Vista SP1 x86 appears on Torrent Sites
Posted by Emil Protalinski on 28 January 2008 - 18:31 · 55 comments & 43661 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Emil Protalinski
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Emil ProtalinskiContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(5 replies)
#1 Posted by excalpius on 28 Jan 2008 - 18:47
- Beware the black screen of death. I'm seeing it everywhere the the last two builds of SP1, so I would remind everyone NOT to try this out on production machines.
If you do black screen (where the machine won't even get to the bootscreen options menu), you can boot a standalone vista disc (google them) and go back to your last recovery point.
I've never seen service packs (RC, beta, or otherwise) that have caused this level of problems, from losing the control panel (that was a SMOOTH one), to the wise ranging black screen reports. If MS releases this to the public in anything near its current state, Vista is DOOMED.
And yes, I'm an official beta tester and these bugs have been reported...for months...sigh.
Last edited by excalpius on 28 Jan 2008 - 18:53 -
#1.1 Posted by jwjw1 on 28 Jan 2008 - 18:55
- might remove that bio's emulation crack and try a 'legit key' that usually fixes that 'black screen'....lol...just kidding
-
#1.2 Posted by Foub on 28 Jan 2008 - 19:16
- It is Vista after all. Microsoft's greatest failure, so far...... Remember, Its not what Vista can do for you, its what you can buy for Vista.
-
#1.3 Posted by Citrusleak on 28 Jan 2008 - 19:16
- That makes me all the happier that I never installed it when it was a beta and won't until it's released.
-
#1.4 Posted by +Shadrack on 28 Jan 2008 - 22:09
- (Foub said @ #1.2)It is Vista after all. Microsoft's greatest failure, so far...... Remember, Its not what Vista can do for you, its what you can buy for Vista.
OMG you are so clever. We are all very impressed by your whit.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you people expect from an illegal source. -
#1.5 Posted by excalpius on 29 Jan 2008 - 05:30
- (jwjw1 said @ #1.1)might remove that bio's emulation crack and try a 'legit key' that usually fixes that 'black screen'....lol...just kidding
These are all legit Technet (mine) and/or MSDN (my company) keyed installs on not for production machines.
But I guess you just outed yourself as someone who not only doesn't know Vista SP1 bugs but apparenly does know cracks. Smooth move, dude.
Last edited by excalpius on 29 Jan 2008 - 05:36
-
(3 replies)
#2 Posted by ManMountain on 28 Jan 2008 - 18:48
- Nothing to see. It's build 6001.18000, which, unless I'm wrong is SP1 Refresh 2.
-
#2.1 Posted by b0m8er on 28 Jan 2008 - 18:50
- you're wroing build number is:
6001.18000.080118-1840
FILE: Windows6.0-KB936330-X86.exe - 455,562,200 bytes
MD5: d597866e93bc8f80ecca234c4e9ce5a2
and BTW, x64 is out also
-
#2.2 Posted by jgreenough on 28 Jan 2008 - 19:49
- (b0m8er said @ #2.1)you're wroing build number is:
6001.18000.080118-1840
FILE: Windows6.0-KB936330-X86.exe - 455,562,200 bytes
MD5: d597866e93bc8f80ecca234c4e9ce5a2
and BTW, x64 is out also
Well if thats the case it was compiled before the sp2 refresh last week so odds on not likely to be final -
#2.3 Posted by +TCLN Ryster on 29 Jan 2008 - 12:07
- It should be noted that the RC Refresh 2 does not show a build number in system properties (it just shows Service Pack 1) and does not show "Evaluation" on the desktop, so it is would be easy to mistake it as final.
-
#3 Posted by b0m8er on 28 Jan 2008 - 18:50
- PS: it's been out for 2 or 3 days, but started to spread widely just yesterday...
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by b0m8er on 28 Jan 2008 - 18:52
- Neowin members are reporting that the file in question may be SP1 Refresh 2 slipstreamed or simply a malware-filled release.What a bunsh of BS... if it's malware infected how come it has Microsoft's Digital signature on it?
-
#5 Posted by +Unimatrix Xero on 28 Jan 2008 - 18:58
- anyone got a link? LOL jking
-
(2 replies)
#6 Posted by Skyfrog on 28 Jan 2008 - 19:29
- Are people in such a hurry for a SP they would download a leaked copy off a torrent rather than wait a few more weeks for the official release?
-
#6.1 Posted by b0m8er on 28 Jan 2008 - 19:36
- aren't you a bit curios??? Curiosity is what makes people download it!
And just so you know - there're no major changes there, all I noticed was that "Time remaining" in copy dialog finally works as it should/ -
#6.2 Posted by Skyfrog on 28 Jan 2008 - 20:58
- Not really, at least not about a service pack. The patches are already available on Windows Update and have been for ages, this just rolls them together. Granted there may be a few new fixes as well but really, I can't understand getting so excited about it that people would look for leaked torrents of it.
-
#7 Posted by Pippin666 on 28 Jan 2008 - 19:44
- I LIKE NEOWIN, I CAN STAY UPDATED OF LEAKED & PIRATED MICROSOFT'S CORP. SOFTWARE!
Thanks a lot!
Cheers!
Pip'
-
(6 replies)
#8 Posted by BlueRage on 28 Jan 2008 - 19:51
- ^
|
|
----------------------------
Neowin Started that way...
Oh ! good old whistler build info and sometime download links ;D.... -
#8.1 Posted by Digitalfox on 28 Jan 2008 - 20:31
- Care to show some topic with evidence of what you're saying?
I've been a user of Neowin since 2001 and don't remember Neowin being a site of warez..
-
#8.2 Posted by Chimera on 28 Jan 2008 - 20:38
- (Digitalfox said @ #8.1)Care to show some topic with evidence of what you're saying?
I've been a user of Neowin since 2001 and don't remember Neowin being a site of warez..
It wasn't a "warez" site, but it certainly did post build information and the occasional link. That was the main reason I came here way back when.... -
#8.3 Posted by neufuse on 28 Jan 2008 - 21:00
- (Digitalfox said @ #8.1)Care to show some topic with evidence of what you're saying?
I've been a user of Neowin since 2001 and don't remember Neowin being a site of warez..
It wasn't a warez site... more of a tip off to new builds and what's changed site... good old sky blue themed neowin days... back when the logo was a rectangle... back when the neowin theme was watercolor from windows whistler... which probably would of been a WAY better theme then luna.. -
#8.5 Posted by HawkMan on 28 Jan 2008 - 23:38
- (neufuse said @ #8.3)(Digitalfox said @ #8.1)Care to show some topic with evidence of what you're saying?
I've been a user of Neowin since 2001 and don't remember Neowin being a site of warez..
It wasn't a warez site... more of a tip off to new builds and what's changed site... good old sky blue themed neowin days... back when the logo was a rectangle... back when the neowin theme was watercolor from windows whistler... which probably would of been a WAY better theme then luna..
Well too bad only us geks like Watercolor, and the regular users focus groups liked Luna. personally I don't ind either but Watercolor was nice, but was a bit old fashined "square". -
#8.6 Posted by Gotenks98 on 29 Jan 2008 - 02:22
- (neufuse said @ #8.3)(Digitalfox said @ #8.1)Care to show some topic with evidence of what you're saying?
I've been a user of Neowin since 2001 and don't remember Neowin being a site of warez..
It wasn't a warez site... more of a tip off to new builds and what's changed site... good old sky blue themed neowin days... back when the logo was a rectangle... back when the neowin theme was watercolor from windows whistler... which probably would of been a WAY better theme then luna..
It might as well been a warez site, they use to have ton of links to many private servers to other software and some even had keys. It used to be in a special section on the site. I left this forum for a good bit of time and when I came back I was shocked at this holier than thou anti-piracy stance that we now have.
-
#9 Posted by neufuse on 28 Jan 2008 - 20:42
- RTM build of SP1 hasn't even been compiled yet, so where these people get off saying they have the final SP1 who knows...
-
(1 reply)
#10 Posted by jwjw1 on 28 Jan 2008 - 21:03
- Microsoft Windows Vista with Service Pack 1:
6001.18000.080118-1840_x86fre_Client_en-us-FRMCFRE_EN_DVD.iso
-
(1 reply)
#12 Posted by Arkos Reed on 28 Jan 2008 - 21:46
- 6001.18000.080118 is the RC Refresh 2 build number
stop babbling nonsense about a RTW release ya idiots... -
#12.1 Posted by +TCLN Ryster on 29 Jan 2008 - 12:31
- As I said in a early post, the RC Refresh 2 build doesn't show a build number in the System Properties page (it just shows Service Pack 1) and doesn't show "Evaluation" on the desktop as previous builds have done. It would be easy to mistake this build for final. I mean who knows, maybe Microsoft intended to make this build final if no further major issues were discovered.
-
#13 Posted by +Unimatrix Xero on 28 Jan 2008 - 22:15
- well this is the RTM guys, even winver is saying it the full version no time stamp
-
(2 replies)
#14 Posted by Shane2 on 28 Jan 2008 - 22:26
- Not necessarily, the refresh 2 build doesnt have a timestamp either...
-
#14.1 Posted by Intelman on 28 Jan 2008 - 22:36
- It doesn't mean that the refresh 2 build isn't RTM.
The whole point of a timestamp is so Microsoft doesn't have beta code floating around indefinitely. They obviously felt that Refresh 2 was decent enough to last indefinitely. -
#14.2 Posted by Shane2 on 29 Jan 2008 - 00:56
- (Intelman said @ #14.1)It doesn't mean that the refresh 2 build isn't RTM.
The whole point of a timestamp is so Microsoft doesn't have beta code floating around indefinitely. They obviously felt that Refresh 2 was decent enough to last indefinitely.
No, it just means that they know that they have hit the codeline that will be used for RTM, that doesnt necessarily follow that the Refresh 2 Build is that RTM, and even if it was they would probably be likely to fix a couple more bugs and recompile it before release anyway. The fact that the leaked build apparently was compiled before the Refresh 2 build tells me it is not the RTM build.
-
(3 replies)
#15 Posted by starless.bible.black on 28 Jan 2008 - 22:36
- the era of "non" news. I hate it
-
#15.1 Posted by C_Guy on 28 Jan 2008 - 22:58
- I have an easy solution to your situation.
1. Don't read the "non" news.
2. Don't comment.
3. Success! You no longer suffer from "non" news. -
#15.2 Posted by starless.bible.black on 28 Jan 2008 - 23:47
- (C_Guy said @ #15.1)I have an easy solution to your situation.
1. Don't read the "non" news.
2. Don't comment.
3. Success! You no longer suffer from "non" news.
the problem is that the title reads that Vista SP1 is on torrent sites. the content however says it's fake. Therefore the title should read "Fake Vista SP1 is on torrent sites" ) . It's misleading. Then my question is should everything OS related that is fake on torrent sites be listed as news here?
Last edited by starless.bible.black on 29 Jan 2008 - 02:21 -
#15.3 Posted by Joe USer on 29 Jan 2008 - 02:58
- (starless.bible.black said @ #15.2)the problem is that the title reads that Vista SP1 is on torrent sites. the content however says it's fake. Therefore the title should read "Fake Vista SP1 is on torrent sites" ) . It's misleading.
It doesn't say final in the title, so it's not really misleading. So, it should read New Build of Vista SP1 x86 appears on Torrent Sites
-
(3 replies)
#16 Posted by C_Guy on 28 Jan 2008 - 23:01
- It's funny how many people whine about Vista on Neowin every day and yet when there is a Service Pack leak people are all over it.
Vista's success speaks for itself. If it were as bad as half the people commenting would like us to believe, no one would be after those service packs.
Actions speak louder than words. -
#16.2 Posted by +Raa on 29 Jan 2008 - 00:59
- Agreed there!
Everyone thinks its so **** they WANT the service packs to improve it!
By your logic -
#16.3 Posted by roadwarrior on 29 Jan 2008 - 14:55
- (C_Guy said @ #16)If it were as bad as half the people commenting would like us to believe, no one would be after those service packs.
The service pack is supposed to fix many of the things that people think is bad about Vista, so it does make sense that people who bash Vista would be glad to see this service pack getting close to final.
-
#17 Posted by Ravensky on 29 Jan 2008 - 01:00
- All this proves is any idiot with a PC can post crap and the rest of the idiots on the internet will believe it...
-
#18 Posted by hardgiant on 29 Jan 2008 - 01:56
- Yawn....waiting for the real release from MICROSOFT on their servers.
-
(1 reply)
#19 Posted by Dane2003 on 29 Jan 2008 - 03:49
- Vista SP1 Refresh 2 is nice, although I did have one BSOD on startup. Other than that, it is much better than Vista RTM.
-
#19.1 Posted by kev_gordon on 29 Jan 2008 - 09:37
- (Dane2003 said @ #19)Vista SP1 Refresh 2 is nice, although I did have one BSOD on startup. Other than that, it is much better than Vista RTM.
I've read all the articles about Vista SP1, but your own thoughts on WHY it's better would be nice! I'm just gonna wait until it's released, and then wait a little bit more to see how many problems crop up with it!
-
#20 Posted by ajua on 29 Jan 2008 - 04:50
- well, i just downloaded the SP1 executable file from an undisclosed source but i havent had the time to test it. According to people i know, the setup i got is RTM, but i can't confirm that yet.
the thin i'm surely doubting about is a leaked ISO image of the Installation Media.
-
#21 Posted by b0m8er on 29 Jan 2008 - 06:16
- doubt as much as you want, but it's and RTM floating around!
-
(1 reply)
#23 Posted by RanCorX2 on 29 Jan 2008 - 17:11
- so is there actually a real leaked final build or is it all lieeeeeeessssssss?
-
#23.1 Posted by Crash.Override on 30 Jan 2008 - 12:56
- Lies. Not to much longer
-
#24 Posted by starless.bible.black on 29 Jan 2008 - 19:13
- it's all lies, or maybe not..., very much so...
Last edited by starless.bible.black on 30 Jan 2008 - 00:41
Neowin members are reporting that the file in question may be SP1 Refresh 2 slipstreamed or simply a malware-filled release. I would like to remind our members not to post links to any Vista SP1 build, unless it comes directly from Microsoft’s servers.