backtop


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 Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/24/2009 7:42:15 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
After 500 UAC nags

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

quote:
retarded control panel

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

quote:
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.

quote:
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.

quote:
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
quote:
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.
quote:


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..


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki