Recommended Posts

Good evening!

there are many sources saying that build 7061 of windows 7 is now released and out "in the wild" but no one has tested it yet. Is it true ? this build is an RC- Escrow of the OS. WTH is an RC-Escrow ? :o

sources :http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-7-B...09-106822.shtml

WTH is an RC-Escrow ? :o

"An escrow build, according to Microsoft sources, means code development is ceased as developers and beta testers hunt for recall class bugs. The escrow code is considered the release to manufacturing code."

-- Taken from here: Article about Windows 2000 RC :)

I'm not saying that 7061 is an escrow build or the RC, just answering your question.

Bad?

Something must be wrong with your system..., the OS appears to be very stable and complete, except for some minor issues that are still being worked out.

I agree with you Build 7057 is by far the best build of Windows 7 I have used so far!!! :)

Build 7057 fixes almost all the bugs I have found in early builds!

I agree with you Build 7057 is by far the best build of Windows 7 I have used so far!!! :)

Build 7057 fixes almost all the bugs I have found in early builds!

Judging from the comments in the forums, it seem that more people have had problems with 57 than the earlier builds.

Judging from the comments in the forums, it seem that more people have had problems with 57 than the earlier builds.

Putting opinion and hyperbole aside you've hit the nail squarely on the head. The evidence in the forum speaks for itself.

For everyone else the fact is that whether or not you've encountered issues with 7057 they exist in abundance. For those that find 7057 to be wonderful or the best build so far it simply means you haven't encountered the bugs yet or use your PC in ways that are less likely to reveal them.

Sorry, but I get annoyed when people (like xendrome) suggest that those encountering issues must have some problem with their installations. If a number of people are reporting the same bugs (as they are with this build) then the evidence would suggest otherwise.

7057 shows the general direction MS are taking and I think it's a good one but they still have to squash some serious bugs and not get carried away with trimming the cake before it's fully baked.

Sorry, but I get annoyed when people (like xendrome) suggest that those encountering issues must have some problem with their installations. If a number of people are reporting the same bugs (as they are with this build) then the evidence would suggest otherwise.

Sorry, but I get annoyed when people (like wiggly1uk2000) use branch builds then wonder whey they're buggy. It's not a release build, that's what happens!

Sorry, but I get annoyed when people (like wiggly1uk2000) use branch builds then wonder whey they're buggy. It's not a release build, that's what happens!

Actually I accept the bugs with good grace (and I would even for an official public build), report them here for the benefit of others and then move on. Are we just supposed to say every build is wonderful when it's not? If there's a bug why on earth would anybody NOT mention it here in the Windows 7 beta forum??? :blink:

Personally I've no complaints about 7057 and I think the general direction of Windows 7 is very positive but I reserve the right to post about any bugs I find regardless of whether or not it's an official public build. Neowin have not as far as I know limited the Windows 7 forum to build 7000. Even people close to MS have posted here regarding other builds.

I'm not so excited considering how bad 7057 was.

Concur....7057 was faster, but seems to freeze alot.

I did a deep/full format first. And, my system is reasonably current; phenom II x4- 810, with 4 gigs of ram.

Plus, 7048 ran like a dream....zero issues that weren't merely me being unable to figure something out. Zero freezes...

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I have a Motorola, one of the lower end ones, it works fine. It is possible to get rid of the Gemini app and also to disable googles assistant , but A.i is still apps. I try to avoid all LLM A.I, is i can, I use no Ai duck duck go.
    • Free Software Foundation Europe pushes EU to force Google to allow AI uninstalls on Android by Paul Hill Credit: Pexels Users should be able to fully uninstall AI-based features from Android devices and be able to access interoperability functions, free from Google’s verification requirements, the European Commission has heard as part of an Android interoperability consultation under the Digital Markets Act. These measures were proposed by the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) last week when it submitted its documentation. The FSFE noted that Google had started silently installing AI models without telling users. It noted that the EU’s DMA requires companies like Google to allow users to uninstall pre-loaded software from their devices, but in the case of the AI models Google is installing, they reinstall if you delete them, contravening the DMA. To get Google back under control, the FSFE has told the European Commission that there needs to be improvements within the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). First, it said that users should be able to fully remove pre-loaded AI components from their devices, with companies being prohibited from silently reinstalling or reactivating them. Second, access to Android interoperability features should not be contingent on registration, authorization, or contractual relationships with Google. This pertains to Google’s attempt to force developers to register with Google, even to publish apps to alternative app stores like F-Droid. Discussing its submission, Lucas Lasota, FSFE Legal Programme Manager, said: Google is planning to roll out its Android Developer Certification in September 2026. This will force every Android app developer to register with Google before their software can be installed on certified Android devices, but it should affect those who have removed Google Apps from their device. The program is controversial because it entails the signing of contracts and payment of account fees to Google, as well as the handing over of the identities of developers. It said: The FSFE said that if the Commission’s draft measures remain unchanged, then Google will be allowed to make developers verify their identity. The FSFE believes that asking developers to register is contrary to the text and spirit of the law. In summary, the FSFE has told the Commission that no developer should need a Google account, a Play Store presence, or any agreement with Google to access Android’s interoperability features.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      sumytbe earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      B4dM1k3 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      DarkWun earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      519
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      189
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      87
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      81
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!