Windows Vista RTM has leaked

Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it
Forum rules
Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it
___
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by ___ »

i think it just ends up being a trial version

merty
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:03 am
Location: Australia

Post by merty »

cooled wrote:the billgates release itself is nuked with 5840 +5744 files.
So basically i shouldn't be downloading this build right because it isn't really RTM?

___
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by ___ »

there is a patch to change it, but i haven't tried it

cooled
FTP Access
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by cooled »

i myself wouldnt try the patch since another group has a better iso. also that other group has leaked x64 in a aio. the billgates release itself is very messed up so dont bother with it.

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12628
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Andy »

cooled wrote:i myself wouldnt try the patch since another group has a better iso. also that other group has leaked x64 in a aio. the billgates release itself is very messed up so dont bother with it.
And that build was released earlier in the combined dvd.

cooled
FTP Access
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by cooled »

it was by none other than winbeta. they did a great job there and its got the full wims from both isos.

Commodore-Freak

Post by Commodore-Freak »

Is it possible to run the installer with only 256MB RAM?

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

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

Commodore-Freak wrote:Is it possible to run the installer with only 256MB RAM?
Not by default (it fails with a message saying 512 is recommended) - unless there's a way round it like there is with the previous versions of Windows, but I haven't heard of one (it was always a command switch for XP and before, but you can't start the Vista installer from DOS).
Image

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

Post by empireum »

I think the reason the Vista install won't work with less than 512MB of RAM is that it loads Windows PE 2.0 to run the installation from, and this Windows PE image is completely loaded into RAM. With less than 512MB it won't fit, so there's no way to run the installation program, then. A possible solution I could think of would be to create a custom WinPE image that boots from CD-ROM (or is small enough to fit in 256MB RAM) and then to start the Vista install manually from the WinPE command line. Vista can run with 256MB. I might try to work out a solution. Now thatwe have the final Vista AIK, messing around with WinPE is no problem anymore. Maybe i's also possible to use an older version of WinPE (made from XP/2003) to start the Vista install. That method would require two optical drives, though.

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 think the reason the Vista install won't work with less than 512MB of RAM is that it loads Windows PE 2.0 to run the installation from, and this Windows PE image is completely loaded into RAM. With less than 512MB it won't fit, so there's no way to run the installation program, then.
If you boot with less than 256 it doesn't boot into PE and gives a Boot Manager error saying it couldn't fit the PE into Ram. However, with 256 it reaches the screen with the Aurora-type background and the language selection, and then gives the error after thinking for a few seconds after you've chosen your language and tried to start the installation (before the product key screen). That would suggest the PE has loaded, unless more loads after you click "Install Now"?
Image

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

Post by empireum »

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
empireum wrote:I think the reason the Vista install won't work with less than 512MB of RAM is that it loads Windows PE 2.0 to run the installation from, and this Windows PE image is completely loaded into RAM. With less than 512MB it won't fit, so there's no way to run the installation program, then.
If you boot with less than 256 it doesn't boot into PE and gives a Boot Manager error saying it couldn't fit the PE into Ram. However, with 256 it reaches the screen with the Aurora-type background and the language selection, and then gives the error after thinking for a few seconds after you've chosen your language and tried to start the installation (before the product key screen). That would suggest the PE has loaded, unless more loads after you click "Install Now"?
Hmm... Then, modifying/tinkering around with the WinPE image as I have thought may not help.

AnDrEwP182
FTP Access
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: Saint-Henri, Montréal, Québec

Post by AnDrEwP182 »

leaked already...
I am not to enthusiastic about Vista, it is XP in fancy clothes.

___
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by ___ »

AnDrEwP182 wrote:leaked already...
I am not to enthusiastic about Vista, it is XP in fancy clothes.
o rly?

hc2995

Post by hc2995 »

windows vista is still too new for me, i still run WINXP lol

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12628
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Andy »

hc2995 wrote:windows vista is still too new for me, i still run WINXP lol
I tend to agree that XP is better than Vista as it currently stands. At least XP works out of the box pretty much buglessly.

AnDrEwP182
FTP Access
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: Saint-Henri, Montréal, Québec

Post by AnDrEwP182 »

Win XP? I am still running HYDRA!

___
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by ___ »

Andy wrote:
hc2995 wrote:windows vista is still too new for me, i still run WINXP lol
I tend to agree that XP is better than Vista as it currently stands. At least XP works out of the box pretty much buglessly.
give vista a bit longer and it will (unless it becomes ME version 2)

hc2995

Post by hc2995 »

yea i tend to wait for a bit before i update OS (lets them get the big bugs out )

AnDrEwP182
FTP Access
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: Saint-Henri, Montréal, Québec

Post by AnDrEwP182 »

ME2 brings back those dissappointed people when they head "Tiger" would be stopped.

Actually, I plan to do Vista, but i will delay it to RC2

blahsucks-two
FTP Access
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:21 am

Post by blahsucks-two »

RC2 already arrived, but it was removed, if my info is correct.

tpemail
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 361
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:09 am
Location: China
Contact:

Post by tpemail »

hc2995 wrote:windows vista is still too new for me, i still run WINXP lol
You know, newer M$ software/OS usually means a new disaster
btw I still use Win2000

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

Post by empireum »

tpemail wrote:
hc2995 wrote:windows vista is still too new for me, i still run WINXP lol
You know, newer M$ software/OS usually means a new disaster
btw I still use Win2000
Yeah, Win2k is my preferred MS OS as well – besides Win2k3 which has the Win2k look&feel but the newer and improved kernel. I remember a sentence I'd heard some time ago: "Never install an NT before the third service pack has been released"

___
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by ___ »

windows 2000 reminded me too much of win95

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

Post by empireum »

___ wrote:windows 2000 reminded me too much of win95
You mean due to the Look&Feel? I'm a diehard fan of the Classic look and I absolutely hate XP's eyecandy. Vista's is better, but I still prefer the good old Classic mode.

___
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by ___ »

I never really used 2000 (besides at school) and i don't really like the felling of being in an office or something. At least with XP you can change the themes (with a bit of modding)

Post Reply