sweet =)

Not that I would run Vista but boot camp kicks ass.

How would you know?

As one who has used Vista for about two weeks (just after launch), I don't plan on touching it again until SP1. XP is serving me just fine for my Windows box.

I have been using it as well on multiple machines and have had no trouble with it all.

But I'm not sure how that relates to my previous comment to Program86.

Apple kicks ass!

But they can't get iTunes to work with Vista? lol.

If you actually do your research, you would see that just recently MICROSOFT fixed the problem because their code was not written correctly to allow third party apps to run on Vista. Duh.

Let me correct you...

Apple released a new itunes that corrected several problems with Vista compatibility.

Microsoft posted a fix for the "safely remove hardware" function. This function, although rarely used by ipod users, could cause a problem.

So, if you actually do YOUR research, you would see that the specific itunes/ipod problems were indeed corrected by apple. Duh.

Once again you are blinded by fanboyism, the only thing Microsoft fixed was unplugging the device "safely remove" issue there are still some issues with itunes on vista mainly video even apple admits that vista had problems with the previous version of itunes.

BTW, Program 86, you should know this. I just read on another story where you spouted the same drivel and someone corrected you. Now that I've corrected you, maybe it will sink in.

damnit beaten to the punch

You clearly haven't a clue how Windows works. 3rd party apps can and do work on Vista, doh! Some apps need to be updated by the developer to work fully though, but that's their fault if they don't update their apps!

Wow, talk about doing research, you might want to try doing that yourself. Read more than the headlines.

Yawn

Apple should be focusing more on 64-bit Vista drivers just like every other hardware company should be doing. The only reason a 32-bit version of Vista even exists is because a small number of people were using older, almost obsolete processors without AMD64 or IA-64e support. The 64-bit version of Vista is superior in every way to 32-bit Vista.

"a small number of people..." um wrong. Most people are using 32-bit processors actually.

Tons of folks use 32 bit for a wide variety of reasons, including much broader driver support.

I think you have it reversed. The marketshare of 64 bit users is so small, Apple rightfully doesn't see it as a priority.

Yeah, but aren't people having a hard time running 32-bit software on vista64? or is it just the driver issue? I'm sure the evolving concept of using the 64-bit version is a lot better but 10.5 will be run 64-bit natively and able to run 32-bit processes.

true! and doesn't the software need to be compiled for 64-bit or will the os be able to run it in compatability mode?

Most people are using 32-bit processors that also support AMD's (or Intel's) 64-bit x86 extensions. The vast majority of people running Vista probably aren't using one of the older discontinued 32-bit only processors since most of these processors are too slow to get any decent performance out of Vista.

Microsoft should have created a double layer DVD for the retail versions of Vista that had both the 64-bit and 32-bit versions of Vista on the same disc. This way the Vista installation program would have been able to see if your processor supported 64-bit x86 extensions and automatically install 64-bit Vista. This would likely force hardware companies to create more 64-bit drivers.

Actually you will find that the retail discs have both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista on the same disc. If you have a 64-bit processor it will give you an option of installing either version.

I think you will find that most PC users are actually running 32-bit processors. The number of people who are running any sort of processor that can run 64-bit Windows are very few and far between, considering how long 32-bit processors have been out compared to how long any processors that support 64-bit extensions. 32-bit processors that are too slow to run Vista go back years, certainitely processors sold in the last 5 years (the clear majority which are straight 32-bit processors such as Pentium 4 with HT) will definitely run Vista perfectly fine. Processors that have 64-bit extensions such as Core 2 Duo are only relatively recent.

I understand your point, but I think your are still mistaken. According to all the surveys I've read (and personal experience in corporate support) the installed base of pre-64bit and 64bit-disabled Intel processors still outnumbers IA64 chips by a large margin, especially when you count laptops.

I can also say that memory and video power has a LOT more to do with Vista performance then processor speed. I have an AthlonXP system with 1gb ram and a 256mb x1600 card that feels lightyears faster with Vista Enterpise then the new integrated 6300 Dells we are getting at work.

I agree - he is very mistaken.

With the exception of Vista Home Basic which only has the 32-bit version of Vista in the box (with a mail in offer for 64-bit Vista Home Basic), all other retail versions of Vista include two DVD's. One with 64-bit Vista and a second disc for 32-bit Vista.

As for 64-bit x86 processors, those have been available for about 2-3 years at least in the form of AMD64 processors (for PC's not made by Apple anyways). In any case, there are very few Intel Mac's that can't run 64-bit Vista.

I had a computer with an AMD Athlon XP 1.8GHz CPU, 1GB RAM and an ATI Radeon 9700 AGP 8x graphics card w/256MB video memory. The computer got a overall Windows Experience Index score of 1.0 because of the processor, not to mention it crawled with Aero Glass enabled. I replaced the motherboard and upgraded the CPU to an AMD Opteron Model 240 processor, still with 1GB RAM and the same ATI Radeon 9700 graphics and the overall Windows Experience Index score jumped to 3.0 because of the processor. I haven't had any slowdowns with Aero Glass enabled either since the upgrade.

I stand corrected about the boxed retails copies, thank you.

However, you are right about 64-bit x86 processors, but 2-3 years is waaaay too short for most people in the world to have suddenly converted to these processors in that amount of time, especially as PC reliability is relatively good (consider the amount of businesses that are still running Windows 2000 as a server and workstation, their machines are almost certainitely over 3 years ago). You will find that most people will still own processors/PCs from over 3 years ago. And as for Intel Macs, Apple only changed just over a year ago, again most people are still running old PowerPC-based Macs (which is obviously evident by virtually all major Mac applications being made available as a Universal Binary).

People don't have the money or time to change their PCs every 2-3 years so at the end of the day, most people are still on 32-bit-only processors.

Wait I thought the EU said 3rd party applications don't work with Vista, or any MS Products for that matter?

Then you're a moron, because the EU never said anything like that. Stick to facts, rather than fantasies in your head.

LOL what happened your boyfriend works at the EU and I offended you or something?? :)

Keep digging, troll. :)

oh geez...not the troll thing again....

ROFL

You're fighting a losing battle, man...

Still can't get bootcamp to work with a partitioned hard drive on my iMac. Parallels works fine though.

Direct download
http://wsidecar.apple.com/cgi-bin/bc/nph-bc

about time :)