backtop

Print 63 comment(s) - last by Ticholo.. on Jul 15 at 9:20 AM
Microsoft disputes that is RTM build has leaked

Over the weekend, Window 7 Ultimate edition 32 and 64 bit versions began popping up on torrents.  Many in the internet community became all warm and fuzzy, sure that their "leaked" predictions that Windows 7 Release to Manufacturing would hit July 13 had come true.  It was Build 7600, so it had to be the Release to Manufacturing build, right?  Except, it wasn't.

As DailyTech pointed out, a build number in the OS's ID string was 16384 -- and Windows Vista RTM's string was 16386.  So assuming they use the same build number for Windows 7, there's still to compilations two go.  Today Microsoft confirmed this theory, dispelling the rumors and stating that the "RTM" builds are fakes in a blog post.

Writes Microsoft's Brandon LeBlanc, "Over the past week, there have been many rumors surrounding RTM.  We are close, but have not yet signed off on Windows 7. When we RTM you will most certainly hear it here. As we’ve said all along, we will RTM Windows 7 when it’s ready. As previously stated, we expect Windows 7 to RTM in the 2nd half of July."

Mr. LeBlanc also points out that new Windows President Steven Sinofsky plans on continuing heavy engineering work on Windows 7 until General Availability (GA) on October 22.

He comments on the fake builds, "Another thing to keep in mind is that when we do a specific build internally of Windows 7 we have an extensive step-by-step validation process to ensure quality. This process takes time. Just because a single build may have “leaked” it does not signal the completion of a milestone such as RTM. As always, don’t believe everything that you read on the Internet - except this post ;-)."

And he adds a warning, stating, "[B]eware of what you download. There are many bogus copies of Windows 7 floating around the Internet. More often than not, they contain a rather nice malware payload. And don’t believe everything you read on the Internet. When Windows 7 hits RTM, it will be announced here. Until that happens, any builds you are likely to see on the web are either not the final bits or are laced with malicious code."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I have to laugh at all the negativity
By lwright84 on 7/14/2009 11:36:13 AM , Rating: 5
We're using Windows 7 RC1 (and beta 7000 before that) on nearly 20 computers in production environment at our business. The only issues we've ever had is driver\software incompatibility that is solved 95% of the time with Compatibility mode. Windows 7 is extremely stable, fast, efficient, and easy on the eyes to boot.

Windows 7 is simply the realization of Vista. Vista was like the testbed for everything they wanted their new OS to do and be, and 7 is the frutition of all their hard work and improvements. Vista ended up being a GREAT OS with many, many improvements over XP, and 7 improves even more on that platform.

We'll be rolling out 7 to our 400+ workstations ASAP and have no hesitancies whatsoever (as there shouldnt be any to begin with). I personally cannot wait as XP just becomes more unstable, buggy, inefficient, and inconsistent the older it gets.




By The0ne on 7/14/2009 11:57:30 AM , Rating: 2
Somehow MS managed to win me over with Windows 7 as well. I'm impressed by it's function and stability in RC state. Most computers I oversee are now converted with RC7100 :) Old laptops are running like champs, even with Aero on.

This is a good thing for me because I absolutely hate Vista when it was released. So many days/nights fighting drivers, crashes, bugs, etc. It really is what Vista should have been.

It should be noted that most people are saying 7 is "faster" mostly because it is snappier. Add to that things just flow more smoothly and you get a nice experience out of it. Most reviews and test, including what I've done, has shown that 7 isn't that much faster than Vista. It just "feels" like it is :) Plus, the compatibility for older PCs and laptop is just amazing. Benchmarks on older computers would definitely show "faster" rather than "snappier", but I've yet to test that out seeing as how OBVIOUS it is :D


RE: I have to laugh at all the negativity
By callmeroy on 7/14/2009 12:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
So you are rolling out a pre-lease OS in your whole company......ballsy.....can't say I agree with the decision, but ballsy.


RE: I have to laugh at all the negativity
By Spivonious on 7/14/2009 12:54:30 PM , Rating: 5
Not to mention that it violates the license. Can't run it in a production environment.


By omnicronx on 7/14/2009 2:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
It all depends on the situation, as you are allowed to under certain situations. I know of a few places that have already put it into a production environment as part of a pilot program and apparently this is allowed, not exactly sure how as it specifically states you can't in the EULA, but perhaps being a pilot program gets around this (maybe with consent from MS). In other words, its not as black and white as you are making it out to be.


By 91TTZ on 7/14/2009 2:08:10 PM , Rating: 5
The way I took it is that he's running it on 20 people's computers as a test deployment. If the testing goes smoothly he'll be rolling out Windows 7 as soon as Microsoft releases it.


By Mr Perfect on 7/14/2009 6:46:41 PM , Rating: 3
He's only got 20 out of 400+.


By damianrobertjones on 7/15/2009 6:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
lwright84 didn't say that... 'asap' probably means after the initial release or technet release. Reading between the lines, no one would release a beta or timed trial into the wild knowing that it'll expire, let alone a team working on 400+ installs.


RE: I have to laugh at all the negativity
By ipay on 7/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: I have to laugh at all the negativity
By omnicronx on 7/14/2009 1:44:48 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think he is implying that they are rolling it out to all 400 machines right now, just as soon as possible. Any smart business should be testing 7 right now if they intend on making the switch anytime soon, waiting for RTM is not going to fix the majority of problems that will arise from making the switch. You are going to know right off the bat what software will and probably won't work.

For reference the company I worked for started testing out Vista in the early betas and actually had it up and running on a few pre-production machines before deciding not to use it. We have continued our testing since then to get all of our internal software running up to snuff knowing full well that 7 would be based off of Vista. Anyone using services for their in house software for example should be exploring 7 right now if they intend on making the switch anytime soon as the usermode for the logged in user has been changed to 1 from 0.

These days waiting for an OS release with the intent to upgrade within a year or two after release is far more risky than starting your testing early. My company for example won't be ready even with this testing until at least the time SP1 is released, and thats with a headstart.


By The0ne on 7/14/2009 1:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
I think the other two users might be reading TOO much into what the OP was saying. I have RC7100 on several work computers to "try" out. Once Windows 7 is release then I will convert them over, seeing as I'm very satisfied with the speed increase and stability on older computers, especially laptops.


RE: I have to laugh at all the negativity
By Samus on 7/14/2009 5:57:36 PM , Rating: 1
No self-respecting IT manager would roll out even a newly released OS. I personally waited until XP SP1 to move clients from Windows 2000, and STILL haven't moved ANYBODY to Vista.


By Plazmid19 on 7/14/2009 9:34:19 PM , Rating: 3
This just highlights two schools of thought for IT management. Some IT shops, like mine, are early adapters. We have a small ship of about 200 end-users. The trick is to test the S@@t out of your deployment and pick trial users who are willing to take the risk, having back-up systems at ready if things go south. I don't think anyone has suggested you just rip the tablecloth right out and force people to use O/S ver XYZ. So, I would agree that you wouldn't blanket roll-out. But you might do trial runs with a range of users who use their system differently to fish out problems before a mass adoption.

Shame on IT shops who refuse to budge too. I think you will pay-up eventually in support costs, including application support for EOL O/Ss. You will never be able to make everybody happy.


RE: I have to laugh at all the negativity
By Uncle on 7/14/09, Rating: 0
By omnicronx on 7/14/2009 3:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
When a company knows about changes to an operating system but fail to do anything about it, whose fault is it? (especially when the changes are for the better) This is a well known overlay issue because of the changes to the video stack in Vista and subsequently Windows 7. Plain old overlay can only be used by one window at time which wreaked havoc with Aero, sometimes disabling it completely or having no video show up in VLC. VLC should be using VMR if they want to use overlay period as it supports overlays for more than one window.

All this being said, VLC still works in Vista and 7, previously you needed to set the output (directx and Windows GDI work for me) and/or turn off overlay, although the experience is nowhere near as good as XP.

Tools->Preferences->Video


By Silver2k7 on 7/14/2009 6:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
"VLC never crashes in xp but does in Vista."

No it doesn't it plays virtually every file flawlessly..


seriously
By raabscuttle on 7/14/2009 11:49:10 AM , Rating: 2
Come-on, would you honestly trust a computer that was running an OS grabbed off some sketchy torrent site?




RE: seriously
By sadffffff on 7/14/2009 12:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
...yes.

ive never come across one with anything bad installed.


RE: seriously
By The0ne on 7/14/2009 1:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
you forgot to add the word "YET" :)


RE: seriously
By omnicronx on 7/14/2009 2:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ive never come across one with anything bad installed.
Wouldn't be very good Malware if you did =P.. I assure you that many Windows OS torrents in the past have been packed with tons of malicious code. Most of the time I just read the comments, you can usually get a good idea of what you are downloading when you do.


RE: seriously
By adiposity on 7/14/2009 4:02:13 PM , Rating: 2
Rarely do Windows ISOs have malware. It can happen, obviously, but I doubt the "more often than not" statistic cited by Microsoft. Anyway, if it's a download of the RC, for example, you can always check the hash. I got the RC early off of torrent sites and made sure it matched Microsoft's hash. Guess what? It matched. So no malware.

-Dan


RE: seriously
By omnicronx on 7/14/2009 5:19:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
nyway, if it's a download of the RC, for example, you can always check the hash.
Because there is always a hash for a leaked build version. Sure they usually pop up after a day or two, but those initially downloading are usually doing so blindly. People are also stupid, I am like you and always check the hash if available, and personally I would not download an ISO without a known hash. Unfortunately the masses are not nearly as smart, and these are the kind of people that these malicious code filled versions curtail too.


RE: seriously
By dark matter on 7/14/2009 4:09:01 PM , Rating: 3
You are wise beyond your years. Imagine how clever you will be when you leave school eh!


RE: seriously
By invidious on 7/14/2009 1:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
There is nothing sketchy about P2P. Ignorance breads contempt.


RE: seriously
By chagrinnin on 7/14/2009 3:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
"Familiarity breeds contempt."

"Ignorance is bliss,..."

"Bread always lands butter side down."


RE: seriously
By exanimas on 7/14/2009 3:56:45 PM , Rating: 2
>>"Bread always lands butter side down."

... I'm writing Mythbusters immediately.


RE: seriously
By Hieyeck on 7/14/2009 6:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
already did an episode. 50/50 (or close enough)


RE: seriously
By crimson117 on 7/14/2009 3:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
Not about P2P itself, but the files transferred can be as sketchy as any other files offered by strangers on the internet.


Why in the world...
By Motoman on 7/14/2009 10:24:28 AM , Rating: 5
...does anyone think that the RTM build number on Vista has anything to do with what the RTM build number will be of Win7? A product goes through builds until it's STABLE...at which point it gets an RTM build on whatever number they're at.

Saying ahead of time that "build number X" will be RTM is foolishness.




RE: Why in the world...
By omnicronx on 7/14/2009 2:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
Not really true, they could reserve a higher build number for the RTM release, which is the main reason why people thought that 7600 was RTM as the previous builds were 72**. XP for example skipped from build 2545 to 2600, even though they had slowly incremented (there was never a bigger jump than 20) their build numbers throughout the entire development. Infact build 2600 was forked from build 2545 with only a 4 day period between the two.

To add onto this, the first version of Windows 98 had a final build version of .. wait for it.. 1998.. The final version of 98SE was 2222, and ME was 3000 so I would not put it past them to pick a build number that easily rolls off the tongue or that people will remember.

With any other piece of software I would agree with you, but personally I think you are incorrect with this one, 20 bucks the final build for 7 is build 7777 ;)


RE: Why in the world...
By Motoman on 7/14/2009 7:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
...in which case they're not actually build numbers - they're marketing devices.

But in any event, the build number in question appears to be 16386 - not exactly a catchy tune.


Windows & pre rtm builds
By sukeljuma on 7/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Windows & pre rtm builds
By The0ne on 7/14/2009 12:17:51 PM , Rating: 5
I read your run-on paragraph and couldn't understand a word. Using that period should help I imagined.


spywares patched
By XZerg on 7/14/2009 10:07:17 AM , Rating: 2
the other thing about downloading anything off of torrents or sites is you now have to worry about spywares patched into the programs. who needs viruses when you can collect people's information...

so much checking out a program before buying or even if the program is a freeware. just gotta be very careful of which site you download your programs from and the company.




RE: spywares patched
By lotharamious on 7/14/2009 10:09:53 AM , Rating: 2
Making sure you use hash checkers on any download largely eliminates this issue since this practically guarantees authenticity. It's also wise to run virus and other malware scans on every download... just in case.


Two, to, and too!
By WW102 on 7/14/2009 6:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there's still to compilations two go.


Hmmm managed to use "to" and "two" wrong, two times in a sentence.

Hmm and looky there its used correctly two times above.




RE: Two, to, and too!
By Ticholo on 7/15/2009 9:20:18 AM , Rating: 2
That's to times two many for anyone too follow!


7600 working fine...
By The0ne on 7/14/2009 11:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
Installed and working like a champ. I've first installed it as a VM to make sure there were not viruses, malware, hacks, etc. Didn't find any.

7600 has the following (different from previous versions):

1. Option to choose the 4 different OS
2. No watermark on desktop; watermark enabled still shows evaluation copy :) but build is 7600. Might be a bug or some sort.
3. No updates required at all for Ultimate
4. Languages included on CD, due to updates not listing them
5. XP Mode works but will most likely piss off users trying to get anything done in it :) Suggest use VMware or VirtualBox. This is a addon btw.

I should have more time tonight to play around with it and get some apps going; no benchmarking however.




ALMOST no problems with windows 7
By menting on 7/14/2009 12:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
I've been having pretty good experience with windows 7 RC myself except for 2 problems:
1. minor issue that a previous post brought up. The phantom file deletion problem. Sometimes the file would be deleted but still show up until I do a reboot.
2. This is a huge issue for me, but english only people probably won't see it. Currently when I switch IME to traditional chinese in Windows Live Messenger or Skype, sometimes that program (both WLM and SKYPE)will eat up 100% CPU resources for about 20 seconds before switching over. I would totally blame Skype for not being totally compatible but it happens more often in WLM. This is not an issue at all for me in Vista.




RC to RTM
By crystal clear on 7/14/2009 12:13:04 PM , Rating: 2


LeBlanc repeated a warning Microsoft first issued in early April, that users running Windows 7 RC must do a "custom" install when, or if, they move to the final product. "Note that 'in-place' (or direct) upgrades from the Windows 7 RC to RTM will not be supported," LeBlanc said. "You will be required to do a Custom installation (aka 'clean install').

A custom, or clean, install requires users to back up or transfer data and settings to an external drive or flash drive, install Windows 7 RTM -- which effectively overwrites the hard drive -- then restore their data, recreate settings throughout Windows and reinstall all applications.

It's unclear whether users will be able to sidestep the custom install and instead do an in-place by modifying the "cversion.ini" file, as they were able to do when they upgraded from beta to RC.

http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/microsoft-denie...




THE SECOND COMING IS UPON US!!!
By honestIT on 7/14/2009 4:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 is the greatest beta OS eva!!!

Vista sucks so much, that some here are running whole production offices on the RC1 of 7

Welcome to the world of Windows!




Win 7 RC1
By bapcorp on 7/14/2009 7:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
At my office we got a copy of WIN 7 RC-1.
installed it on a few differently specced PC's and had no issues what so ever!
These PC's ranged from HP DC7100 models (P4 3.0GHZ, 512MB Ram, 40 Gig HDD onboard video) to my own PC HP 7800CMT ( Q9400 2.66GHZ, 4Gig Ram, 2x1TB drives in mirror raid config, AMD HD4850 Video) and a few between including laptops.
We did not have a single issue with any install. RC-1 even auto detected the raid setup and ran flawlessly.
I am glad our company will be jumping from XP to Win 7 as Vista was quickly removed from our upgrade plans. Also there is about 500 PC/Laptops in our company so we do have a large range of PC's to look at. We even ran some of our propriety software and it ran it without an issue.




You've got your to's wrong
By HrilL on 7/14/2009 10:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
to is used for something like going to the store.
two is the number 2

quote:
...there's still to compilations two go.




Typos
By berkes on 7/15/2009 8:09:46 AM , Rating: 2
" for Windows 7, there's still to compilations two go. "
And im french/german ...




Windows 7 RC1 too many bugs still
By XZerg on 7/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Windows 7 RC1 too many bugs still
By mfed3 on 7/14/2009 10:05:28 AM , Rating: 4
nah thats either bad sticks of ram or your video card driver is buggy. RC1 is extremely stable, i would seriously go as far as saying i'd be happy if it was the final build.


RE: Windows 7 RC1 too many bugs still
By XZerg on 7/14/2009 10:08:08 AM , Rating: 2
mind you it is not like i get those every boot... i would say about 1 in 10 times i have seen such things occur.


By sadffffff on 7/14/2009 10:46:26 AM , Rating: 2
ive yet to see a single crash with it on 3 computers and my roommates computer.

seems more stable than vista to me. though, the OS installation process needed a lot of work from RC1. its full of terrible problems:

long periods where the only indication of activity is the light on your optical drive.

sometimes switches your primary display to your secondary. so you get a black screen till you realize you need to be on the other port/change to a vga port instead of dvi--

dvi didnt work right for lots of people

ive heard problems with nvidia cards

older nforce boards like nforce 3...though i think this is more nvidia's fault.

but once you get it installed, it's an absolute dream. fast stable, pretty, full of UI shortcuts and enhancements, things are where you expect them to be (right click desktop-> screen resolution)...oop, im gushing


By lotharamious on 7/14/2009 11:12:04 AM , Rating: 2
I think the only issues I've had personally with 7 RC is the file explorer crashing, and a weird issue that I believe was caused by my switching from 1 to 2 monitors without a reboot. So that was/is a video problem.


RE: Windows 7 RC1 too many bugs still
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/14/2009 10:09:12 AM , Rating: 4
You must be an anomaly. This is the first time I've even really heard about serious blue screens and freezes with Windows 7 -- and that's saying a lot.

I've had Windows 7 stable on two systems since the beta was officially released (and countless interim builds in between). Not one lockup or blue screen.

My only complaint (and this isn't really Microsoft's fault) is the lack of full network driver support for my HP Photosmart 3310 all-in-one wireless printer.


By eek2121 on 7/14/2009 11:51:57 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to agree with brandon. I've been using windows 7 RC1 since it came out on my desktop as my primary OS. I've had zero issues. I do a lot of software development (in visual studio 2010) and gaming. (ARMA2, CS:S, Eve Online, etc.) and have never had ANY issues. My current uptime for RC1 has been a little over a month, with the last reboot being due to a driver update.


By AlexWade on 7/14/2009 10:40:16 AM , Rating: 2
The only serious bug I have found in my 7 RC is a phantom delete. Sometimes when I tell the GUI to delete a file, it acts like it does but it is still there until a reboot. The files were being used but are currently not locked by anything. I'm not sure if it is an issue with the file system or what, but it is really annoying.

Other than that, 7 RC is stable and great. I am overclocking my Phenom II to 3.6 GHz with no problems. (I'm going higher later) It is responsive and quick. Vista felt slow even with 4GB of RAM. Not so with 7. I am looking forward to the day when I can get the final build.


RE: Windows 7 RC1 too many bugs still
By GreenEnvt on 7/14/2009 10:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
Judging by the distinct lack of many others online reporting such issues, I'd think this is down to instability on your own system, not the OS itself.

Power supply, ram, and video card drivers are the main culprits generally.


RE: Windows 7 RC1 too many bugs still
By XZerg on 7/14/2009 10:51:45 AM , Rating: 2
My system is:
AMD PII 720 TriCore
4GB OCZ Platinum PC12800 7-7-7-19
Asrock AOD790GX/128M motherboard (integrated video/sound/network)
2x1TB harddrive
OCZ 500W PSU

So it terms of specs this system seems quiet capable and has passed Windows 7 memory checks too.

I just haven't installed any drivers on the system as all the devices were recognized by Win7. I wonder if I should install the manufacturers' drivers instead...

The biggest issue I have is that it pauses the system for simple tasks every now and then, not to be confused with freezes.


RE: Windows 7 RC1 too many bugs still
By crystal clear on 7/14/2009 11:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
You need somebody more experienced /qualified to guide you through the installation process.

You got it wrong somewhere along the installation process,put your question/problem on the link below to get assistance.

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windows7/default....

Do some reading-

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/04/07/delive...

Download only from Microsoft sites.


By crystal clear on 7/14/2009 11:22:17 AM , Rating: 2
Also this-

Microsoft: Go back to Vista then install Windows 7 release candidate

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9131243/Mic...


By Plazmid19 on 7/14/2009 9:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
XZerg

Have you posted your problems to MS yet? I think MS would be interested. Make sure you gather up BIOS versions, settings used, and the drivers that you are using. MS would be especially interested in core events (BSODs).

Certainly post your problems to the MSDN Windows 7 Message boards with the details about your problems and how to reproduce them. This is why the O/S is still RC. You may have hit an as-of-yet unencountered problem that may be unique to your hardware.

Before you upgrade your drivers, jot down the driver versions Windows 7 installed by default. This will help MS pinpoint the problem.


RE: Windows 7 RC1 too many bugs still
By chick0n on 7/14/09, Rating: -1
By lotharamious on 7/14/2009 11:15:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
u're simply too dumb
Was this comment really necessary?


RE: Windows 7 RC1 too many bugs still
By XZerg on 7/14/2009 11:45:41 AM , Rating: 1
definitely not as dumb as you! what system are you calling garbage and cheap?!

As for drivers, if the OS recognized all your devices correctly then it is not a must to install drivers from OEM as even they have not yet released official drivers!

PS: Read the previous posts before posting bullshit instead of making a fool out of yourself.


By steven975 on 7/14/2009 12:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if the OEM has a driver you should probably install it.

I can say the built-in Nvidia LAN driver has performance issues. The LAN driver from Nvidia does not.

This is probably obvious for graphics cards, too.

And the only problems I have in Win7 RC is that my TV card drivers cause a BSOD, but only when shutting down and only sometimes. Everything else is perfect. Steam games work, BD works, TV (QAM and CableCARD) works...everything works.

If you're having crashes, you probably have a hardware problem somewhere.


By Akrovah on 7/14/2009 2:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
Installing the drivers, even if 7 itself recognizes the hardware, would be a good idea. Drivers are constanly changing and most likely what ever driver you are using was what was avalable for that device at the time that your Win7 build was compiled.

Add to that the fact that I KNOW that some fucntionality has been removed from the drivers packaged with the OS (The default 8800GTS driver did not include OpenGL support, and Win7 RC1 did not recognize a Sound Blaster X-Fi as anything other than a generic "High Definition Audio Device")and I think there are fairly compelling reasons to install drivers manually. A++ to MS for attempting to make the install do all that for you, but they didn't quite hit the nail on the head or get the support of every hardware OEM out there.

Also, as far as memory tests go, I wouldn't use an OS's built in test. Generally when checking memory it is a good idea to use a minimalist program that takes a little memory as possible since it can not check any memory that is being used by the OS itself, since it would require moving the data in it. A utility that I have used and have heard good things about in general is memcheck86.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki