost a lot less than H-P’s. Such claims depend on very specific sorts of test files produced and tested in labs. H-P disputes Kodak’s testing methodology and claims that Kodak’s printout costs are “about the same or only slightly lower than H-P’s.”

Also, the particular H-P models with which the Kodak printers most closely compare use a different ink system than most other H-P home inkjet printers. Instead of using one combined color cartridge that can cost over $30, they use five smaller separate ones that cost $9.99 each.

I decided to avoid settling this technical dispute and to just judge the printers using home photos and text pages from Microsoft Office that I considered typical. I used both printers at normal quality levels and didn’t enable any special quality or speed settings. I tested them with a Windows XP computer, though both printers also work with Macs and with the new Windows Vista.

In general, the H-P was a little faster, but not dramatically so. And the H-P has built-in networking, while the Kodak doesn’t. The H-P also has a better user interface, in my opinion. Kodak’s can be clumsy.

But the Kodak has a cool scanning feature the H-P lacks. You can place three or four photos on its glass plate at once and the printer will separate them automatically into individual images and scan them as separate files — as long as they aren’t aligned too crookedly. To do this on the H-P, you must manually draw lines around each photo with the H-P software.

When I compared plain-paper printouts, in black and white, and color, the printers were about equal in quality. The H-P was a tad faster, but the Kodak was plenty quick.

On photos, I had a mixed result. The 4×6 snapshots of family scenes came out better, to my eye, on the Kodak. They seemed sharper and brighter than the same files printed on the H-P. But I had just the opposite result when scanning several 20-year-old photos into the two machines. The resulting files produced by the H-P seemed sharper and brighter. The Kodak scans, while warmer, seemed fuzzier.

The worst feature of the Kodak is the way it switches between its plain-paper feed tray and its special separate tray for 4×6 snapshot-size photo paper. On the Kodak, you must manually push in and pull out the photo tray to switch between types of paper. The H-P handles this switch without any pushing or pulling.

Overall, however, the Kodak is a good enough first effort to get the company into the game.

• Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. See video versions of my reviews at wsj.com/mossbergvideo.

You know what I mean. You pull up a Web page, and you decide to print it out for easier reading, or for filing. But you wind up with one or more wasted pages, usually at the very end, consisting of mostly blank space with just one line of useless text — perhaps just a copyright notice. Or, you waste a lot of ink printing images on the Web page that aren’t germane to the article.

There are ways to minimize this. You could use the “printer friendly” option on many Web sites. That may eliminate some unwanted graphics and text, but not all, and it doesn’t solve the problem of the wasted page at the end. Or, you can use a print preview feature, hope the preview is accurate, and then manually try to adjust the range of pages printed. But this doesn’t always work and it’s time consuming.

Now, a start-up company in Portland, Ore., has come up with a software product that aims to solve the wasted-page problem. It’s called GreenPrint, and it automatically detects these unnecessary pages and eliminates them from your printouts. The company, GreenPrint Technologies, promises that its simple software not only will save you money on paper and ink, but also will help the environment by saving trees — thus, the name.

GreenPrint inserts itself between your Web browser (or any other program that prints) and your printer. It takes the form of a faux printer. You print to this virtual printer, called GreenPrint, as if it were real. Then, it analyzes the document, identifies and eliminates wasted pages, and hands the document off to your actual printer, which prints it.

The product also has some other nice features. It can save any Web page as a PDF file, which can be called up later in the free Adobe Reader program. It can also show you a detailed preview of a Web page, or any other document you’re printing, and allow you to manually eliminate pages from the printout.

GreenPrint costs $25 after a 14-day free trial (it goes to $35 after the holidays) and works only on Windows XP and Windows 2000 for now. A Macintosh version is planned for next summer. It’s available from the company’s Web site, printgreener.com.

I tested GreenPrint on two Windows computers. Each was connected to my home printer, an H-P DeskJet 5850 model, which automatically prints on both sides of the page.

In my tests, GreenPrint worked well, correctly identifying and eliminating wasted pages and properly creating PDF copies of Web pages. I tried it with both the Firefox and Internet Explorer Web browsers, and also with Microsoft Word, for non-Web documents.

After you install GreenPrint, it adds two new entries to your list of printers. One, called GreenPrint, is the virtual printer you use to eliminate the extra pages. The other, called GreenPrint PDF, is used to directly save Web pages and other documents as PDF files. GreenPrint doesn’t erase your actual printer from the Windows printer list. You can still select your regular printer and bypass GreenPrint, but you won’t get the benefits of GreenPrint. In fact, while it makes sense to make GreenPrint your default printer, you don’t have to do so.

GreenPrint can work automatically in the background. But, if you want to make sure it’s only eliminating unimportant pages, or if you want the opportunity to cull the printout manually, you should use its preview feature. This presents a very nice print preview, better than the one in the new IE 7 browser.

If you double-click on any page in this preview, it turns red and won’t be printed. You can also right-click on any page to have GreenPrint eliminate images or text before printing. From this preview screen, you can also save the document as a PDF file.

You can tweak how GreenPrint works. For instance, you can specify how few lines of text a page must display before it’s considered worthy of elimination. Or you can add or subtract other factors GreenPrint uses to decide if printing a page would be a waste, such as whether a page has nothing but a border, or nothing but a single image.

If you want, you can set the program to analyze and eliminate only the final page in a document, or to only display its preview if it finds a wasted page.

There are some rough edges, however, and the product is something of a work in progress. At first, GreenPrint wouldn’t allow my printer to print on both sides of the paper. I asked the manufacturer about that and the company quickly sent me a new version of the product that fixed the problem. GreenPrint also crashed several times in my tests after I changed configuration settings. The company says a new version that avoids those crashes will be available for download by the time you read this.

Overall, GreenPrint is a good product — a simple solution to an annoying and wasteful problem.

Email me at mossberg@wsj.com.