Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Vista 5728 on macbook

N

noob17

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 24, 2006
94
1
i just installed vista 5728 on my macbook. It works fine, but when i tried to install the macbook drivers most of the devices installed but the installation doesnt finish and i get the following error message:
error 1603 fatal error during installation

then the installation is stopped then and there. i dont have access to isight and a few other devices that are set as unknown under device manager.
 
5728? Does that exen exist (Pre-RC1 is 5536, so why the big jump?)?
 
Yes, 5728 does exist. Most people on this forum won't have used any builds higher than 5600 though, so I don't know how much help we'll be.
 
I got a 1603 when installing the drivers in XP, becuase I accidentally installed Servive Pack 1. I don't see why there would be problems with Vista?:confused:
 
Nermal said:
Yes, 5728 does exist. Most people on this forum won't have used any builds higher than 5600 though, so I don't know how much help we'll be.
Click to expand...
Yeah, just did a Google, 5728 is RC1. I have Pre-RC1, which I *may* install on my MacBook again.
 
You can get build 5728 from http://download.windowsvista.com/preview/rc1/en/download-5728.htm
Edit: this build was available only for a short time - this link is now dead, and 5600 is the only one available to the public.

As for installing drivers, I didn't bother on my iMac. Everything seemed to work ok, not that I spent much time with it. I'm not particularly impressed.

Take away the eye candy, it all looks like a reskinned XP. All the menus look the same, the start button is rearranged, the sidebar (ie. Gadgets) is so incredibly annoying I turned it off as soon as I could find the option to do so, they still use the retarded A:, B:, C: etc drive labels and the backslash for directories, UAC is still too intrusive. They could write a similar skin for XP in three months and 99% of users wouldn't know the difference.

I know that there's more under the skin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista - but I'm just looking at what non-techie users would see. If I were exclusively a Windows user, I wouldn't see anything to make me want to upgrade.

I will be using it once it's released, since I'll need to test my code on it (as well as XP, various Linuxes and OS X), but my employers will supply a PC with it installed, and it can sit under my desk unused except for when I'm testing something.
 
5728 is available to MSDN subscribers and select public beta testers. this is the first release in the RTM code base. MS indicates that the RTM build will be 57xx, so they are on track to be finished by November.

haven't installed this build. after less than a day of 5600 installed i realized i have no need for it anymore, so i removed the partition. i'll just wait 'til final if it's only a month away. us MSDN people will get it a few months before retail which is nice. just one of the perks i get from work :D
 
@Plinden: Ive said that ever since Beta 2 was released. I know people say that theres differences code-wise but usually when theres drastic chages, it feels different. This just looks different and is a RAM hog. I have an aero skin on XP and it looks just like vista, but only has/needs 512 MB RAM. Microsoft really up-****ed this one :p Seriously, all it has different for the 99 percent of the people who will buy it (End-User) is that it is slow, looks better, and has wid-- I mean, gadgets.

@Fishkrop: Are you serious? Wow Microsoft is stupid, it will most certainly get leaked the day MSDN users recieve it.
 
plinden said:
Take away the eye candy, it all looks like a reskinned XP. All the menus look the same, the start button is rearranged, the sidebar (ie. Gadgets) is so incredibly annoying I turned it off as soon as I could find the option to do so, they still use the retarded A:, B:, C: etc drive labels and the backslash for directories, UAC is still too intrusive. They could write a similar skin for XP in three months and 99% of users wouldn't know the difference.

I know that there's more under the skin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista - but I'm just looking at what non-techie users would see.
Click to expand...
I agree. There are a number of good improvements being made (intrusive thought it may be, I think UAC is a very Good Thing™), even though some big features are getting left out this time around (like WinFS). But sans Aero, Vista feels a lot XP (use the classic Windows look and you probably wouldn't know the difference!). Whereas if you compare MacOS X 10.0 (or 10.1, to be fair) to 10.4 or 10.5, there's a really huge difference.
 
apfhex said:
(intrusive thought it may be, I think UAC is a very Good Thing™)
Click to expand...

The problem is that UAC pops up too much, to the point that it won't be long before users are just clicking OK without reading the things.
 
Nermal said:
The problem is that UAC pops up too much, to the point that it won't be long before users are just clicking OK without reading the things.
Click to expand...
Or disabling it totally. Linux and OS X have this right - I hardly ever get an admin login on OS X except when installing a program, and in Linux I'm smart enough to know when to use sudo (since I do a lot of installing and updating of my code rpms) but UAC pops up for just about everything that involves a change in Vista.
 
That's because the 5728 build was generally available only for a short time.

I'll post another link when/if another build is available.
 
Wow, bummer! I was thinking just now, as I sit here downloading RC1 for the first time, that RC1 was 5728.

I'm gonna subscribe to this post, and HOPE you can post a link if/when you find something for 5728! Thanks! :)
 
I haven't tried installing it yet, but I get:

83cee5f1642d094670147c5350c57762
 
plinden said:
I haven't tried installing it yet, but I get:

83cee5f1642d094670147c5350c57762
Click to expand...

I take your comment to mean that the image you downloaded has that sum, rather than that being the sum provided by MS.

Edit: I poked around on their site, 83cee5f1642d094670147c5350c57762 is correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back