Windows Vista Service Pack 1 RTM x86 leaked

[sgtLENIN]

This is an Escrow build

Not final.

That may very well be, but without backing that comment up with some proof your not really have much weight.

[marc2003]

i found the build mentioned in the first post. it's digitally signed on the 19th January. if it's final i'll eat my hat. :p

[Maximum Error]

This is an Escrow build

Not final.

Source code escrow agents hold source code of software in escrow just as other escrow companies hold cash. The highly valuable (and often secret) source code is only released by the agent to either party upon specific terms of the escrow agreem

Still could be final source code!

[Electronic Punk]

So we have to compile it ourselves? :p

[Maximum Error]

So we have to compile it ourselves? :p

lol very good!

[Argi]

It's probably just another [internal] RC, that if no other problems are identified will become final. I'm not saying it's not genuine (the digital sig) but until it's posted on the Microsoft site we won't know for sure.

[NightmarE D]

That may very well be, but without backing that comment up with some proof your not really have much weight.

You're not backing up anything you say either. So take your own advice and stop implying that you know if it's final or not.

Nothing you've said has any weight to it. You keep saying you don't know, but at the same time you reply to others telling them they're wrong or to post proof and imply that you actually do know. Sorry, that's not how it works.

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

wtf is an escrow build?

[Maximum Error]

I dont think it is the real SP1 RTM. All the file apear to be legit but theres isnt a build date after the 19th of Jan. Even the EUAL "addendum" was made on the 19th just after 1800. That would mean the SP went to RTM on the 19th. Doesnt ring true.

Its definatley a true Microsoft build but i dont think its the SP1 build we will all see.

I would love to be wrong tho!

[sgtLENIN]

You're not backing up anything you say either. So take your own advice and stop implying that you know if it's final or not.

Nothing you've said has any weight to it. You keep saying you don't know, but at the same time you reply to others telling them they're wrong or to post proof and imply that you actually do know. Sorry, that's not how it works.

I'm sorry, you seem to have missed the point. I'm not drawing ANY conclusions, he is.

[DrCheese]

wtf is an escrow build?

As far as I know, an escrow build is where MS mark the SP as final and then do massive amounts of testing on it over a set timescale. If it passes then its RTM'd. If it doesn't then the bug is fixed and the escrow clock is reset. Vista had to be reset once during its first escrow period due to a bug that killed upgrade installs.

[Maximum Error]

OK. So i took the plunge and installed thinking that it wont do any harm cos the worst case is having to uninstall when the actual RTM comes out which i was going to have to do anyway.

They have changed the install process in that when you restart for the first time it immediatley jumps into stage 2 and seems to skip stage 1 Seocndly once stage three is completed you seem to spend along time looking at "Configuring updates". Other than that the install has been no different.

Major advantage to having the exe and not having to wait for the WU download to complete is that the entire process (up to "configuring updates" where i am now) has taken an hour. Much improved.

EDIT: i have just noticed that having gone through stage 1, 2 and 3 then moving on to "configuring updates" it has now moved on to stage one again. I can only presume that that is because the first set was installing missing updates and this new one is the actual SP....... time will tell

[Maximum Error]

All up and running! Everything working great! Much much faster with the standalone exe.

A new box now pops up after the process to tell you SP1 is now installed!

build number is 6001.18000.x86fre.longhorn_rtm.080118-1840

Edited January 31, 2008 by Maximum Error

[benben2002]

p.s is there anyway i can see the actual build number??

registry: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion:BuildLabEx

i bet its 6001.18000.x86fre.longhorn_rtm.080118-1840, 18 jan's escrow build

[Maximum Error]

registry: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion:BuildLabEx

i bet its 6001.18000.x86fre.longhorn_rtm.080118-1840, 18 jan's escrow build

Yeah its

6001.longhorn_rtm.080118-1840

6001.18000.x86fre.longhorn_rtm.080118-1840

even if its escrow...... it may end up being RTM

[b0m8er]

it is RTM build people!

all builds and distros are compiled and sent to OEMs

[.Kompressor]

I though Feb 15th was the release date:

http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2008/01/...-service-p.html

[edgarf28]

haha 6001.longhorn_rtm.080118-1840 is not the RTM build!!

6001.18000.080126-2040 is the RTM build! see: http://www.aeroxp.org/board/index.php?show...&start=1035

[b0m8er]

I though Feb 15th was the release date:

http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2008/01/...-service-p.html

it ain' announced yet. so noone knows when it's gonna be released

[Taliseian]

I would think that either the testers would get some sort of notification or Microsoft would announce it once Vista SP1 went final.

Since neither of those have happened yet, I would consider any build as questionable (beta code or refresh code) or even corrupted in some way (possible added spyware/malware/virii/trojans/etc).

Honestly, I would think that Microsoft would like to announce it from the rooftops with all trumpets blaring once SP1 went final.

T

[Glowstick]

Does Microsoft release slipstreamed ISO images of their operating system, or are these just ISOs with the service pack itself (kind of pointless)? I still have this Vista Ultimate key from the beta sitting here unused.

[hjf288]

Vista SP1 RC1 Refresh from Windows update kept crashing my computer when i ran Panda Nanoscan...

So it came off.. the previous version was fine though :(

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

question does anyone have 6001.18000.080126-2040 and have a proof of its existence?

also if the 080118_1840 is not RTM then why is labeled as RTM? ahhhhhhhhh so confusing!

[wojtekka]

question does anyone have 6001.18000.080126-2040 and have a proof of its existence?

also if the 080118_1840 is not RTM then why is labeled as RTM? ahhhhhhhhh so confusing!

MS is internally testing this build 6001.18000.080126-2040 which is probably RTM

[marc2003]

also if the 080118_1840 is not RTM then why is labeled as RTM? ahhhhhhhhh so confusing!

it's not labelled RTM. it only has RTM in the filename - which is meaningless. you can rename the file to anything you like without affecting the digital signature.