BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 0d, 21h, 55m | CPU: 4% | MEM: 4167MB of 10231MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Wireless Feature Pack RTM x86+ x64 download        Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:35 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:27 pm

Posts
140
Description can be found here

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942567

• Bluetooth version 2.1 support
• Unified Pairing user interface
• Windows Connect Now updates

Code:
http://rapidshare.com/files/138614227/WindowsVistaWFP08.rar


Enjoy!


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:17 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:32 am

Posts
263

Favourite OS
Windows 8 7955
Installed it, these are the RTM versions, but the build number is 6.1.6001.2200 and the build date is in April which means that the KB article is wrong it gives a build number of 6.0.6002.xxxx and a build date of March, making this build newer than the supposedly (read: not) RTM build from the KB.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:21 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:45 am

Posts
628

Location
UK
This update fuxored my pc good and proper. It BSOD'd on reboot and screwed winsock somehow. Even after uninstall I still had no internet connectivity at all even though I could still ping both my modem and router. I'm currently posting from a backtrack live cd looking for a fix. Be warned.

EDIT

If tis happens to anyone else the fix is to open a cmd prompt and type

Code:
netsh winsock reset
Enter

then

Code:
netsh int ip reset
Enter

Then reboot.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:19 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
Luthian wrote:
Installed it, these are the RTM versions, but the build number is 6.1.6001.2200 and the build date is in April which means that the KB article is wrong it gives a build number of 6.0.6002.xxxx and a build date of March, making this build newer than the supposedly (read: not) RTM build from the KB.


What you meant to say is that the build you downloaded is 6.1.6001 and the KB article says that the final build is 6.1.6002. That means this file on rapidshare isn't the RTM, not that the KB article is wrong.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:32 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:32 am

Posts
263

Favourite OS
Windows 8 7955
QuiescentWonder wrote:
Luthian wrote:
Installed it, these are the RTM versions, but the build number is 6.1.6001.2200 and the build date is in April which means that the KB article is wrong it gives a build number of 6.0.6002.xxxx and a build date of March, making this build newer than the supposedly (read: not) RTM build from the KB.


What you meant to say is that the build you downloaded is 6.1.6001 and the KB article says that the final build is 6.1.6002. That means this file on rapidshare isn't the RTM, not that the KB article is wrong.


No, if you'd finished reading my post you would have noticed that the build number in the KB article is 6.0.6002 and this version is 6.1.6001, which is also the build number from the Media center TV pack. Also, the build DATE on The leaked copy is NEWER than the build date from the KB article, meaining that this leaked build is NEWER than the build the KB article is based off of.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:53 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
thanks for the upload. Did you get it from an OEM?

_________________
"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: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:15 pm 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:27 pm

Posts
140
no. its build 6.1.6001.22000


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:26 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
Alright, aside from yelling at me because I read the minor version number from the KB article incorrectly, something is wrong here. Windows Vista SP1 is Windows 6.0.6001. The file name in the rar that was linked to says 6.0. I haven't installed it myself, I'll take your word for it installing as 6.1.6002. The KB article (that the file name also links to) says 6.0.6002, which is the same build number, but a different minor version.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:45 pm 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:32 am

Posts
263

Favourite OS
Windows 8 7955
There is nothing wrong, The installer is for Windows 6.0 (Vista) It updates the wireless components to version 6.1.6001.xxxx. Both the Feature Packs so far (this one and the Media center pack) update components to 6.1.6001 and I would be willing to bet that the Feature Pack for storage will also have the 6.1 build number. What must have happened with the KB article is that it was baised after an internal beta of the feature pack and not the RTM one (this is also supported by the build dates, the one in the KB article is older than the time stamp on the leaked files).


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:03 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
The KB article and the file name must be wrong. Unless the file name is referencing the version of Windows it installs on and not the file versions. As far as I know, if the the build date/time and sub-build number are different it doesn't actually mean that anything was changed/it doesn't qualify as a new build, which is why the build number stays the same. The sub-build number is the number of times a build has been compiled.

The downloaded copy actually has a lower build number than the KB article but a higher minor version number. The major and minor version numbers, I've always thought, are the same as the version of Windows it was being installed on.


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 10 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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