Microsoft postpones Windows 7 public beta


Recommended Posts

I don't get it. Why won't Microsoft use BitTorrent? What's wrong with it? BitTorrent is the preferred method for getting all the major Linux distributions, like Ubuntu. I recall when I was downloading the 8.10 DVD, I had a solid download speed of 700-800 kb/sec, as there were literally thousands of seeders.

I don't get it. Why won't Microsoft use BitTorrent? What's wrong with it? BitTorrent is the preferred method for getting all the major Linux distributions, like Ubuntu

Maybe you answered your own question right there. I doubt if MS wants to be compared to Linux in any way. Besides, everyone knows BitTorrent is only for illegal stuff. :D

Maybe you answered your own question right there. I doubt if MS wants to be compared to Linux in any way. Besides, everyone knows BitTorrent is only for illegal stuff. :D

It's not, it's just a method of distribution. And if a large corporation like Microsoft would realize this, then perhaps other large corporations could get over this stigma of BitTorrent being "only for illegal stuff."

By that logic, then direct HTTP downloading is "only for illegal stuff," too.

"Thanks for your interest in the Windows 7 Beta. The volume has been phenomenal -- we?re in the process of adding more servers to handle the demand. We?re sorry for the delay and we?ll re-post the Beta as soon as we can ensure a quality download experience."

oh :(n :(

Why don't MS bitTorrent? Well it may gives people the impression that torrents are an accepted distribution platform for MS software. Would send a out mixed messages don't you think. Not the same for linux as it's free anyway.

Why don't MS bitTorrent? Well it may gives people the impression that torrents are an accepted distribution platform for MS software. Would send a out mixed messages don't you think. Not the same for linux as it's free anyway.

...As it should be. There is absolutely nothing wrong with BitTorrent as a distribution method. In fact, it likely would have prevented the issues that plagued today. People continue to wrongly assume that BitTorrent is used solely for downloading music illicitly. It's not. It's just another way of downloading data, just like direct HTTP downloading.

...As it should be. There is absolutely nothing wrong with BitTorrent as a distribution method. In fact, it likely would have prevented the issues that plagued today. People continue to wrongly assume that BitTorrent is used solely for downloading music illicitly. It's not. It's just another way of downloading data, just like direct HTTP downloading.

Wrong. Torrents remove absolutely all control from the hands of Microsoft. There's nothing to prevent people from creating a virus-ridden version of the Windows 7 .ISO and then distributing that as the real thing via torrents. There is zero quality control and zero security in torrents. MD5 hashes have now also been broken, so anyone who thinks that knowing the right MD5 hash means your download is secure is wrong. That's why MS doesn't use torrents, because torrents are an inherently risky completely insecure way of distributing software which could potentially infect millions of machines.

Wrong. Torrents remove absolutely all control from the hands of Microsoft. There's nothing to prevent people from creating a virus-ridden version of the Windows 7 .ISO and then distributing that as the real thing via torrents. There is zero quality control and zero security in torrents. MD5 hashes have now also been broken, so anyone who thinks that knowing the right MD5 hash means your download is secure is wrong. That's why MS doesn't use torrents, because torrents are an inherently risky completely insecure way of distributing software which could potentially infect millions of machines.

Valid point, but what's to stop someone from creating a virus-ridden version of the Windows 7 .ISO and then uploading it onto a "mirror" site, which is common with a lot of popular software these days? Many people would be lulled to an alternate download site, and the URL could be spoofed.

Just a thought, of course. I doubt a situation like this would actually occur.

Valid point, but what's to stop someone from creating a virus-ridden version of the Windows 7 .ISO and then uploading it onto a "mirror" site, which is common with a lot of popular software these days? Many people would be lulled to an alternate download site, and the URL could be spoofed.

Just a thought, of course. I doubt a situation like this would actually occur.

There's nothing to stop people doing that. Which is why everyone should download software directly from a 100% trusted site. In this case, the most trusted site would be directly from microsoft.com. You can't spoof an entire website as easily, nor can you mask a URL as easily, because modern browsers are built to detect and warn users about this precisely due to phishing.

As stable as it may be, it's still a beta. Nobody should use a beta as their main OS.

Blah, blah, blah. We're not idiots. We all backup our important data. The worst we have to lose is an hour of our time reinstalling Windows if something does manage to go badly wrong. But you might think that if they're releasing this to 2.5 million people, Microsoft must be pretty confident nothing like that will happen.

Wrong. Torrents remove absolutely all control from the hands of Microsoft. There's nothing to prevent people from creating a virus-ridden version of the Windows 7 .ISO and then distributing that as the real thing via torrents. There is zero quality control and zero security in torrents. MD5 hashes have now also been broken, so anyone who thinks that knowing the right MD5 hash means your download is secure is wrong. That's why MS doesn't use torrents, because torrents are an inherently risky completely insecure way of distributing software which could potentially infect millions of machines.

And precisely what is there to stop people doing this now? Infected torrents are reported very quickly, it's a very small concern these days tbh.

And precisely what is there to stop people doing this now? Infected torrents are reported very quickly, it's a very small concern these days tbh.

Sorry, but how do you figure it's a small problem? You have statistics on this? There are fake torrents aplenty, and for things like executable and zipped torrents, the proportion is probably very high. Just look at how many fake/infected keygens and application files there are. Movies and music are different because a user can instantly check to see if a .mpg, .avi or .mp3 file is real, plus they're not executable files.

If a major company like MS moved to a torrent distribution model then the ability to infect machines in large numbers would be too great a temptation for malware makers and the number of infected Windows 7 .ISOs would rise dramatically. After all, the best way to infect a machine and bypass its defences is to inject the OS installation with infected/altered files from the get-go.

Sorry, but I don't trust borderline criminals like the pirate bay to police the security of torrents for me. I download my software from trusted sites.

Sorry, but how do you figure it's a small problem? You have statistics on this? There are fake torrents aplenty, and for things like executable and zipped torrents, the proportion is probably very high. Just look at how many fake/infected keygens and application files there are. Movies and music are different because a user can instantly check to see if a .mpg, .avi or .mp3 file is real, plus they're not executable files.

You have statistics on this?

Like I said, infected files are reported in the comments very quickly. You just need to use your eyes. Hence, a small problem.

Like I said, infected files are reported in the comments very quickly. You just need to use your eyes. Hence, a small problem.

Tell you what, I'll use my eyes if you use your brain. How will anyone detect an infected .ISO file? If the Windows installation files are modified to include a rootkit for example (i.e. a backdoor for other malware), how will any user know? If the Windows installation files are modified to not raise a UAC prompt when a particular trojan or virus is executed, how will any user know? Not all malware has big flashing signs that tells you you're infected. After a while people might work out that version of Windows 7 is compromised, but by then thousands will have had their systems compromised in the process.

Plus all it would take is for a few smartasses to falsely label a torrent as malware, because they doesn't like Windows for example, and then you get confusion.

How hard is it for people to comprehend that major companies can't trust the deployment of millions of copies of critical software to the same unsafe protocol that kiddies use to distribute illegal material?

Sorry, but how do you figure it's a small problem? You have statistics on this? There are fake torrents aplenty, and for things like executable and zipped torrents, the proportion is probably very high. Just look at how many fake/infected keygens and application files there are. Movies and music are different because a user can instantly check to see if a .mpg, .avi or .mp3 file is real, plus they're not executable files.

If a major company like MS moved to a torrent distribution model then the ability to infect machines in large numbers would be too great a temptation for malware makers and the number of infected Windows 7 .ISOs would rise dramatically. After all, the best way to infect a machine and bypass its defences is to inject the OS installation with infected/altered files from the get-go.

Sorry, but I don't trust borderline criminals like the pirate bay to police the security of torrents for me. I download my software from trusted sites.

If Microsoft puts up the torrent file AND the tracker, I'd say that's pretty secure ;-) Md5 is hacked, yes (though it's not exactly cheap to get 200 PS3's and a quad core, to be able to do the hack reasonably fast), but the bittorrent protocol doesn't use md5. It uses the SHA-1 protocol.

I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting that Microsoft hosts their torrents at The Pirate Bay. If they host the torrents themselves, they could spare tons of bandwidth compared to hosting the entire ISO.

If Microsoft puts up the torrent file AND the tracker, I'd say that's pretty secure ;-) Md5 is hacked, yes (though it's not exactly cheap to get 200 PS3's and a quad core, to be able to do the hack reasonably fast), but the bittorrent protocol doesn't use md5. It uses the SHA-1 protocol.

I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting that Microsoft hosts their torrents at The Pirate Bay. If they host the torrents themselves, they could spare tons of bandwidth compared to hosting the entire ISO.

There's a problem with the fact that people don't understand the meaning of the phrase "official torrent". Once a piece of software is distributed via torrent, people will naturally assume that a torrent download link at TPB is much the same as one from Microsoft. In fact some non-conformist tryhards might go so far as to only download the torrent from a "non-M$" source, just to show how cool they are. There's no control once something is released into the wilderness that is torrents. There's no way to explain to an average user that one torrent is not the same as another.

Also I was referring to the use of MD5 to check to see whether a downloaded file is the same as the official version. SHA-1 is used to make sure the torrent itself isn't tampered with. But if the file was originally tampered with in subtle ways and then put up as a seemingly valid download via a torrent link, that's when end users have to check the validity of the file themselves.

There's a problem with the fact that people don't understand the meaning of the phrase "official torrent". Once a piece of software is distributed via torrent, people will naturally assume that a torrent download link at TPB is much the same as one from Microsoft. In fact some non-conformist tryhards might go so far as to only download the torrent from a "non-M$" source, just to show how cool they are. There's no control once something is released into the wilderness that is torrents. There's no way to explain to an average user that one torrent is not the same as another.

Also I was referring to the use of MD5 to check to see whether a downloaded file is the same as the official version. SHA-1 is used to make sure the torrent itself isn't tampered with. But if the file was originally tampered with in subtle ways and then put up as a seemingly valid download via a torrent link, that's when end users have to check the validity of the file themselves.

That doesn't really make too much sense. win7 is already leaked on torrent sites and it doesn't make any difference whether the ms download is a torrent or not it can be leaked and upped on torrent sites just as easily... and people bent on not downloading from ms can still do it...

You also make it seem like torrents are ONLY used for illegal downloads which is plain not true, and there are plenty of illegal http downloads, like users could tel anymore difference between an illegal download and an illegal torrent...

Also imo you would have to be mentally damaged to think tpb download is legal and the same as the ms one...

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Just pull a 4Chan and ignore the UK gov, or better troll them. It's not like they can enforce the fine across border.
    • It has NEVER been shown that all these overreaching creepy methods of surveillance have ever saved a child or prevented a terrorist attack. Not a single one. It's the kind of people like you who just wave it away as "paranoid conspiracy" that makes big tech and governments this creepy mass data hoarding entities. Not only that, 3/4 of these surveillance ideas undermine the very foundations of safe online communication because they always want to have a backdoor in everything "just in case" they might need it to... checks the notes "save the children". If you put a backdoor into encryption chain there is no encryption chain anymore. You know what encryption keeps safe? Your medical records, your online shopping and credit card during payment, your photos in the cloud, your emails, your passwords, everything. There is ZERO guarantee only the good guys will use it. And if you think police suddenly can't apprehend child abusers because of encryption, Epstein was running his entire sex trafficking ring using GMail which is not even encrypted end to end. Or to make matters even worse, USA has a **** and a good buddy of Epstein as a president. Absolutely NOTHING has been done to address it. Maxwell just got a better "hotel" room as a reward. This clearly shows how they absolutely don't really care about the children but they care about the absolute control over all of us. And you're defending them here. Good grief. On top of constant attempts to insert backdoors into encryption chain, the entire age verification nonsense is again entirely over reaching, creepy, invades everyone's privacy with premise of yet again "protecting the children" instead of demanding device makers to provide simple and powerful tools for PARENTS to control how their children use devices and what they do on them. THIS would be the way, not the stupid age verification for everyone. Imagine if government would be dictating companies how their phones work and not the company's IT department. The parents should be the IT department to their children. And for everyone excusing "they are not knowledgeable enough" buuuuuulsheat. We live in a digital age, if you have children now, you absolutely are well versed in digital everything at least to basic extent. If you're not, how do you even function in these times then? Reality is that parents are just lazy and don't want to deal with this. They want government to raise their kids because they are too busy scrolling stupid Instagram and Tiktok or some bs.
    • You could make the argument that K should not be included, but FC, the fried chicken, is not the framework, it's the product. It's the Paint in Paint.NET. A closer analogy is if KFC included the name of the deep fryer they used. HennyPennyFC.
    • Flying as the central point eh... As a massive Spyro fan who has replayed the Reignited Trilogy three times and the originals 4 times... I have some doubts, but maybe...
    • Apple is expanding Private Cloud Compute beyond its own data centers by Pradeep Viswanathan At WWDC 2026, as part of the improved Apple Intelligence capabilities, Apple today announced that it is expanding Private Cloud Compute (PCC), its privacy-focused cloud infrastructure for Apple Intelligence, beyond its own data centers for the first time. Private Cloud Compute was designed to handle Apple Intelligence requests that are too complex to run fully on-device. The PCC system does not store user data and does not allow Apple or anyone else to access user requests. Last year, Apple also expanded its Security Bounty program with rewards of up to $1 million for researchers who could find serious vulnerabilities in PCC. Until now, Apple's PCC data centers were using Apple's own silicon. As part of the expansion, Apple is working with Google and NVIDIA to run new Apple Intelligence workloads on Google Cloud systems powered by NVIDIA GPUs. Apple will be using this new infrastructure to execute more demanding AI tasks while maintaining the same privacy and security guarantees of PCC. The new implementation uses NVIDIA Confidential Computing with NVIDIA GPUs, Intel CPUs with TDX, and Google’s Titan chip. Apple says it has worked with Google to build additional protections beyond a traditional confidential computing deployment. Despite the expansion to third-party data centers, Apple claims that its core PCC requirements remain unchanged, including stateless computation, no privileged runtime access, non-targetability, and verifiable transparency. The company highlighted that it will continue to control the PCC software stack, and Apple devices will only trust PCC software that has been cryptographically approved by Apple. To take security to the next level, Apple mentioned that it is maintaining an append-only ledger of Google Cloud hardware that is part of the PCC fleet. The company claims this will help reduce the risk of supply chain attacks. In addition to AI infrastructure, Apple also worked with Google to use technologies behind the Gemini family of models to build the next generation of Apple Foundation Models to power Apple Intelligence features across on-device and cloud workloads. As expected, for more demanding AI tasks like agentic tool use and complex reasoning, Apple will rely on the expanded PCC infrastructure running on Google Cloud. The expansion of PCC on Google Cloud will gradually ramp toward the full set of protections during the summer preview period. As before, Apple will also publish binaries for public inspection, provide research tooling, and give researchers access to live PCC nodes in research mode through the Apple Security Bounty Program.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Very Popular
      Captain_Eric earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • One Month Later
      amusc earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      222
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      92
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      86
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      81
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!