Windows Vista Service Pack 1 RTM x86 leaked

[Swift33]

Yeah, I did some more research. Evidently, you can use the updated AIK in the reverse integration method, but not slipstream.

Yea, the updated AIK's imagex can be used to capture the reverse integrated SP1 but it's not required, as in, you can also use the old RTM imagex and it'll work just fine.

[jjrambo]

I installed x64 SP1 RTM fine. My machine had Visual Studio 2005, and 2008 and nothing got broken. If you run SLI like myself, make sure you reenable it cause SP1 installation disables it and there is a probably good reason for it.

[tdrock]

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes which works at zdnet.com gave us the MD5 hashes of SP1:

Here:

32-bit (434MB): d597866e93bc8f80ecca234c4e9ce5a2

64-bit (726MB): 983308426e8ee7649f53b41f4e5c42d4

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354-0.htm...195&start=0

can someone confirms that this is the same MD5 hashes as RC1 ref. :D

[hanko panko]

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

The 1840 is the RC Refresh 2, distributed to testers using an update trick.

[anarkhy]

So whats the final sp1? 1840 or 2040?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

So whats the final sp1? 1840 or 2040?

Vista SP1 has been sent to manufacturers on disc and checks out at 1840.

That is where the full SP1 integrated ISOs that are on the net have come from.

[lordtinuviel]

Wow, you're totally useless and so is your post. :crazy:

Anyway, Daeron Tin?viel>, perhaps this Microsoft KB Article can help you:

You receive a "0x80070002" or "0x80070003" error code after you download an update from Windows Update, from Microsoft Update, or from Windows Server Update Services.[/b]>

thkz, try that didnt work

[turntablist1200]

is there a difference between rtm and final?

[darth_vader]

is there a difference between rtm and final?

RTM (release to manufacturing) = final

[Elliot B.]

Someone needs to clarify a lot of information on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Service_Pack_1 to be honest.

[NEVER85]

Do you need any hotfixes installed prior to installing the standalone EXE of SP1 like you did with the WU hack?

[theshadowhunter]

Do you need any hotfixes installed prior to installing the standalone EXE of SP1 like you did with the WU hack?

i installed SP1 with the EXE without installing any prior updates on a fresh install of vista ultimate, and i have yet to have any problems.

[Phemo]

All the prerequisite updates are included in the standalone SP1 installer.

[Ayepecks]

So whats the final sp1? 1840 or 2040?

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;DisplayLang=en

Probably 1840.

[Elbart]

1840 is just the damn time of compiling! The only number worth noting is the five-digits one >.<

[jrolson85]

can someone confirms that this is the same MD5 hashes as RC1 ref. :D

I confirm the hashes are the same

[+Warwagon MVC]

Then just to clarify if the MD5 hash matchs d597866e93bc8f80ecca234c4e9ce5a2 but the build number on the exe says 6.0.6001.17028 that its actually the RTM and is safe to install?

[+kpo6969 Subscriber¹]

6001.17052 = RC1

6001.17128 = RC1-R1

6001.18000 = RC1-R2, RTM, or whatever it is

[+Warwagon MVC]

6001.17052 = RC1

6001.17128 = RC1-R1

6001.18000 = RC1-R2, RTM, or whatever it is

But how can the MD5 Hash match?

[+kpo6969 Subscriber¹]

I don't know. What I posted was from my WU update history and that's what I downloaded from WU. It may be right or wrong but 17128 sounded familar to me so I checked.

[RmG]

Is there a CRC of a known good copy we can check this against? Or has someone tested this download?

Downloaded SP1 x86 from Sayuri yesterday, installed today - everything equals to information posted on Paul's Vista SP1 RTM page @ winsupersite.com; and file's MD5 hash exactly matches the ZDNet info.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Downloaded SP1 x86 from Sayuri yesterday, installed today - everything equals to information posted on Paul's Vista SP1 RTM page @ winsupersite.com; and file's MD5 hash exactly matches the ZDNet info.

What did the version number of the exe you installed say under the file properties.

[Phemo]

Then just to clarify if the MD5 hash matchs d597866e93bc8f80ecca234c4e9ce5a2 but the build number on the exe says 6.0.6001.17028 that its actually the RTM and is safe to install?

Correct, the properties on the installer package file itself says 17028 but it is 18000 when installed.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Well just got done installing it. took about 30 to 40 mins

Installed the one that said .1728 but the m5 has matched and the current version inside the registry says "6001.18000.x86fre.longhorn_rtm.080118-1840"

Vista at lease to me feels much snappier. Just don't forget that if you patched your UXtheme.dll file that your custom theme will go POOF!

The Audio studding that I experienced before is better but not completely resolved. it is better though.

Network Transfer rates from my XP machine (media center) to this Vista machine is about 11 megs per second.

Like others have said the whole "Calculating time" is gone completely for single files"

[Robbie Khan Reviews]

Just don't forget that if you patched your UXtheme.dll file that your custom theme will go POOF!

It will...but you just need new patched files :D