Windows 7 Official Public Beta

[atleeit]

I never said RTM was 7001/2/ those builds are reserved. The RC/RTM branch starts at 7003. At the time of checking a few days ago 7015 was the latest which was compiled nearly a week after the 7000 beta 1 build.

7015 lol fake very possible

[iaTa]

7015 lol fake very possible

atleeit do you know who creamhackered is?

[Shaun N.]

He is Bill Gates Nephew!

[+Ryster Subscriber²]

Just a quick question. Minimal requirements concerning RAM and CPU?

I found the QnA thread and found my answer, sorry for this post!

Theres nothing official right now, all has been said is that if your system runs Vista then it will run 7. Also on the same system you can expect 7 to be at least as fast (performance wise) as Vista assuming you've got decent drivers.

[IceBreakerG]

atleeit do you know who creamhackered is?

I don't know who creamhackered is lol.

[cpu killer]

I don't know who creamhackered is lol.

He's a pretty well respected member of the Windows Beta community. He's been around for a while now, that I know of at least since the XP/Longhorn betas, and has (most) always had reliable and accurate information. He knows what he's saying, so coming into a thread and claiming what he says is "probably fake" is not wise.

[IceBreakerG]

I see. Good info to know. I'm not the type to scream fake at every single post in a beta thread. It's always funny to go back like a year later and see that all the people that were crying fake were completely wrong :)

[tomwarren Veteran]

The only thing that could change 7000 from being beta 1 is this MP3 fiasco but as far as I am aware they haven't had time to recompile and instead have done a QFE patch to be pushed out :) 7015 was the latest but that will have changed now as all the MS folk are back to work and compiling hard again.

[notuptome2004]

The only thing that could change 7000 from being beta 1 is this MP3 fiasco but as far as I am aware they haven't had time to recompile and instead have done a QFE patch to be pushed out :) 7015 was the latest but that will have changed now as all the MS folk are back to work and compiling hard again.

hey craem how ya been , anything new in your world

Edited January 6, 2009 by notuptome2004

[atleeit]

he may well be well respected but 7015 never confirmed, even pictures which were posted around were fake.

[t0mbi]

Hey has it been confirmed that they are releasing the beta in both x86 AND x64? i just realized my processor is x64! (AMD Phenom X4 9600 BE)

[tomwarren Veteran]

he may well be well respected but 7015 never confirmed, even pictures which were posted around were fake.

7015.0.081218-1724 if that helps

[chrismaddern]

he may well be well respected but 7015 never confirmed, even pictures which were posted around were fake.

Why would 7015 not be real?! It seems about time-frame right; I'd be surprised if there wasn't a build 7015 in labs.

Chris

[Snowl]

atleeit do you know who creamhackered is?

OFFTOPIC:

Wait... So if creamhackered posted "The newest build is 8049" you would believe him?

Im sorry, but a person CAN be wrong, you know.

ONTOPIC:

I hope it comes out tomorow (AUS) or on the 14th(AUS)

[atleeit]

I see. Good info to know. I'm not the type to scream fake at every single post in a beta thread. It's always funny to go back like a year later and see that all the people that were crying fake were completely wrong :)

I Don't see myself screaming either lol :D

And these are Pre-RC1's.

There was 6.1.7003, 6.1.7004, 6.1.7012, 6.1.7013 but i haven't head of 7015.

So if it's v6.1.7015.0.(WHAT DATE) ftes could have access to this.

Edited January 6, 2009 by atleeit

[Mannlich]

OFFTOPIC:

Wait... So if creamhackered posted "The newest build is 8049" you would believe him?

Im sorry, but a person CAN be wrong, you know.

ONTOPIC:

I hope it comes out tomorow (AUS) or on the 14th(AUS)

True, a person can be wrong. However, if you look at the reputation that creamhackered has earned for himself, you would find it unlikely that he would be posting information without knowing what he is talking about. As was earlier mentioned, those of us who were around for the XP betas and Longhorn betas can attest to his credibility. It is always entertaining come beta time to see the users that start throwing around build numbers and guesses about release dates as if they have a clue.

[Snowl]

True, a person can be wrong. However, if you look at the reputation that creamhackered has earned for himself, you would find it unlikely that he would be posting information without knowing what he is talking about. As was earlier mentioned, those of us who were around for the XP betas and Longhorn betas can attest to his credibility. It is always entertaining come beta time to see the users that start throwing around build numbers and guesses about release dates as if they have a clue.

Im not saying he is wrong. Im just saying, unless he is an Internal Microsoft worker*, he cannot prove, unless he has the dvd/iso on him, so he COULD be wrong. Also, I said I HOPE, not I know. I guess I could say, Its always entertaining come beta time, some user will come and ridicule other users because they are guessing release times, because they DO want to try the new beta software.

* He lives in London, Uk, according to his location.

[Mannlich]

Im not saying he is wrong. Im just saying, unless he is an Internal Microsoft worker*, he cannot prove, unless he has the dvd/iso on him, so he COULD be wrong. Also, I said I HOPE, not I know. I guess I could say, Its always entertaining come beta time, some user will come and ridicule other users because they are guessing release times, because they DO want to try the new beta software.

* He lives in London, Uk, according to his location.

I wasn't referring to you in that quote. I was making a general reference to the fact that come beta time, there are so many people that all of a sudden start throwing out dates and build numbers, that it is hard to keep track of who is credible and who is just blurting out numbers. I want to get my hands on the x64 version of this beta just as bad as anybody else. However, all of the guessing in the world isn't going to do any good. I apologize if you perceived it as an attack on you -- I certainly didn't mean for it to be.

[Snowl]

I wasn't referring to you in that quote. I was making a general reference to the fact that come beta time, there are so many people that all of a sudden start throwing out dates and build numbers, that it is hard to keep track of who is credible and who is just blurting out numbers. I want to get my hands on the x64 version of this beta just as bad as anybody else. However, all of the guessing in the world isn't going to do any good. I apologize if you perceived it as an attack on you -- I certainly didn't mean for it to be.

It didnt help that you quoted me :pinch: ...

But I get your point.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Technet is working here... however connect is down.

[Denholm]

Technet is working here... however connect is down.

Yup. Connect is toast. Perhaps Win 7 beta is going up? Hope so. Also hope it's newer than build 7000.

[Mannlich]

Connect also down for me.

[Srugie Veteran]

Thanks for the link. Hopefully it'll be active soon.

[atleeit]

Connect works, i'm logged in :) no Windows 7 :p

Also 7015.0.081218-1724 does not seem right.

6.1.7013.0 was built 081220-1600 - So how can Build 7015 be built before 7013 am i making sense?

So Build 7015 is 18th Dec 08

And Build 7013 is 20th Dec 08

See where i'm coming from?

v6.1.7003 was 01/12/08

v6.1.7004 was 03/12/08

v6.1.7012 was 15/12/08

Edited January 6, 2009 by atleeit

[Denholm]

^

:( Disappointed.