BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 25d, 20h, 23m | CPU: 100% | MEM: 6267MB of 11089MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Vista build 5840        Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:06 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
English and Simplified Chinese version can be found out in the wild

Vista.5840.16384.061018-1900.x86fre.EN - 2.53GB
Vista.5840.16384.061018-1900.x86fre.CHS


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:42 am 
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12473

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
5840 EN can now be found on the FTP server. Thank god for torrents and a 10/10 connection 8)

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:49 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Thanks Andy, that's really great! 8)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:50 am 
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12473

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
I should add it is untested. So if its corrupt dont shout at me! It did open with UltraISO though.

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:52 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
OK :) I'll test it when it's here, as long as it installs, it should be okay :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:01 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Is 5840 much different to 5744, seeing as it looks to have only been compiled 15 days later? ie is it worth the d/l if you've already got 5744?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:05 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
I'm downloading it now...
It's the pre-RTM build, it doesn't have a timebomb but it can't be activated as of yet, AFAIK. It doesn't have the new sounds or the boot screen. So I'd say it's not a must to download 5840 if you already have 5744. I'm DLing it anyway because I'm a collector and I want to check if the possibility of unlocking the other Vista editions is still there :D


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:19 am 
It takes RTM keys, so you'll have to install with no key. Also, you have to boot from the DVD to install it. If you start the install from within Windows you can't get past the product key screen. There is no timebomb, however we don't have a way to get past the 30 days for activation yet.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:21 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
I'm downloading it now...
It's the pre-RTM build, it doesn't have a timebomb but it can't be activated as of yet, AFAIK. It doesn't have the new sounds or the boot screen. So I'd say it's not a must to download 5840 if you already have 5744. I'm DLing it anyway because I'm a collector and I want to check if the possibility of unlocking the other Vista editions is still there :D


Still no boot screen?! They're leaving it a bit late aren't they...?

Maybe you could hack it to make it accept CPP keys, as then you'd be able to activate? ;) I think there's ways to do this with Windows XP/2003 etc - you can certainly replace several files to make a normal XP accept Corporate keys (and become Corporate ie not needing activating), and by replacing one file (Pidgen.dll) I made XP install with a Windows 2000 key, although it was not possible to log on (it gave a WPA error when you tried to log on) - you could probably make XP use a 2000 key if you worked at it a bit though. So in theory it must be possible to make the RTM Vista builds accept CPP keys by swapping files in from a CPP version...

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:27 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Quote:
Still no boot screen?! They're leaving it a bit late aren't they...?

Well, yes... But let's just wait :) I'm more interested in the Longhorn Server, though. The latest leaked build is 5744, and it's quite buggy and unstable (it's still a Beta 2 release). I'm looking forward to the first build that has the final name and logo inside :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:29 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:42 pm

Posts
35

Location
Denmark
Why do everyone care so much about a boot screen, and saying that they are late on that?

It's not like a bootscreen needs alot of testing, so they will probably do it just in time for RTM (Not ESCROW releases)

They probably left out more features that we havn't even seen yet..


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:34 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Amplificator wrote:
It's not like a bootscreen needs alot of testing, so they will probably do it just in time for RTM (Not ESCROW releases)

If they're planning on just sticking a Vista logo on to the current (XP-style) boot screen, yes. But I thought they were going to make a completely new boot screen system where it actually has a decent resolution (ie something a bit better than XP's 640x480 16-colours) and looks reasonable (maybe even Aurora?), which would need testing. However, if they're leaving it this late than maybe we are just going to get an ugly XP-style (well, 3.1-style come to that!) boot screen.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:23 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
the new version is very fast :) Does anyone know how to use it for more than 30days?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:32 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:39 pm

Posts
61

Location
Lab06
does anyone know if you can use a ATi x1600 this time?

_________________
MSN: svfusion@(nospam)gmail.com


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:01 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Quote:
the new version is very fast Smile Does anyone know how to use it for more than 30days?

It seems Vista is getting faster and faster with every new build. :D AFAIK, no working keys (or maybe there's one) for the pre-RTM builds are known that will allow the system to be activated – but I could be wrong.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:22 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
empireum wrote:
It seems Vista is getting faster and faster with every new build. :D


thats right :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:26 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
I hope Longhorn Server is doing as well as Vista! It's still in Beta 2 stage... Maybe LH Build 6000 will be a big change or something like that, the first build to contain the final name or something! :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:34 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Luckie wrote:
empireum wrote:
It seems Vista is getting faster and faster with every new build. :D


thats right :)


They all feel about the same speed to me in VMware :( There must be a limit to VMware performance that lies at about Beta 2 level, I think - I actually thought Beta 2 felt quite fast, even though everyone said it was slow.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:34 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
Yes. And one point is that Longhorn Server will be more stable than Vista because all issues from Vista will be fixed in future CTPs of LHS, so it is better to stay at Longhorn Server + Desktop Experience installed :)

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
They all feel about the same speed to me in VMware :( There must be a limit to VMware performance that lies at about Beta 2 level, I think - I actually thought Beta 2 felt quite fast, even though everyone said it was slow.


Under VPC2007 Vista is fast after installing the virtual pc addons :)

_________________
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:38 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Quote:
They all feel about the same speed to me in VMware Sad There must be a limit to VMware performance that lies at about Beta 2 level, I think - I actually thought Beta 2 felt quite fast, even though everyone said it was slow.

To me, Beta 2 was awfully slow compared to the newer builds. 5456 was much faster than that, and every following build has been an improvement – both on a real machine and in virtual ones. But a Vista/LHS VM still completely hogs one core on my dual-core notebook, maybe because of Parallels...

Quote:
Yes. And one point is that Longhorn Server will be more stable than Vista because all issues from Vista will be fixed in future CTPs of LHS, so it is better to stay at Longhorn Server + Desktop Experience installed Smile

I agree. Server 2003 is more stable than XP – but again, it has a newer, slightly (?) different kernel. I think Vista and LH will share the same kernel, apparently LH will contain a newer version of it...


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:41 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Luckie wrote:
Under VPC2007 Vista is fast after installing the virtual pc addons :)


Is VPC2007 significantly faster than 2004? 2004 is a lot slower than VMware for Vista - I haven't tried 2007 yet as I don't normally put beta software on my main setup, and you apparently can't use VPC2004 after you've put 2007 on.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:44 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
Is VPC2007 significantly faster than 2004?


In my opinion, yes :) Because I don't like VMWare and Parallels workstaion couldn't emulate ACPI it could not run Vista I use the Beta of VPC2007 and it is ok :) I have to try Virtual Server, perhaps this is much faster than VPC.

_________________
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:46 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
I can only think of three points that could make VPC2007 significantly faster when running Vista:

(1) Vista is just better supported in VPC2007.
(2) The additions make the difference. It could be worth a try to install VPC2007's Vista additions in a VPC2004 VM. Be sure to backup your VM, though, before trying that.
(3) VPC2007 supports hardware virtualization technology, and Luckie has a CPU capable of it. He'll answer if this is true.

@Luckie
I don't think Virtual Server will be faster than VPC2004 as it uses more or less the same "engine" as VPC2004.-And you're referring to Parallels Workstation on Windows? I run Parallels Desktop on an Intel Mac and it supports ACPI. Vista runs great in a VM, although it uses 50% of my dual-core CPU.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:49 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
empireum wrote:
And you're referring to Parallels Workstation on Windows? I run Parallels Desktop on an Intel Mac and it supports ACPI.


:shock: sure? I tried to run Vista, but the setup stops with message "no acpi was found" :?

_________________
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:52 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Yes, I just tried again it today :) What version are you running? Parallels Workstation for Windows/Linux or Parallels Desktop for Mac OS X? Anyway, look at the Parallels website to get the newest version. There has been an update that significantly improves Vista support.

http://www.parallels.com/en/news/id,9900 (Parallels Workstation for Windows/Linux)
http://www.parallels.com/en/news/id,9899 (Parallels Desktop for Mac OS X)


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS