Vista build 5840

New news and release discussion.
___
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am
Location: New Zealand

Vista build 5840

Post by ___ »

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

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12623
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Andy »

5840 EN can now be found on the FTP server. Thank god for torrents and a 10/10 connection

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

Thanks Andy, that's really great!

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12623
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Andy »

I should add it is untested. So if its corrupt dont shout at me! It did open with UltraISO though.

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

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

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

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

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

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

k5resort

Post by k5resort »

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.

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

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
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

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

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

Amplificator
FTP Access
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:42 pm
Location: Denmark

Post by Amplificator »

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..

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

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

Luckie
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Germany

Post by Luckie »

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

Fusion
Donator
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:39 pm
Location: Lab06

Post by Fusion »

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

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

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. 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.

Luckie
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Germany

Post by Luckie »

empireum wrote:It seems Vista is getting faster and faster with every new build.
thats right

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

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!

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

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

Luckie
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Germany

Post by Luckie »

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."

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

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...
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...

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

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

Luckie
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Germany

Post by Luckie »

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."

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

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.

Luckie
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Germany

Post by Luckie »

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

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

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)

Locked