Print 75 comment(s) - last by Starcub.. on May 2 at 5:52 PM

New build hasn't been leaked to torrents -- yet

Microsoft's Windows 7 is perhaps one of the most hotly anticipated tech products of the year.  Its beta builds have thus far showcased both polish and Microsoft's willingness to improve and take constructive criticism.  Microsoft has over 2,000 planned bug fixes for the Release Candidate phase, and recent builds have given users just a taste of the promising new OS's potential.

Hot on the heels of the leak of RC build 7077 to the torrent world earlier this month, Microsoft has delivered a major milestone build to OEM partners and TAP gold customers.  Microsoft reportedly compiled the new build, 7100.0.winmain_win7rc.090421-1700 (build 7100, for short), on Tuesday, and has already began distribution.

While some are likely eagerly awaiting the build to hit torrents, for home testing, Microsoft may actually beat leakers to the punch.  Microsoft announced via its Partners page plans to launch a semi-public distribution of the release candidate by May 5th to MSDN/TechNet customers.  The official release will invariably also be shared by these customers over torrent.  The 7100 build seems a likely target for the release.

There's potential, though, that the posting could be a mistake, as a Microsoft Online Chat Concierge spokesperson commented, "Currently the Windows 7 RC has not been available through the TechNet subscription yet, only the Microsoft OEM partners such as Dell, Siemens are taking part in the RC's this period of test."

Regardless, whenever DailyTech get its hands on release candidate 7100, a features update piece can be expected.  Until then, like the rest of community, we have to wait and see.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: I can't wait
By omnicronx on 4/23/2009 4:52:36 PM , Rating: 5
unless it's Win ME which was the true public beta for XP.
Because Windows 9x and NT were so similar..(i.e you are so far off its not funny)
In all honesty, I think people who say those things are just talking smack.
This is the first Windows release that could actually be ready for primetime in the business environment right off the bat, while what you are saying holds true for the average home user, both Vista and XP were just not that stable upon release.

RE: I can't wait
By mmntech on 4/23/2009 6:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
He does have a point. It was a poorly thought out product. ME was more of a bridge product than anything else. It was an "enhanced" version of Windows 98 much like Vista is an enhanced version of XP. Down to the nuts and bolts, XP and Vista are fundamentally similar. I think Vista's biggest flaw was trying to be too much and there were far too many sacrifices made in the process of developing it. Windows is and always has been a business OS. Vista missed the mark by not catering to their primary demographic. It was poorly marketed and suffered a lot of bad publicity; much of which was warranted.

Windows 7 represents some major changes though, particularly to the GUI. I've been using the beta on and off and it just feels more streamlined that Vista does. The real trick is going to be keeping those CPU cycles and ram usage down. If all goes well, I'll definitely upgrade my laptop to Windows 7 as soon as it comes out.

RE: I can't wait
By teldar on 4/23/2009 7:04:39 PM , Rating: 5
He doesn't really have a point.
ME and XP were different kernels.
ME was crap.
XP, with a SP, became MS's best OS ever.

RE: I can't wait
By pequin06 on 4/24/2009 11:49:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, there was a point.
Thank you mmntech for getting it.
Plus the other point that was cleary missed by the "uber leet" who are being WAY TO LITERAL

Demonstrating absurdly through absurdly, i.e.

People always say to not buy a pre-SP1 Windows OS because it is nothing but a public beta

RE: I can't wait
By Pirks on 4/24/2009 3:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
Vista is an enhanced version of XP

RE: I can't wait
By coolkev99 on 4/24/2009 7:24:32 AM , Rating: 2
Actually Vista and XP have much less in common than Vista and Win7.

Stability and usability being an entirely different matter.

RE: I can't wait
By PrezWeezy on 4/23/2009 9:01:47 PM , Rating: 4
As a business IT guy, I jumped on Vista. I loved it. XP wasn't very different from 2000 until SP2 anyway, so there was no need to move to it. Although it was actually slightly more stable with the newer hardware at the time. Most people who say "don't use it until SP1" are people who have done just that, not used it. They have no idea what they are talking about. Look how many people hate Vista and haven't touched it. The Mojave experiment was a great way to show people that. If you actually sit down and use the product and get to understand it a bit, it suddenly becomes much easier to manage.

RE: I can't wait
By coolkev99 on 4/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: I can't wait
By Master Kenobi on 4/24/2009 7:42:15 AM , Rating: 5
After 500 UAC nags

I suspect the real number to be below 50, but inflating it for the sake of argument is always dramatic.

retarded control panel

There is a "Switch to Classic" button at the bottom, if you failed to see it that's your own fault.

sluggish reponse

Well, if you only have 1GB of Ram in the system, what did you expect? Nobody sane would even power XP with 1GB on any newly bought system.

and 3 hours it took to copy about 50mb over a LAN

Unlikely, while network speeds were a problem for about 2 months, it occured only in specific instances and not to that degree. But, exaggeration sounds good here too.

that was enough for me to know it was crap.

Your failure to use objective reasoning, deliberate attempts to under power a system that few people would load XP on, let alone Vista, and blatant exaggerations clearly mark your technical ineptitude.

RE: I can't wait
By PhoenixKnight on 4/24/2009 11:02:49 AM , Rating: 2
When I first tried Vista, the UAC came up infinity billion times.

In all seriousness, though, I did actually have the installation DVD BSOD on me once.

RE: I can't wait
By aj28 on 4/27/2009 8:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
I've had the XP install CD BSOD on me plenty of times. Nine times out of ten it has to do with your SATA interface being configured in AHCI/RAID mode... I imagine something similar was the case with your Vista incident.

RE: I can't wait
By poundsmack on 4/24/2009 12:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you only have 1GB of Ram in the system, what did you expect? Nobody sane would even power XP with 1GB on any newly bought system.

you do realize that when XP was released the commong amount of ram per system was 128 or 256? if it was Rambus ram at the time then 128 was fine. Th eproblem is you shouldn't have to have the newer systems with most than a gig of ram to run an OS that came out in the P3 days when 512 ram was super rare and the P4 was just getting started...

RE: I can't wait
By omnicronx on 4/24/2009 1:38:29 PM , Rating: 3
You do realize although many machines had 128-256M of ram upon release, those boxes would thrash like crazy (using virtual memory from the HD) as 256M was about enough for Windows upon load, without any programs running. In fact I would invite you to try and get your XP machine down to less than 256M ram with all your drivers etc loaded.

Furthermore even with 512M of ram, opening more than a few programs would also cause you to run out of memory, and once again start using virtual memory resulting in thrashing and terrible performance. 1GB of ram is now the XP standard for todays programs, so comparing Vista to XP 8 years ago is quite pointless.

RE: I can't wait
By Silver2k7 on 4/26/2009 6:36:19 AM , Rating: 2
I know someone who have one of those old boxes with xp.. 256MB ram 1.2 ghz.. the hdd does trash all of the time..

So it would be stupid to use 128 or 256MB if getting a new machine today.. its also not like your only using 7 year old software on your OS.. modern software eats more RAM, thats just the way it is..

RE: I can't wait
By TomZ on 4/24/2009 8:47:27 AM , Rating: 5
I sat down with it for about 2 hours setting up a new (factory bought) system. After 500 UAC nags, retarded control panel, sluggish reponse, and 3 hours it took to copy about 50mb over a LAN that was enough for me to know it was crap.
All that proves is your incompetence. There are millions of us out there that were successful setting up and using Vista over its lifecycle.

We adopted it in our business when it first came out, and I used it at several computers at home, and had very few problems.

RE: I can't wait
By pxavierperez on 4/25/2009 7:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
Agree. It takes a few seconds to change the UAC settings to get rid of the nags. Also I had Vista on 1 GB RAM machine and never run into any sluggishness problems. I may have issue with how it looks but that's personal taste and there's a very simple remedy for that which involves only a few mouse clicks.

RE: I can't wait
By aj28 on 4/27/2009 8:49:09 PM , Rating: 1
(factory bought)

Well there's you're problem! Wipe it with an OEM disc and be amazed how smooth it will run, yes, even on 1GB setups. Hell, I gamed on a 2GB setup flawlessly for ages, and installed Vista just a couple months after it came out...

Long story short, blame the manufacturer for their buggy bloatware, not Microsoft.

"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki