Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
which version of vista is most stable on the new alluminum macbook?
- Thread starter dinaluvsApple
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ignore Dmac77, he is nothing more than some kind of idiotic troll.
Anyway, the most stable version of Vista would of course be Service Pack 1. The SKU makes no difference. And of course you can get Service Pack for both 32-bit and 64-bit editions. Most new copies of Vista should already have SP1 integrated. If not, it will be available automatically via Windows Update.
And absolutely do not use Windows XP, which is less stable than Vista.
Anyway, the most stable version of Vista would of course be Service Pack 1. The SKU makes no difference. And of course you can get Service Pack for both 32-bit and 64-bit editions. Most new copies of Vista should already have SP1 integrated. If not, it will be available automatically via Windows Update.
And absolutely do not use Windows XP, which is less stable than Vista.
So if XP is so much less stable then Vista. Can you tell me why almost every company that uses Windows still uses XP? Are they ignorant trolls also?
Don
Because companies are not end users. They upgrade their software on a extremely periodic basis. Companies have tendencies to use old software that is rarely updated. Why do you think many servers run on Windows NT 4.0 or Windows Server 2000? Sure, there is always something newer that can be run, but businesses do not feel that the cost of deploying new software is a good investment of their expenditures. Newer software, such as moving from XP to Vista, for example, often requires more than just the costs of licensing. You also have to retrain employees, which can often cost more than the licenses would be worth.
There are businesses today that still run servers powered by Windows 3.1. They have not even moved to something like Windows NT 3.51. Again, because companies simply do not deploy most new software until it's rather quite old. Windows Server 2008 is extremely stable, but most businesses will generally not consider it until the first service pack (or the release of R2), because at this point, any potentially existing flaws will have been corrected.
Your are partially correct. But many companies that have considered upgrading have decided not to upgrade to Vista because of its instability. Intel is one company that won't even touch Vista.
And can you also explain why many end users won't "upgrade" to Vista? Companies like HP and Dell are offering computers with "downgrades" to XP, because people hate Vista. Vista is the second coming of ME, and the OP would be better off if he/she installed XP on their MB.
Don
No, the main reason people dislike Vista is because of Apple's successful marketing. They create so much FUD about perceived compatibility and stability issues that people fell for it. They now believe Vista is flawed. It also didn't help that XP had an unusually long shelf life.
Prior to XP, the average lifespan of a Windows OS version was about 2-3 years. Windows 3 came out in 1990, and was succeeded by Windows 3.1 in 1992. Three years later, Windows 95 came out. We then saw Windows 98 three years later, and Windows ME two years later. Windows XP came out the quickest, just a year later. But then, Windows XP had no successor until early 2007, so its shelf life was about five years. In those five years, people got more comfortable with XP than they otherwise would have. People got used to XP, so naturally, when they realized that Vista was a rather radical departure in terms of design and UI, of course they hated it. It didn't help that Apple was there every second of every day, proclaiming "broken" features like UAC and how they "copied" Mac OS X.
Did Vista have its problems? Yes, it did. Since it was almost a complete rebuild of the Windows kernel, lots of software that worked on Windows XP didn't work properly on Windows Vista. But people fail to remember that Windows XP had the exact same problems when it was new. But on the other hand, if you look past Vista's compatibility issues early in its life, it's really not suffered from any major issues. It has yet to suffer from any widespread worms, like the three major ones that shut down Windows XP machines during the summer of 2004. Of course it can get viruses, but most viruses are not particularly harmful, just annoying.
The fact is, that once Service Pack 1 was released around May of last year, Vista's compatibility issues had long been fixed, as updated drivers and software had been released for Vista.
And don't forget that Mac OS X hasn't been perfect, either. Leopard had issues when it was first released, such as compatibility issues between Tiger and Leopard. And after reading through many threads here about broken wireless, broken features and constant point releases, Leopard clearly isn't perfect, either.
You don't know the thread starter. To say that he's better off with Windows XP is nothing more than spreading FUD. You're always better off with newer software. If he goes with XP, he'll be using a kernel that is almost eight years old. The same kernel that even with SP3, still has hundreds and hundreds of known security exploits. I am, again, not implying that Vista is perfect, but it's far more stable and secure than Windows XP, and this is a fact. If he's running Boot Camp for the first time, there is absolutely no reason at all to even consider Windows XP in 2009. Windows Vista is what should be run, and I guarantee you that any and all popular Windows software will run on Vista, unless he has a preference for very old software from the Windows 9x days.
Companies offered it because users bought into the FUD that Vista was bad and wanted XP or they wouldn't buy their computers.
Fact of the matter is, Vista is far more stable and secure than XP was. The vast majority of instability early on in Vista was because of shoddy drivers written by other companies. In fact, Nvidia alone supposedly accuonts for 40% of driver failures. And don't even get me started about how Creative screwed everyone with their X-Fi drivers
And companies don't change to the newest thing immediately. First, companies have a lot of legacy software. Some engineering programs I've used still require DOS emulation. Some still have interfaces left over from Win 3.11
Second, companies tend to take time to asesess business need, costs, and forecasting, which rarely happen within a year. Add in negotiations for licenses, costs to get computers upgraded with the software etc., and you often see a lag time in implementation. XP wasn't widely accepted til SP1, and even among companies we didn't see that widespread change til SP2.
With Windows 7 looming in the near future, companies are already considering holding off on Vista until Win 7, which promises to use far fewer resources, a good move for productivity and it helps keep costs of upgrading cheaper.
Well, we all have our opinions and viewpoints.
What's most important in the end is to use the operating system that works best for you. If that's Mac OS X, that's great. If it's Windows 7, that's great. If it's a random Linux distro from 1992, then that's great, as well.
Damn you'll have to tell my gaming PC (Vista Ultimate 64bit) that it's not stable cause for some reason it hasn't had to be rebooted in over 2 months now. Plus it games nightly (WoW @ all highs, COD4, Left 4 Dead). Damn instability!
Well tell it to my iMac. That BSOD almost every time I used Vista on it. I took Vista off, installed XP and guess what. Not one BSOD. I still have Vista on a VAIO that my Mom uses, and she's stopped using it because of all the BSOD's she's gotten. And yes, I'm talking SP1 not the original release, in addition the VAIO is certified as "Windows Vista Ready", the VAIO will be going back to XP this weekend.
Don
I'd apologize for your experience but it's not my fault.
I'm fond of Vista Ultimate 64-bit on my MacBook.
I'd apologize for your experience but it's not my fault.
I'm fond of Vista Ultimate 64-bit on my MacBook.
I didn't ask anyone to feel sorry for me, and I'm not saying that it's anyones fault. I'm giving my opinion of Vista. I've used Vista and had horible experiences with it. Whereas digitard hasn't had problems with his PC. We all have different experiences, and I was just sharing mine to contrast the other posters' opinions.
Don
You guys went completely off subject from the OP.
You can use any edition of Vista. Vista is Vista, it'll be stable regardless of what edition. I personally go for Business (for something without Movie Maker, etc.) or Ultimate (if you have the funds).
You can use any edition of Vista. Vista is Vista, it'll be stable regardless of what edition. I personally go for Business (for something without Movie Maker, etc.) or Ultimate (if you have the funds).