atleeit Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iaTa Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 7015 lol fake very possible atleeit do you know who creamhackered is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun N. Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 He is Bill Gates Nephew! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryster Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceBreakerG Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 atleeit do you know who creamhackered is? I don't know who creamhackered is lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpu killer Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceBreakerG Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 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 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomwarren Veteran Posted January 6, 2009 Veteran Share Posted January 6, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atleeit Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 he may well be well respected but 7015 never confirmed, even pictures which were posted around were fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0mbi Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomwarren Veteran Posted January 6, 2009 Veteran Share Posted January 6, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismaddern Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowl Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atleeit Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannlich Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowl Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannlich Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowl Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeChipshop Member Posted January 6, 2009 Member Share Posted January 6, 2009 Technet is working here... however connect is down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denholm Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannlich Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Connect also down for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srugie Veteran Posted January 6, 2009 Veteran Share Posted January 6, 2009 Thanks for the link. Hopefully it'll be active soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atleeit Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denholm Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 ^ :( Disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts