Windows Vista Service Pack 1 RTM x86 leaked

[1Frothy]

If it really did RTM today, it'll leak today or tomorrow.

I think there's some smoke and mirrors rubbish going on MajinDark, Microsoft tells us VistaSP1 is done. Then delays release until March. Seems to me like it's not really RTM at all.

...."Our beta testing identified an

issue with a small set of device drivers. These drivers do not

follow our guidelines for driver installation and as a result, some

beta participants who were using Windows Vista and updated to

Service Pack 1 reported issues with these devices. Because the

issue was with the way the drivers were installed and not the

drivers themselves, the solution was simply to reinstall the

drivers. While this worked fine for our more technical beta

testers, we want to deliver a better experience for customers as we

make the update broadly available."

Source: WindowsVistaBlog

That statement seems to be to say... 'We're not done yet, Vista SP1 isn't really Final.' :rofl:

Just can't get Vista right can they. Once again the release of Windows Vista is based on a shipping schedule not quality. (N)

Edited February 4, 2008 by 1Frothy

[Roger H. Veteran]

ok well that one that is from Vista forums is total junk and fake.

it's the old RC Refresh build.

Screenshot:

http://winvistaforums.com/downloads/Window...B936330-X86.exe

that was downloaded from that link which is from the page earlier.

Digital sig: Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:40:35 AM

[1Frothy]

ok well that one that is from Vista forums is total junk and fake.

it's the old RC Refresh build.

Screenshot:

http://winvistaforums.com/downloads/Window...B936330-X86.exe

that was downloaded from that link which is from the page earlier.

Thanks for testing it KoDeXeRo, I was going to check that download out. :/

I think this is funny, but true...

Is there a reason for the waiting time til mid-march?

When it's ready - release it.

When it's not ready - delay it.

I can't see really the benefit of an RTM Version of SP1 when I can't have it.

This release is making Vista SP1 look bad right out of the gates...

[Maximum Error]

Is this the RTM build?

[kiddingguy]

is this linky the SP1 of Vista??

[Argi]

According to post above 1840 is the RTM build so looks that way. Where's it from?

[Maximum Error]

is this linky the SP1 of Vista??

Dont think so but the build name of that file for the automated installations is the same build that i am already running (see my other post).....

Does this mean the rtm really was leaked?

[torrentthief]

server 2008 iso's have already leaked, the x86 and x64, but they are on connect and technet, only partners have access to vista sp1, could be a few days till it leaks.

[marc2003]

Is this the RTM build?

i assume you found and installed the same file that i did last week. that's also the same version mine reports.

yet the details/timestamp on the .exe i have are the same as the one that KoDeXeRo posted. :p

[Phemo]

is this linky the SP1 of Vista??

Automated Installation Kit (AIK) for Windows Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008

No, it's the automated installation kit for SP1.

[Maximum Error]

i assume you found and installed the same file that i did last week. that's also the same version mine reports.

yet the details/timestamp on the .exe i have are the same as the one that KoDeXeRo posted. :p

Then you have the wrong one!

[kiddingguy]

Automated Installation Kit (AIK) for Windows Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008

No, it's the automated installation kit for SP1.

... and what exactly is an Automated Installation Kit as compared to the 'regular SP1?

[(Spork)]

this is already debunked, and i doubt anyone is gonna think ur a good source of info on vista with a lame sig like that

yea like your sig is any better

[Raa]

If you think you have the final SP1, then do us a favor : forward your clock a year and tell us if you can still boot up.

What? Don't want to? But you SAID you had RTM!!

Yeah, didn't think so.

[xendrome]

yea like your sig is any better

oh noe he dint!

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

ok well that one that is from Vista forums is total junk and fake.

it's the old RC Refresh build.

Screenshot:

http://winvistaforums.com/downloads/Window...B936330-X86.exe

that was downloaded from that link which is from the page earlier.

Digital sig: Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:40:35 AM

yea but once unpacked its 6001.longhorn_rtm.080118-1840 and the unpacked setup files are build 6.0.6001.18000, so it's note fake.

[xinary]

yea like your sig is any better

Way to answer on something that was discussed a week ago, and since his signature has already changed.

/fail

[Maximum Error]

If you think you have the final SP1, then do us a favor : forward your clock a year and tell us if you can still boot up.

What? Don't want to? But you SAID you had RTM!!

Yeah, didn't think so.

works just fine......... i dont see the problem u were expecting. the time bomb was removed from refresh two onwards.

[marc2003]

Then you have the wrong one!

really? like i said, my file details match the one KoDeXeRo posted........ but once it's installed, it matches the build in your screenshot.....

Edited February 4, 2008 by marc2003

[Phemo]

Then you have the wrong one!

Actually you're comparing two different files. spinstall.exe shows the 18000 version number, but the other poster has shown properties from the standalone installer which shows 17028 in the properties. The standalone installer I have here shows 17028 in properties, but when you launch the installer and check spinstall.exe in the temp files, it shows 18000 :) It's likely that 17028 is totally legit.

[xendrome]

If you think you have the final SP1, then do us a favor : forward your clock a year and tell us if you can still boot up.

What? Don't want to? But you SAID you had RTM!!

Yeah, didn't think so.

The timebomb was removed from the last refresh, so if it's fake I bet they used the last refresh. So I don't see what that is going to prove.

[Maximum Error]

really? like i said, my file details match the one KoDeXeRo posted........ but once it's installed, it matches the build in your screenshot.....

Yeah your right..... but why does the properties of the exe change? I huess ultimately we are all wasting our time here! It doesnt really matter what build we have... no amount of sitting here and speculating will change that we have to wait till march to really find out!

Actually you're comparing two different files. spinstall.exe shows the 18000 version number, but the other poster has shown properties from the standalone installer which shows 17028 in the properties. The standalone installer I have here shows 17028 in properties, but when you launch the installer and check spinstall.exe in the temp files, it shows 18000 :) It's likely that 17028 is totally legit.

do you think we can assume that because the leaked build matches the server 2008 build number exaclty we can assume we are using SP1 RTM?

[micro]

I would say its likely that its SP1 since both builds match.

[marc2003]

do you think we can assume that because the leaked build matches the server 2008 build number exaclty we can assume we are using SP1 RTM?

loads of people have posted about this today as if it's a fact...... but with no source to back it up. i guess we'll just have to wait. :p

[gaurav]

really? like i said, my file details match the one KoDeXeRo posted........ but once it's installed, it matches the build in your screenshot.....

F*** SP1, I want your wallpaper!