Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Vista RC1 Build 5728 Publicly Released

Posted by Zonk on Sun Sep 24, 2006 06:27 AM
from the new-build-out-the-window dept.
Microsoft Operating Systems Software Windows
ClausValca writes "Doing some late-night surfing last night and came across a post over at Cybernet News: Limited Time Only: Vista 5728 Available To The Public. Although apparently intended for the TAP and Technical Beta Testers....it is available for download to the public via this Microsoft public download page for Vista 5728. There is a link on that page as well for direct download of the latest 64-bit flavor of that version as well. An Ars Technica post also has some background info on the new release. Techweb is reporting that Microsoft is specifically asking for feedback on this release, so make sure and let them know what you think."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Slashback: What Dell Knew, China's Fusion, Vista 154 comments
Slashback tonight brings some clarifications and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including: What Dell knew and when they knew it, GNU/Linux may gain from the Vista WGA crackdown, China's fusion test was a hoax, and the Vista startup chime will be optional. Read on for details.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Vista RC1 Build 5728 Publicly Released 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Beta is the new Alpha and RC is the new Beta (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ergo98 (9391) on Sunday September 24 2006, @06:34AM (#16173769) Homepage Journal
    Wasn't there a time when "RC" literally meant release canadidate as in if this works we're burning this exact image on the retail CDs? Nowadays release candidates are really betas, and betas -- which are supposed to be feature complete, almost 100% apps that are only being tested for technical faults, are really alphas, with endless new feature additions and changes.

    • Re:Beta is the new Alpha and RC is the new Beta (Score:4, Interesting)

      by brassman (112558) on Sunday September 24 2006, @07:07AM (#16173935) Homepage
      The explanation given is that they've frozen the API, and you are safe to develop against it. To the extent that is true, the "RC" designation would seem to be justified.

      (In other news, I have this bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan, for sale cheap. Paypal accepted!)

      • Freezing the API does NOT mean its a release candidate in anyone's universe except Microsofts'.

        A release candidate should be what the term implies - something that is actually a candidate for release as the final product, not something that you throw over the wall and hope that it stinks a bit less than the previous attempts.

        That they're still beta testing should tell you something about how much their development culture continues to suck.

        So, download it early, download it often, and help artificially inflate those "look at the interest" numbers ... just don't install this trojan:

        In addition, once you install Windows Vista RC1, you cannot roll back to the previous operating system installation--you will either have to acquire and install the final released edition of Windows Vista or reinstall a previous edition of Windows

        Nice way of getting people to forget that XP already does everything they need, and locking them into having to buy an upgrade at retail prices.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Now that even Mozilla's release candidates aren't really expected to become the final release, can you really blame Microsoft for their nomenclature? It's like ergo98 wrote: RC is the new beta, and this time it isn't Microsoft's fault.

        • Re:Beta is the new Alpha and RC is the new Beta (Score:5, Informative)

          by Guppy06 (410832) on Sunday September 24 2006, @08:05AM (#16174159) Journal
          "In addition, once you install Windows Vista RC1, you cannot roll back to the previous operating system installation--you will either have to acquire and install the final released edition of Windows Vista or reinstall a previous edition of Windows"

          That's interesting, considering that Windows XP will let you roll back to the previous operating system.
          • Let's be honest, given how often you have to reinstall windows, does anyone ever really use the "rollback" feature?

            • Re:Beta is the new Alpha and RC is the new Beta (Score:5, Interesting)

              by fotbr (855184) on Sunday September 24 2006, @12:48PM (#16176513) Journal
              Hmm....I've reinstalled XP on this machine how many times in the last 5 years? Thats right. NONE. The ancient 450mhz K6-2 laptop? NONE. And the Win2k machine in the corner? Yup, NONE. How many times have I used the "rollback" feature? NONE -- that was the first thing I turned off.

              Now, the Win95/98/ME line, yeah, those were POS OSs that you had to reinstall every month or so. And I understand Joe-sixpack is more likely to click on random "bad things". But has it occured to you that maybe, just maybe, Windows has improved, and that many (but not all) of the problems aren't from windows, but from the layers of shit that people pile on it (Norton, I'm looking directly at you).

              Because you haven't used windows since Win98, please stop spewing lines that are no longer true.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by spoco2 (322835)
                  Stop surfing porn sites.

                  Problem solved.

                  Really.

                  I have had a few friends computers who I've had to repair from a state of just hardly running, and in all cases, even when they said 'no... no we don't', all the spyware and adware and junk that was loading them down was due to surfing porn sites or similar.

                  A cleanup with AdAware, Spybot search and destroy and Hijack this... perfectly working system

                  Oh, and using Firefox instead of IE.

                  Problem solved.

                  No slowdown.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ben there... (946946)

          In addition, once you install Windows Vista RC1, you cannot roll back to the previous operating system installation--you will either have to acquire and install the final released edition of Windows Vista or reinstall a previous edition of Windows

          Nice way of getting people to forget that XP already does everything they need, and locking them into having to buy an upgrade at retail prices.

          Unless you install to a different partition/disk. Then it's no problem rolling it back.

        • Nice way of getting people to forget that XP already does everything they need, and locking them into having to buy an upgrade at retail prices.

          XP does "everything" anyone needs in the same way that Linux does.

          And MS does a pretty thorough job in telling you "don't install this on anything you can't lose."
    • Depends on your point of view; if you're manufacturing new hardware, writing a device driver, or just making an application, this is pretty much it, the Windows 'Platform'. But if you need new hardware (like CableCards) device drivers (Bluetooth, DirectX 10...), or applications, you may have to wait for them to be done. Microsoft makes referance drivers, it's up to ATI, nVidia, Hauppage, AMD, Intel, etc. to fill those gaps.

      The house is built, now it needs furnishings. You could just move in the old stuff f

  • Not RC1 (Score:4, Informative)

    by the linux geek (799780) on Sunday September 24 2006, @06:37AM (#16173785)
    This build is not RC1, it's part of the RTM tree. They're currently up to 5731, and this build is about a week old.

  • Direct ISO Download Link (Score:4, Informative)

    by in2mind (988476) on Sunday September 24 2006, @06:38AM (#16173797) Homepage
    http://download.windowsvista.com/preview/rc1/en/x8 6/iso/vista_5728.16387.060917-1430_x86fre_client-l rmcfre_en_dvd.iso [windowsvista.com]

    X86 version.

    File size: 2622MB
    Type: 32-bit
    Name: vista_5728.16387.060917-1430_x86fre_client-lrmcfre _en_dvd.iso
    Build Number: 5728.16387

    Note: Your Beta 2/RC1 product keys will still be valid for this version.

    ************** From TFA *************

  • Feedback (Score:5, Funny)

    by QuantumFTL (197300) * <justin.wick@gmai ... m minus math_god> on Sunday September 24 2006, @06:50AM (#16173851) Homepage
    Techweb is reporting that Microsoft is specifically asking for feedback on this release, so make sure and let them know what you think.

    Probably a bit too late to ask for POSIX interoperability, eh?
    • Not at all. I just dropped them an e-mail and asked them to ditch Explorer.exe in favor of KDE, and they said that would be fine and I should see it in the next RC. The FSF has convinced them to include Bash in place of cmd.exe, so that will be a nice improvement, too. I understand their shift from using the NT Kernel32 to Linux might not appear until the final release.

    • Re:Feedback (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheNetAvenger (624455) on Sunday September 24 2006, @11:17AM (#16175681)
      Probably a bit too late to ask for POSIX interoperability, eh?

      Ya, considering they have been POSIX compliant since NT was built in 1992...

      http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=896c9688-601b-44f1-81a4-02878ff11778&Displa yLang=en [microsoft.com]

      BTW Vista and Longhorn Server ship with a full BSD *nix subsystem (minus an XServer.)

      Nothing new to see here, move along...

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by KarmaMB84 (743001)
        NT's POSIX compliance has always been (except SFU which isn't really part of the OS, SUA and whatever Vista Enterprise will have) the bare minimum for POSIX compliance as of 1992. SFU was an addon for 32-bit Windows only and SUA is Win2k3 and Vista Enterprise (unless they've changed that) only. Oddly enough, Windows XP x64, which is based on the Windows 2003 Server x64 codebase, does not have either SFU or SUA. Here's hoping they'll throw us poor bastards who adopted their red headed stepchild OS a bone and

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by flithm (756019)
        Ya, considering they have been POSIX compliant since NT was built in 1992...

        Useless link posted: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa [microsoft.com] milyID=896c9688-601b-44f1-81a4-02878ff11778&Displa yLang=en

        BTW Vista and Longhorn Server ship with a full BSD *nix subsystem (minus an XServer.)

        Uhh... no it hasn't. First of all the link you pasted doesn't even mention POSIX once. Usually when you post a link to corroborate a claim, it's supposed to actually do that.

        Do you even know what POSIX means? Ob

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by TheNetAvenger (624455)
          As for your claim that vista server will ship with a full BSD subsystem, I would really like to see some evidence to back this up. I've never heard this, and a few searches with google didn't turn anything up. Not only is it an unsubstantiated claim, but it makes no sense. What purpose would it serve, why would they do that?

          Ok, you really went off on a rant... Calm down, this really isn't this important, even if it bends what you thought was reality.

          First to answer your questions, you could actually look th

  • How to get a valid license key (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2006, @06:54AM (#16173867)
    Over here: http://ctrinity.wordpress.com/2006/09/14/how-to-ge t-your-vista-rc1-product-key/ [wordpress.com]

  • Are Microsoft still nuking everything in their path, or do they play nice with the MBR now?

    I think we're beyond blaming incompetence if they don't play nice...

    • Re:Plays nice with boot loaders? (Score:4, Informative)

      by tomhudson (43916) <hudson&videotron,ca> on Sunday September 24 2006, @07:06AM (#16173923) Homepage Journal

      Short answer - it doesn't even play nicely with other versins of windows.

      In addition, once you install Windows Vista RC1, you cannot roll back to the previous operating system installation--you will either have to acquire and install the final released edition of Windows Vista or reinstall a previous edition of Windows

      This is their way of getting people to nuke their current XP installs, then having to buy the final version of Vista by July 1st.

      • Well, I can't find the text you quote, but I did install Beta 2 and it most certainly did not nuke my XP install. I suspect (but can't prove, obviously) that the text refers to "upgrading" your XP install - ie installing Vista over the top of it. What they're saying is that if you do that, you can't then uninstall/roll back and return to your previous install, which is fair enough.

        This is their way of getting people to nuke their current XP installs, then having to buy the final version of Vista by July 1st

    • BTW, if people are having problems with this, you can easily back the MBR up in linux using the dd command.
      dd if=/dev/xxx of=mbr.backup bs=446 count=1
      Note that this isn't the entire MBR, just the first 446 bytes of it (its 512 bytes long). This backups only the booting-code and not the partition-table (which you may have changed during install). Then pop in a LiveCD, mount your drive and execute
      dd if=mbr.backup of=/dev/xxx bs=446 count=1
      And you have your old nice bootloader back. In both examples, r

    • "or do they play nice with the MBR now?"

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha

      Troll? Funny? Interesting? There are so many ways for you to be modded.

      "I think we're beyond blaming incompetence"

      It's been over 10 years since they started nuking OS/2 MBRs. There's nothing to think about anymore.

      --
      BMO

  • "... let them know what you think." (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2006, @07:02AM (#16173899)
    I think I don't need it. I would have to buy new computers to use it and I don't see any benefit to justify the expense. In past, I've upgraded when there was some benefit to be gained. For instance, I went to Windows (3.1) in the first place so I could run CorelDraw. I could do stuff that previously had been available only to Mac users. The choice was clear cut and I was delighted to switch.

    Microsoft alienated me with the first commercial release of XP. You couldn't change anything about your computer without calling them for a new authorization number. There were also the rumors that XP was 'calling home' with information about what was on your hard drive. I vowed that XP would never enter my house and never sully my work computer. I switched to Linux. It does everything I need done. Why would I switch.

    My wife's computer runs Win98. If it weren't for OpenOffice, she would have to switch to be able to read files that her customers send her. As it is, OpenOffice reads all those files just fine, so she doesn't have to switch either.

    Microsoft is going to have trouble selling Vista. They are also having legal trouble in Europe. Their response is to say that the economy will be boosted if everyone switches to Vista. http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000097 [linuxjournal.com] They're nothing if not creative. But no thanks anyway Bill.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tomhudson (43916)

      Doesn't mean you shouldn't download it ... and download it often. Help artificially inflate all those future numbers projections, AND run up their bandwidth bills with akamai.

      Another reason to download it multiple times even if you're running linux - since you'll have multiple legit copies of the fonts, codecs and other dlls, you can use them on multiple linux boxes.

      Hard disk space is cheap - if you've got an old drive hanging around, stuff the multiple images there, and put it on a shelf for "future r

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by tomhudson (43916)

          You seem to not understand the terms of the EULA for unreleased Microsoft software.

          Seeing as I wasn't shown any EULA before downloading, and I don't have to run the install program - just move my now-LEGIT copy of the files from the iso to another place on the same hard drive (just mount the iso on one of the loopback devices), your comment about EULAs is a non sequitur.

          Not that I'd bother using it - but for those who want the option, this is one way to use Microsoft dlls for those who still think the

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by theCoder (23772)
      Sadly, Microsoft won't have much trouble at all selling Vista. I'm sure every OEM out there will begin putting it on all their computers as soon as MS relases it. The exact same way with XP. And in five years time, Vista will be the dominent OS, simply by people getting new machines. Sure, there won't be a mad rush to go buy Vista like there was for Windows 95, but really there hasn't been a rush like that since Windows 95. Microsoft is in a very good position. I know I'd like to get $40-$100 for ever
  • Has anybody been able to get this to install in VMware yet? (I have tried a few of the previous builds, but alas it wouldn't boot in VMWare.)

  • The kind of feedback they're looking for (Score:3, Funny)

    by justinkim (513188) on Sunday September 24 2006, @07:44AM (#16174079)
    And just so everyone is clear, 'Replace this steaming pile with Ubuntu" is probably *not* the kind of feedback Microsoft is looking for ;)

  • Gah!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Klaidas (981300) on Sunday September 24 2006, @11:46AM (#16175993) Homepage
    So, I'm half way there downloading Vista's RC1, and a new release gets, um... released?!

    • Re:How long? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2006, @06:38AM (#16173795)
      It locks mid next year

    • Re:How long? (Score:5, Informative)

      by brassman (112558) on Sunday September 24 2006, @07:01AM (#16173895) Homepage
      June 2007. (I see an AC replied but he has a score of zero, so I don't feel completely redundant posting this at 2.)

      Had this puppy for a week already and may actually get around to installing it, this time....
    • Does one needs to buy a Product Key for testing this release candidate?


      FTA :
      Note: Your Beta 2/RC1 product keys will still be valid for this version.

    • Re:Product Key (Score:4, Informative)

      by ben there... (946946) on Sunday September 24 2006, @08:21AM (#16174231) Journal
      You'll need a product key from here [microsoft.com]. Pull down "select your location" in the Download section. Fill out some stuff and you get a product key.
    • Command Prompt -> format d: /q
      So much for a 2.5 GB download!!

    • Re:My experience with Vista (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2006, @07:49AM (#16174105)
      Good god man,

      If you give up that quickly on Windows, an OS that often takes the approach of insulating users from functionality through a very fine-tuned UI aimed for maximum user friendliness, then I hate to think what must have happened when you tried an OS that takes a "more power to the user" ideology, like say, "Linux"?

      Step 1: Install Linux
      Step 2: Try to compile something
      Step 3: It breaks, throw-away Linux in absolute disgust
      Step 4: Return to pre-configured Microsoft Bob, where it's safe.

      To further add to the absurdity of the previous post, the code you are using is _NOT_ finished. I'm not defending Windows, just preaching common sense. It's quite possible it could have been a bug specific to the users setup.

      It's uninformative, ridiculous comments like the former that harm Slashdot, offering a stereotypical Windows bashing with no real merit, contributing nothing.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by babbling (952366)
        Since when are there programs that don't need to be compiled on Windows but do need to be compiled on Linux?

        For your information, my copy of Ubuntu came pre-compiled...

    • Re:DRM and OpenGL? (Score:4, Informative)

      by baadger (764884) on Sunday September 24 2006, @09:16AM (#16174481)
      nVidia's latest driver's for Vista [nvidia.com] include an "OpenGL driver for compatibility testing.". OpenGL won't be a problem, it'll be provided by third party drivers like it always has been, there just won't be any software fallback provided by MS (OpenGL in software is useless anyway).

      As for DRM, well. Nothing in Vista itself is going to prevent you from copying DVD's, software or music or any other such thing. Windows Media files will still be protected of course, and HDCP will HAVE to be built into all HD-DVD/Blu-ray drives and decoders (read: the hardware) for you to watch this material.

      The DRM issue with respect to Vista is all mythic. The only true rights taken away from you in Vista compared to XP are in the 64bit (x64) edition, under which, you cannot install unsigned drivers (unless you add an option to the Vista bootloader which isn't that difficult).
      • The option to disable driver signing protection permanently will not be in the final version of Vista. The only option to disable it will be pressing F8 every time you boot the system and select that option.

        There is something called "test signing", but this is a pain to enable. Also, if either test signing is enabled or driver signature checking is disabled, Windows Media Player refuses to play protected songs and movies. Protection against rootkits my ass.

        Melissa
    • Vista is like XP but with even more pointless visual effects to turn off, not to meantion it runs alot slower.

      Ok, I think you should at least try it. You are the target audience MS is trying to hit.

      I think you will find yourself surprised. Vista is faster than WindowsXP if you have 512mb of RAM. (Yes a step jump from the 128mb XP threshold)

      The other thing you will find as you use Vista is the OS doesn't look 'extremely' different, but you find yourself using many of the new features.

      Right now going back to

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.