Microsoft Ships Vista build 5381.1 to Testers
Posted by Hurmoth on 06 May 2006 - 16:42 · 63 comments & 42105 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Hurmoth
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Hurmoth
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(1 reply)
#1 Posted by mohan_168 on 06 May 2006 - 16:51
- I thought 5472 would have been released. Anyways something better than nothing. By the way anyone knows if the May22nd Beta 2 final and May 23rd WINHEC dates are final ?
-
#1.1 Posted by xpclient on 08 May 2006 - 04:33
- I read in some MS hardware newsletter that this so-called Beta 2 of Vista WILL SUPPORT EFI for testing purposes. Here's more proof => http://bink.nu/Article6842.bink
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by Express on 06 May 2006 - 16:51
- Read on some forum that 54xx builds are already being build.
Why is this old build being released? -
#2.1 Posted by Brandon Live on 06 May 2006 - 17:11
- Because 54xx is post beta 2. Beta 2 is already in lockdown. This lets critical bugs in beta 2 get fixed in a seperate branch while other development aimed at RC1 can continue without destabilizing the beta 2 release.
This happens with every external release.
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by Hurmoth on 06 May 2006 - 16:59
- Why do people always have to complain? Why can't anyone be happy that they've got something newer than they had before? Paul Thurrott has stated that build 5381 is Beta 2, which will be released May 22. That's why Microsoft is releasing this build and not 5472.
Paul said on May 5, "Microsoft continues work on Vista build 5381, which will be finalized as Beta 2 on May 22." So what is so difficult to understand? -
#3.1 Posted by Jugalator on 06 May 2006 - 18:20
- I agree, and one have to keep in mind that it's either some build perhaps a month old or so, or an unstable bleeding edge build that may not even work on many system setups, or have breaking bugs in them. So if Microsoft released a later build, one can bet there would instead be a flood of complaints from its bugs.
Microsoft have always done things like this for builds intended for more public use and this case is nothing new. CTP branches were traditionally up to a month old as well compared to those of the main development line.
The reason this happens is simply that it often takes a number of weeks to make something useful to the masses, so they can obviously not just pick the latest one and throw it out as-is.
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by Tem on 06 May 2006 - 17:00
- There always releasing old builds when there is newer ones available.
-
#4.1 Posted by Caleb on 06 May 2006 - 17:12
- Quote - Tem said @ #3.1There always releasing old builds when there is newer ones available.
That's right. One build is chosen to be the Beta one and goes through QA while work continues on the next builds.
Maybe there are 54xx builds already, but they're not as foolproof as the 5381 one.
-
(2 replies)
#5 Posted by Aq3e on 06 May 2006 - 17:02
- It's always Paul this and Paul that.
, Anyways hopefully this build will work on my system, probably not 
-
#5.1 Posted by Hurmoth on 06 May 2006 - 17:04
- Yeah, the previous build wouldn't work on my system. Kept giving me BSODs just as the installation screen would come up.
-
#5.2 Posted by Express on 06 May 2006 - 21:46
- I am assuming you guys mean that it crashes the first time it reboots during installation not the initial install screen (which does only file expansion and file copy).
If you have RAID, make sure you supply the raid drivers during installation otherwise install will always fail.
-
#6 Posted by tlogank on 06 May 2006 - 17:40
- Anyone know if MSDN user's will get this?
-
#7 Posted by SHoTTa35 on 06 May 2006 - 17:49
- nice nice!!! cant wait to test it!
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by ir0nw0lf on 06 May 2006 - 18:03
- WARNING WARNING WARNING
As reported on several less-than-savory sites, the 64-bit build is TOO big to burn to a single-layer DVD! Either mount the ISO in your exisiting OS with Daemon Tools (or your favorite similar program), or you will have to burn it to a dual-layer DVD. I find it rather funny for some reason.
-
(2 replies)
#9 Posted by SHoTTa35 on 06 May 2006 - 18:13
- Quote - ir0nw0lf said @ #8WARNING WARNING WARNING
As reported on several less-than-savory sites, the 64-bit build is TOO big to burn to a single-layer DVD! Either mount the ISO in your exisiting OS with Daemon Tools (or your favorite similar program), or you will have to burn it to a dual-layer DVD. I find it rather funny for some reason.
You're a lil late but they've sepearated them. The first one was 7GB and now it's shows up with x86 build being 2.2GB and the other being like 4GB. -
#9.1 Posted by ThaCrip on 07 May 2006 - 06:02
- 2.2gb and 4gb, this is "just" for windows vista? ... if thats true thats gotta be BLOATED!
personally i dont see any real reason to upgrade to windows vista if your already using Windows XP (which most people are) as XP is already stable (which is about all anyone really needs along with compatibility) all vista will probably have is more support for devices is about all.
this is probably the first time i wont upgrade ... even if i got a free copy... although i might play around with vista i doubt ill run it permanently since xp is still pretty much the standard.
are there any "real" differances between vista and windows xp besides a new interface basically? -
#9.2 Posted by MrCobra on 07 May 2006 - 06:14
- Try a updated and more secure kernel for starters. Finally, working limited user accounts. Parental controls for us parents. Unstable interdependancies in the kernel as well as through other parts were removed and reworked as mch as possible.
Vista will sell no matter what when all the DX10 games start comming about. It's not what's on the surface that's most important. It's all the work that went on underneat.
I won't be buying Vista until SP1 for it is out.
-
(1 reply)
#10 Posted by acido00 on 06 May 2006 - 18:15
- it's the final beta2?
-
(3 replies)
#11 Posted by ir0nw0lf on 06 May 2006 - 18:21
- Quote - SHoTTa35 said @ #8.1Quote - ir0nw0lf said @ #8WARNING WARNING WARNING
As reported on several less-than-savory sites, the 64-bit build is TOO big to burn to a single-layer DVD! Either mount the ISO in your exisiting OS with Daemon Tools (or your favorite similar program), or you will have to burn it to a dual-layer DVD. I find it rather funny for some reason.
You're a lil late but they've sepearated them. The first one was 7GB and now it's shows up with x86 build being 2.2GB and the other being like 4GB.
Guess you didn't pay much attention:
VISTA_5381.1_32bit_Main_Client-Staged_DVD_EN.iso, 3,347.84 MB
VISTA_5381.1_64bit_Main_Client_Staged_DVD_EN.iso, 4,834.25 MB
^^ As copy & pasted from connect, they updated the files from the checked builds to there. Notice the 64-bit build size?? -
#11.1 Posted by SHoTTa35 on 06 May 2006 - 18:46
- Quote - ir0nw0lf said @ #9.1Quote - SHoTTa35 said @ #8.1Quote - ir0nw0lf said @ #8WARNING WARNING WARNING
As reported on several less-than-savory sites, the 64-bit build is TOO big to burn to a single-layer DVD! Either mount the ISO in your exisiting OS with Daemon Tools (or your favorite similar program), or you will have to burn it to a dual-layer DVD. I find it rather funny for some reason.
You're a lil late but they've sepearated them. The first one was 7GB and now it's shows up with x86 build being 2.2GB and the other being like 4GB.
Guess you didn't pay much attention:
VISTA_5381.1_32bit_Main_Client-Staged_DVD_EN.iso, 3,347.84 MB
VISTA_5381.1_64bit_Main_Client_Staged_DVD_EN.iso, 4,834.25 MB
^^ As copy & pasted from connect, they updated the files from the checked builds to there. Notice the 64-bit build size??
Yeah oops, that was supposed to be 3.2GB The other i dind't care about so i didn't look Thanks for the correction -
#11.2 Posted by manne on 07 May 2006 - 10:42
- and since you copied and pasted from connect, you're a beta tester and then you know that publishing the complete filename is not allowed.
-
(1 reply)
#12 Posted by jwjw1 on 06 May 2006 - 19:03
- now they got the 32bit in staged..huh...I heard some grabbed it earlier and got the:
VISTA_5381.1_32bit_Client_Unstaged_CHK_DVD_EN.iso 2.24GB
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by ludeboy12 on 06 May 2006 - 19:52
- sweet i wake up and see this.....getting it now at 1023kb/sec....w00t
-
#13.1 Posted by Divide Overflow on 06 May 2006 - 20:46
- [Spam] 8 megabits per second huh? Pfft. . Feast your eyes on my >10< megabit connection! BWAHAHAHA! [/Spam]
-
(2 replies)
#14 Posted by ziggie216 on 06 May 2006 - 20:45
- does ms ever release a list of changes?
-
#14.1 Posted by Express on 07 May 2006 - 02:16
- Feature teams sometimes post the details of major changes in the newsgroups.
-
(1 reply)
#15 Posted by SHoTTa35 on 06 May 2006 - 21:05
- nope, it's your duty as a tester to figure it out :-D If you've used it before and noticed bugs, you're supposed to check them again when you get a new build. If everyone does that every bug will be fix as well as if they keep their eyes out for new bugs also.
-
#15.1 Posted by ziggie216 on 07 May 2006 - 09:45
- Quote - SHoTTa35 said @ #14.1nope, it's your duty as a tester to figure it out :-D If you've used it before and noticed bugs, you're supposed to check them again when you get a new build. If everyone does that every bug will be fix as well as if they keep their eyes out for new bugs also.
i mean for all I know.. this could be the same exact release as previous w/ just a different release number
-
(2 replies)
#16 Posted by frogworm on 07 May 2006 - 03:30
- it is really pretty messed up when the news of a release comes out here before email goes out from Microsoft to tell the testers.
-
#16.1 Posted by Ideas Man on 07 May 2006 - 04:23
- That's because it was supposed to stay internal to give beta testers who participate in the newsgroups a little speed boost.
-
#17 Posted by Saadu on 07 May 2006 - 10:23
- Screenshots anyone?
-
#18 Posted by neostyle on 07 May 2006 - 10:49
- http://www.winfuture.de/index.php?page=wfv...id=1744&seite=1
-
#19 Posted by Guol on 07 May 2006 - 10:50
- How do you apply/download it from the connect site?
-
#20 Posted by azz0r_wugg on 07 May 2006 - 11:47
- Crashes too much, worse than the 65 build last week.
-
(2 replies)
#21 Posted by Zone-MR on 07 May 2006 - 11:53
- He said 1023kb/sec not 1023kB/sec. b not B. Bits not bytes. His connection is 1mbit.
Either that, or he hasn't yet figured out the importance of using standard unit conventions. -
#21.1 Posted by Luppy on 07 May 2006 - 15:15
- Quote - Zone-MR said @ #13.2He said 1023kb/sec not 1023kB/sec. b not B. Bits not bytes. His connection is 1mbit.
Either that, or he hasn't yet figured out the importance of using standard unit conventions.
Well duh to the "he hasn't yet figured out " as the 'K' is a 'k' not a 'K' -
#21.2 Posted by fobban on 07 May 2006 - 21:10
- I have to agree Zone-MR: it is sad that almost no one uses standard unit conventions. However, I guess you mean that his connection is 1 Mbit/s (megabit/s) and not 1 mbit/s (millibit/s). Quite a difference there too my friend
Last edited by fobban on 08 May 2006 - 07:17
-
(9 replies)
#22 Posted by Yogurth on 07 May 2006 - 12:42
- Wow 43% CPU with 440 Mb memory consumed in idle mod. This is ridicolous. What the hell is MS doing?
-
#22.1 Posted by denzilla on 07 May 2006 - 13:29
- I'm not in the beta so not 100% sure, but I think thats because MS has debugging turned on.
-
#22.3 Posted by Daedalus on 07 May 2006 - 14:48
- I'm betting you've encountered a bug... are you using an nVidia video card?
-
#22.4 Posted by Brandon Live on 07 May 2006 - 16:47
- If it's a new install and you're idle it's probably indexing your hard drive or mail. As soon as you do something it will back off.
Or you've hit a bug or have a run away app. Hard to say since you didn't mention which process was using it. And 440MB is nothing (depending on how you measured it of course). -
#22.5 Posted by nowimnothing on 07 May 2006 - 17:30
- The 43% was a spike - look at the graph, it jumped up from zero just like 1 second before the screenshot was taken.
And given that its a beta, and they're running stuff in the sidebar, i'm not too surprised by the 460Mb Page File usage. -
#22.6 Posted by PharosBR on 07 May 2006 - 18:43
- It's still a beta. The last thing they do before releasing such a product is optimizing it, and it hasn't happened.
Don't worry =] -
#22.7 Posted by Hurmoth on 07 May 2006 - 20:07
- Yeah, as much as I enjoy bashing Microsoft right now for their shortcomings, I have to agree that we shouldn't be to worried right now with how much resources is being used because it is still beta. Once we get closer to RTM, then we can complain about that.
-
#22.8 Posted by Emphatic on 08 May 2006 - 12:13
- You'll find that optimisation idle tasks will run a lot in the first few days of using windows to optimise booting and defrag etc... lookup 'processidletasks' on google.
-
#22.9 Posted by rob.derosa on 08 May 2006 - 15:27
- If you actually looked at the scale on the graph (not to mention that massive spike), it is clear to see that most of the time the CPU is actually at ~1-2%.
:yawn:
-
(2 replies)
#23 Posted by Yogurth on 07 May 2006 - 14:52
- These are not my results, but from last screenshot on Winfuture.de. I gave up beta testing Vista after build 5308, which was completely disapointing on many levels if not all.
..oops this was ment to be reply...sry -
#23.1 Posted by SHoTTa35 on 07 May 2006 - 20:29
- Quote - Yogurth said @ #23These are not my results, but from last screenshot on Winfuture.de. I gave up beta testing Vista after build 5308, which was completely disapointing on many levels if not all.
..oops this was ment to be reply...sry
I couldn't even run 5308 on my laptop so i wouldn't blame ya but 5365 was great!! 5381 is even better i heard, I have 3 more hours to go before i even get to burn the dvd!
-
#24 Posted by LeonMc on 07 May 2006 - 21:18
- here some screenshots: http://www.win-news.de/screenshots/screen_catid,17.html
-
#25 Posted by strekship on 07 May 2006 - 21:56
- Yay. I got this one to install. 5365 would crash every time i tried to load my SATA drivers.
-
#26 Posted by
voidunknown on 08 May 2006 - 18:36
- Downloading now. MS Connect says it is Beta 2. Just started it 10 minutes ago, got 30 minutes remaining.
-
#27 Posted by Azadre on 08 May 2006 - 19:05
- I cannot believe I remember downloading a leaked iso of longhorn (alpha vista) in 2002 and it's 2006 and no product has materialized!
-
(1 reply)
#28 Posted by ev0| on 08 May 2006 - 19:44
- ^^ what the hell are you talking about ? No product has materialized ? It's right there, it's just not finished yet. Nice spin attempt.
-
#28.1 Posted by Hurmoth on 09 May 2006 - 12:32
- He saying that no product has been released yet, and he's right. You cannot go to a store and buy a copy of Vista yet, can you? It has taken Microsoft way to long to get this product out to the market and no one can argue that. Microsoft has had an abysmal record with Vista, hopefully it's all up hill from this point forward, but nevertheless it is ridiculous that Vista has taken this long.
-
#29 Posted by ev0| on 10 May 2006 - 03:28
- oh okay, i get it you've been a lead developer on a project as ambitious as vista and you feel qualified to talk about it. Well i highly doubt you'd be a moderator on neowin if you had that kind of experience. Ugh.
Windows users who are eager to test Windows Vista don't have much longer to wait: Microsoft will ship Beta 2 to millions of consumers sometime in late May. Currently, the company still plans to ship Beta 2 on May 22. Attendees of the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) 2006, which runs May 23rd through the 25th, will receive Vista Beta 2 on DVD.