What are the Most UNSTABLE/Worst Vista/Longhorn builds?

[TL7]

Vista SP2 matches Windows 7, it just kept the bad reputation of the former's name.

But which Vista versions/builds are the ones, that created the infamous Vista reputation? I would like to try them out on VirtualBox virtual machines.


Which Beta/PrePost-Reset/Alpha Longhorn builds/versions are responsible for Windows Vista being heavily underrated?

[oscareczek]

Um, the build that created the infamous Vista reputation is just RTM, nobody cares about beta's stability in case of rating the retail operating system.

[BF10]

A lot of 4xxx betas were very unstable, despite not having a problem with any on PCem, which is why it got delayed as they had to reset the code. Builds 4008 and 4011 are probably the first Longhorn builds that are unstable, and after that it slowly got worse in most cases. 4015 and 4074 are infamous for having Explorer.exe memory leaks, and 408x and 4093 tends to be one of the more unstable builds. Even after the reset, 5048 can still be a little unstable. Out of the pre-reset builds, 3718 is the most stable in my opinion, but 3713, 4029, 4074, or about any Longhorn build that still uses the Windows XP boot screen are still quite stable (although I only tested 4008 and 4011 in their i386 repacks so it might be different experience than a .WIM installation).

I think Vista RTM is very underrated, most people outside the forum who says they hate Vista probably didn't even try the RTM, and even then didn't experience how unstable the pre-reset builds are.

[Windows Thunderstruck]

Build 4066.
When I enabled the slideshow tile on the sidebar, Explorer kept crashing constantly and thus the build was rendered unusable.

And build 4015 as well. Super glitchy installer, lots and lots of random slowdowns and frequent app crashes.

[TinaMeineKatze]

Build 4066.
When I enabled the slideshow tile on the sidebar, Explorer kept crashing constantly and thus the build was rendered unusable.

And build 4015 as well. Super glitchy installer, lots and lots of random slowdowns and frequent app crashes.

We must clearly differentiate here. "the ones, that created the infamous Vista reputation", I guess, means that build that was responsible for everyday-normal-people to think that Vista is bad. But those people usually neither know nor care about some Longhorn build from 2 years before they've heard "vista" the first time. Normal people won't see a connection here.

TL7 may also mean what build to us as experts might be responsible for the image of Longhorn (not Vista) being unstable. To this, Build 4066 might be unstable, but in my opinion, there are some other builds that create that image, too (like lab06 4039, but all of the 4xxx-builds were nightmares from a normal user's perspective of stability).

The question itself is not very clearly posed and mixes some things together.

[Windows Thunderstruck]

Vista was actually not that bad of an OS.
The main reasons why I think it failed was:
1. Some hardware manafacturers weren't ready for an OS of such an unprecidented scale, quite a lot of computers were still using below 1 GB of RAM, as 1 GB and up was still rather expensive at the time.
2. Some apps relied on XP's quirks to function, so when Vista "fixed" them, they stopped working properly.
3. Also a lot of hardware manafactures thought it was never going to be released, so they just hurried up and made it "Vista Compabtile." Hence there are so many BSOD's and slowdowns.
4. It was rushed in a attempt to compete with Apple's Mac OS X, because of the release of Tiger in 2005, Microsoft started to look really outdated.
5. People thought it was a great idea to upgrade their low-end Windows XP computer to Vista just to see how it went, during those attempts, that's where a lot of the complaints came from.
6. UAC. Constant UAC prompts.
That's the best I can explain what was wrong with Vista RTM.

[DanielOosterhuis]

3. Also a lot of hardware manafactures thought it was never going to be released, so they just hurried up and made it "Vista Compabtile." Hence there are so many BSOD's and slowdowns.

Plus, the "Vista Capable" badge (which I think you're referring to), wasn't intended for Intel 915 chipset based systems, as Vista Aero wouldn't work on them due to the lack of LDDM/WDDM support. Intel got really upset about it and pushed Microsoft to still give 915 systems the badge, which they eventually did, much to the chagrin of Windows chief Jim Allchin, who thought it was deceiving the customers. And the tech companies like HP and Dell, who had invested a lot of money into WDDM technologies were angered over it, since Intel basically got the badge on WDDM incapable machines. Microsoft shouldn't have relented for Intel. While it wouldn't have completely gotten rid of Vista's bad reputation, it would have at least made it a little better than it is today.

[XDude]

I remember 5259.0 was pretty bad. 5259.3 wasn't any better either. This was a TAP build that leaked in Nov 2005 while MS decided not to release a CTP build that month. It's one of the worst leaked build after the reset. The ones after beta 2 like 5456 wasn't as stable.

[TL7]

Build 4066.
When I enabled the slideshow tile on the sidebar, Explorer kept crashing constantly and thus the build was rendered unusable.

And build 4015 as well. Super glitchy installer, lots and lots of random slowdowns and frequent app crashes.

Thanks for telling.
Does that happen to anybody else?

Build 4066.
When I enabled the slideshow tile on the sidebar, Explorer kept crashing constantly and thus the build was rendered unusable.

And build 4015 as well. Super glitchy installer, lots and lots of random slowdowns and frequent app crashes.

We must clearly differentiate here. "the ones, that created the infamous Vista reputation", I guess, means that build that was responsible for everyday-normal-people to think that Vista is bad. But those people usually neither know nor care about some Longhorn build from 2 years before they've heard "vista" the first time. Normal people won't see a connection here.

TL7 may also mean what build to us as experts might be responsible for the image of Longhorn (not Vista) being unstable. To this, Build 4066 might be unstable, but in my opinion, there are some other builds that create that image, too (like lab06 4039, but all of the 4xxx-builds were nightmares from a normal user's perspective of stability).

The question itself is not very clearly posed and mixes some things together.

I have edited the original thread post and title. Thank you.

Vista was actually not that bad of an OS.
The main reasons why I think it failed was:
1. Some hardware manafacturers weren't ready for an OS of such an unprecidented scale, quite a lot of computers were still using below 1 GB of RAM, as 1 GB and up was still rather expensive at the time.
2. Some apps relied on XP's quirks to function, so when Vista "fixed" them, they stopped working properly.
3. Also a lot of hardware manafactures thought it was never going to be released, so they just hurried up and made it "Vista Compabtile." Hence there are so many BSOD's and slowdowns.
4. It was rushed in a attempt to compete with Apple's Mac OS X, because of the release of Tiger in 2005, Microsoft started to look really outdated.
5. People thought it was a great idea to upgrade their low-end Windows XP computer to Vista just to see how it went, during those attempts, that's where a lot of the complaints came from.
6. UAC. Constant UAC prompts.
That's the best I can explain what was wrong with Vista RTM.

Windows Vista lacked a bit of efficiency and was ahead of it's time.
Windows 7 was made more efficient, improving with Windows 8 and 10, but at that time, PCs were too weak to handle the much higher Vista system ressource requirements than Windows XP.
2 GB RAM was the lowest useable amount of RAM. Many budget laptops in 2006 were stuck somewhere between 512MB and 1GB of DDR2 RAM, and maybe 50-100GB of HDD, where Windows Vista was not suitable.

In my experience, Windows Vista also often randomly reserved 5 to 20 GB of the System C:\ HDD storage and then free'd it up irrationally. Probably some stuff in AppData and WinSxS.

But visually, Windows Vista looked very pleasant. AeroFlip3D (rundll32.exe dwmapi #105 or WinKey+Tab↹) was a creative idea, and the C:\Users\* folder structure and many other parts are still present in Windows 10.

[PeterFalk]

by my conviction, Vista is the best that was created in Microsoft for all time. Here, of course, not at the expense of Longhorn, especially assemblies shown on the PDC 2003.
Their series 4ххх I consider one of the best it 4044, 4048, 4050, 4051-53 and 4074, though what there were no problems.
At one time, I had all Vista worked on Athlon 64 2800-3200 without the slightest problems when using 1 gigabyte of RAM and the Radeon 9600 video card

[spoiler][/spoiler]

[PrimeV2Chosen]

Longhorn Build 4093 was my worst experience in Longhorn Builds, It lagged sometimes, programs didn't worked, only WinRAR worked for me. It was in a REAL hardware/PC, and that was the last build before all development was reset, huh.

Bye.

[Maza]

by my conviction, Vista is the best that was created in Microsoft for all time. Here, of course, not at the expense of Longhorn, especially assemblies shown on the PDC 2003.

It [Windows Vista] is so beautiful and powerful but it hardly receives any love.

[BF10]

Here is my "in-depth" detail of the builds stability in the pre-reset Longhorn era:

3683:
Early (but ugly) Plex theme, early DWM and Carousal. Reasonably stable.

3706:
Don't bother. Unstable, sidebar can cause explorer.exe reboot loop, useless DWM.

3713:
Tablet PC and Media Center. Stabler than 3683 but less than 3718.

3718:
The most stable build, working DWM but no Tablet PC.

4001:
.WIM installation. Reasonably stable but not that stable.

4008 and 4011:
Don't bother, unstable for the most part.

4015:
Stable as long you disable the sidebar. Otherwise you will get memory leaks.

4028:
Server SKU, unstable setup but many new features such as login screen.

4029:
Same as 4028 but client and more stable.

4033 and 4039:
Don't bother, unstable and slow to use and Aero is unstable or nearly unusable.

4042:
Early slate theme, can be unstable on slower PCs.

4051:
More basic version of 4042 that is more stabler.

4053:
Don't bother, almost nothing new and unstable.

4066:
i386 install, stable after install

4074:
Working DWM, Aero, and reasonably stable.

4083, 4084, and 4088:
Don't bother, long install and unstable with nearly no new features besides new desktop background.

4093:
Hidden debug features and applications. Takes long to install and not really that stable.

3790:
Don't bother, simply XP with 0-day activation and setup bug.

5048:
While not full of applications, it has Aero and is stable. Don't bother if not using ACPI, it won't install.

I'd now say 4033 and 408x are the most unstable ones for me.

[pa_petabyteag]

A lot of the 40xx builds were the worst for me, I'd say 4039 and 4008 were some of the worst I've seen, although all of the builds I used and tested were slow and buggy.

[Wheatley]

Not a very "in-depth detail" if you're missing most post-reset builds...

[ovctvct]

...especially if by "slower pc-s" he meant an emulated PMMX with 256-ish MB ram.

Also how is 4033 unstable? While I agree 4039 can be slow and unstable, 4033 is actually one of the more stable ones, after disabling WinFS and other bloatware ofc.

[BF10]

Not a very "in-depth detail" if you're missing most post-reset builds...

I only did the Longhorn era builds since that tends to have more issues within stability.

Also, I consider an older PC one that runs XP at minimum requirements.

[Maza]

Um, the build that created the infamous Vista reputation is just RTM...

And wrongfully so.

The blame should lay at the feet of Microsoft and the third-parties, but not Windows Vista.

[i4640]

RTM was not as bad as many people think. It did require much more hardware resources than XP but it’s also the most visually pleasing OS at the time. However I like Longhorn 5231 best as one of the fews builds I installed. Aero before beta 2 is also better I think.

[Mister RoyFoy1]

4039 is incredibly broken, and oddly has long startup

[XaddaGamer]

Build 4029 is my favourite of classic Windows Longhorn, good build it has very many new features, some apps can work and i have it!
Build 4093 is my worst of classic Windows Longhorn, beacuse takes a long time to install and becomes unstable, VMware can't do this.

[xst40]

Something unstable about the 4093 build: I was playing around with the sidebar until I selected a tile (I don't remember what it is) that got Explorer in a crash-and-restart loop. Resulted in re-installing completely. Was that even the best choice?!