Windows 7 Build 7077 Due Today/Tonight

[tomwarren Veteran]

The simple fact is a lot of hardware isn't fully supported in 7 without 64bit drivers due to OEMs shipping media center machines as 64bit only Vista therefore many of us don't have a choice but to use 64bit. Also I have over 4GB RAM.

[br0adband]

Hardware for Vista/Windows 7 that doesn't have 32 bit drivers but is fully supported on the x64 side? Sure would love to see such a thing, that's quite an interesting little quandary... considering that to get "Windows Vista Ready" or "Windows Vista Compatible" logo certification - which will more than certainly bleed over into Windows 7 licensing now - requires that hardware and software be 100% functional under both versions of the OS installed, meaning x86 and x64 and providing full driver support as well.

Somebody show me a piece of hardware that is designed for Vista (or more than likely compatible with Windows 7) that doesn't have a 32 bit driver from that manufacturer and is considered "Windows Vista Ready" or compatible...

Just because the OEM doesn't provide a 32 bit driver doesn't mean one doesn't exist from the manufacturer of said component.

[Warboy]

I gotta say I find the constant ... uhmmm... how can I put it... whining? Is that the right word? The constant whining about the x64 version being leaked out... I mean, it's not like you can't install the x86 version and be happy you've got something to play with instead of the constant stream of moans and groans about the x64 version.

I mean really, when is enough enough? :)

I seriously doubt that the overwhelming majority of people that have more than 4GB of RAM actually put it to use on a regular basis, or even near that. I have 8GB in my quad box here and I consistently show ~7GB of usage (and that ain't Superfetch, kids, it's real usage doing 3D rendering and a few other tasks) so I can actually say I can and do put 8GB to use on a seriously consistent basis.

But I mean... come on with the whining about x64, will ya? I've been a proponent of x64 versions of Windows since Windows Server 2003 x64 first appeared (meaning months before it was even a beta) and then into XP Professional x64 Edition (not XP Professional 64-Bit Edition which is the Itanium one) and I've been running x64 versions ever since, but even I'm running 7077 x86 on this quad presently because I can and a dual boot never hurt anything as long as you do it right. :)

Seriously... when will it end? When it's out you'll be screaming for the next build, when that leaks in x86 form you'll start this crap all over again, all the way through RTM... get 7077 x86 and roll with it. All this for an OS that none of us is really supposed to be using at this point in time and I'm a registered beta tester with Microsoft going on 24 years now and even I don't get the daily stuff which is basically what 7077 is, leaked.

And I'll tell you the original source wasn't anybody in Russia either... none of the leaks have been, they're just funneled through people that are too scared to drop 'em on torrents, but the Ruskies could care less.

'Nuff typed.

GTFO....Obviously you don't understand. People need 64-bit if they have over 3.25GB of ram. :angry:

[br0adband]

I guess he missed the part where I said I'm running 7077 x86 on a quad with 8GB of RAM because I can... go figure. ;)

Doesn't hurt the fact that I have 3 other OSes on here, all x64 based, but whatever. The simple points are:

a) none of us are supposed to be running these builds

b) people with more than 4GB of RAM rarely ever actually put it into serious use, a very small percentage do (I'm one of 'em)

c) people can't read with comprehension

d) the whining won't end anytime soon...

Oh yeah, another benefit of being a beta tester: you get to try out all sorts of neat stuff, like the latest beta of RamDisk Plus from SuperSpeed.com which allows me to use all the RAM in this machine even running Windows 7 x86 at this very moment by assigning all the RAM the OS can't see to a RAMdisk... go figure. :D

[SoLoR1]

GTFO....Obviously you don't understand. People need 64-bit if they have over 3.25GB of ram. :angry:

They dont "need", however its stupid to have lots of ram and no OS that cant actualy USE that ram. This is all point of whining about x64.

And yes we can discuss this forever if we should use this leaked builds or not. Fact is being beta tester or not, this leaks are ONLY source of new builds. Without them people in Win7 beta program would be still stuck on build 7000 and imo this is MAJOR fail. I wonder how many bugs would go unoticed without public geting new builds every once in a while...

And i have no idea whats about "being scared" of making a torrent. I mean, mostly you break is NDA. Using leaked builds is not against EULA, have no idea if sharing them is, but i assume its not. You "only" break NDA with sharing and since builds are not watermarked to specific person, how would anyone find out who actual leak is if you post some annoymous torrent on some random private tracker with some random IP of some seed box?

Edited April 9, 2009 by SoLoR1

[atleeit]

They dont "need", however its stupid to have lots of ram and no OS that can actualy USE that ram. This is all point of whining about x64.

And yes we can discuss this forever if we should use this leaked builds or not. Fact is being beta tester or not, this leaks are ONLY source of new builds. Without them people in Win7 beta program would be still stuck on build 7000 and imo this is MAJOR fail. I wonder how many bugs would go unoticed without public geting new builds every once in a while...

And i have no idea whats about "being scared" of making a torrent. I mean, mostly you break is NDA. Using leaked builds is not against EULA, have no idea if sharing them is, but i assume its not. You "only" break NDA with sharing and since builds are not watermarked to specific person, how would anyone find out who actual leak is if you post some annoymous torrent on some random private tracker with some random IP of some seed box?

It's possible to track the source even if you going through a proxy, just how long it will take them to find the source is another matter but nothing can be hidden, that's a fact.

I guess he missed the part where I said I'm running 7077 x86 on a quad with 8GB of RAM because I can... go figure. ;)

Doesn't hurt the fact that I have 3 other OSes on here, all x64 based, but whatever. The simple points are:

a) none of us are supposed to be running these builds

b) people with more than 4GB of RAM rarely ever actually put it into serious use, a very small percentage do (I'm one of 'em)

c) people can't read with comprehension

d) the whining won't end anytime soon...

Oh yeah, another benefit of being a beta tester: you get to try out all sorts of neat stuff, like the latest beta of RamDisk Plus from SuperSpeed.com which allows me to use all the RAM in this machine even running Windows 7 x86 at this very moment by assigning all the RAM the OS can't see to a RAMdisk... go figure. :D

Go away br0adband, x86 has a limitation to your ram no matter what programs states you can use more then 4gb in x86, the architecture of the kernel won't do it. thus why people here are so keen to get a stable RC-escrow of x64 so then everyone will be at peace.

[Warboy]

I guess he missed the part where I said I'm running 7077 x86 on a quad with 8GB of RAM because I can... go figure. ;)

Doesn't hurt the fact that I have 3 other OSes on here, all x64 based, but whatever. The simple points are:

a) none of us are supposed to be running these builds

b) people with more than 4GB of RAM rarely ever actually put it into serious use, a very small percentage do (I'm one of 'em) - It's called disabled page file for increase OS and game performance, Heard of it?

c) people can't read with comprehension

d) the whining won't end anytime soon...

Oh yeah, another benefit of being a beta tester: you get to try out all sorts of neat stuff, like the latest beta of RamDisk Plus from SuperSpeed.com which allows me to use all the RAM in this machine even running Windows 7 x86 at this very moment by assigning all the RAM the OS can't see to a RAMdisk... go figure. :D

Simple points are.

1) If a person runs a x86 on 3.25GB+ of ram. They are a) They can afford to waste money on unused RAM. b) If they have no idea what the difference is. Even then, it's strange because if they WHINE about not seeing 3.25GB+ Used then anybody will tell them why. C) They are pure n00bs and need to learn.

The only people that should be running x86 is 3 small groups of people

1) People with Netbooks

2) People with 3+ year old computers

3) People that don't know what their doing, yet again.

And I already countered one of your points.

[atleeit]

Simple points are.

1) If a person runs a x86 on 3.25GB+ of ram. They are a) They can afford to waste money on unused RAM. b) If they have no idea what the difference is. Even then, it's strange because if they WHINE about not seeing 3.25GB+ Used then anybody will tell them why. C) They are pure n00bs and need to learn.

The only people that should be running x86 is 3 small groups of people

1) People with Netbooks

2) People with 3+ year old computers

3) People that don't know what their doing, yet again.

And I already countered one of your points.

You got it all wrong, People with fast machines that are latest technology can run x86 with 2-3GB or even 4GB, it shows 4GB, you have a choice, people tend to stick with x86 due to program compatiblity, you obviously have it all wrong. Do you know what you are talking about?

>>>DOESN'T THE STRING LOOK GOOD<<<

>>>7077.0.090404-1255_x64fre_client_en-us_Retail-GRC1CPRFRER_EN_DVD<<<

OMG :p

[br0adband]

It's possible to track the source even if you going through a proxy, just how long it will take them to find the source is another matter but nothing can be hidden, that's a fact.

Go away br0adband, x86 has a limitation to your ram no matter what programs states you can use more then 4gb in x86, the architecture of the kernel won't do it. thus why people here are so keen to get a stable RC-escrow of x64 so then everyone will be at peace.

Actually, you're wrong, but I'll let it slide.

RamDisk Plus 9 has a most unique feature. Our patent pending technology can access memory beyond the limitation imposed by a Windows 32-bit operating system! In other words, RamDisk Plus 9 can use "unmanaged" Windows' memory e.g. above 4GB. It can also use the stubbornly inaccessable memory between 3.2GB and 4GB.

See the product's help file for detailed explanation of what "unmanaged" memory is and how to access and use it with RamDisk Plus 9.

And it does work, quite well as a matter of fact. Windows 7 support is currently in alpha status (I made a booboo and let it slip out as "beta") and I got lucky enough to be invited in on it as I've written several guides about maximizing system performance using RAMdisks, and their software is the only brand I recommend.

So, now you're not quite as ignorant as you were a short time ago, and you're welcome. If you're still not believing it, grab a trial version, install XP 32 bit or Vista 32 bit and see how nice it is to have a 32 bit OS running and letting you do all sorts of neat stuff with that so-called "inaccessible" RAM... you can thank me later. I personally use that "inaccessible RAM" for a lot of portable apps I drop on the RAMdisk... ever run Firefox completely from RAM? I doubt it... but it's wicked evil fast, let me tell ya... and Photoshop too.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Why not try something new? Talk about the build and not how or where you got it. I see very little difference between this build and 7068. The Graphics are better and little things here and there. I guess the closer MS gets to an RC the less change one will see.

[SoLoR1]

>>>DOESN'T THE STRING LOOK GOOD<<<

>>>7077.0.090404-1255_x64fre_client_en-us_Retail-GRC1CPRFRER_EN_DVD<<<

GRC1CPRFRER_EN_DVD = would go for proffesional, also if it looks like a "diamond" (hint), it doesnt mean it is, since it have same size as 7068 x64.

[tomwarren Veteran]

Hardware for Vista/Windows 7 that doesn't have 32 bit drivers but is fully supported on the x64 side? Sure would love to see such a thing, that's quite an interesting little quandary... considering that to get "Windows Vista Ready" or "Windows Vista Compatible" logo certification - which will more than certainly bleed over into Windows 7 licensing now - requires that hardware and software be 100% functional under both versions of the OS installed, meaning x86 and x64 and providing full driver support as well.

Somebody show me a piece of hardware that is designed for Vista (or more than likely compatible with Windows 7) that doesn't have a 32 bit driver from that manufacturer and is considered "Windows Vista Ready" or compatible...

Just because the OEM doesn't provide a 32 bit driver doesn't mean one doesn't exist from the manufacturer of said component.

Not all OEMs provide the 32bit driver and if the OEM is the manufacturer of said component then where does that leave you...? Simple, using 64bit.

[Warboy]

You got it all wrong, People with fast machines that are latest technology can run x86 with 2-3GB or even 4GB, it shows 4GB, you have a choice, people tend to stick with x86 due to program compatiblity, you obviously have it all wrong. Do you know what you are talking about?

>>>DOESN'T THE STRING LOOK GOOD<<<

>>>7077.0.090404-1255_x64fre_client_en-us_Retail-GRC1CPRFRER_EN_DVD<<<

OMG :p

No you got it wrong.

There is a difference from using, to seeing. They might see the full 4GB, but they can only use 2GB per program and 3.25GB overall. There is no program compatibility issues if you run a up-to-date machine. Hell, I can run Duke Nukem just fine and it's 16-bit program. Yes I know what I'm talking about and it seems like you don't and your trolling. Because you've double posted many times.

[technobeaver]

No you got it wrong.

There is a difference from using, to seeing. They might see the full 4GB, but they can only use 2GB per program and 3.25GB overall. There is no program compatibility issues if you run a up-to-date machine. Hell, I can run Duke Nukem just fine and it's 16-bit program. Yes I know what I'm talking about and it seems like you don't and your trolling. Because you've double posted many times.

+1

[andy_rose]

I really like this new build, but there is STILL the jerkiness\lag in the animations when opening or closing windows or programs. Annoying for sure.

[vask]

I really like this new build, but there is STILL the jerkiness\lag in the animations when opening or closing windows or programs. Annoying for sure.

I am also really annoyed with that bug, and it is definitely a bug (or "by design" and they won't fix it) and not hardware related since it has the jerky animations on different video cards from integrated to dedicated. I am surprised so few people mention it as well, considering that going from vista aero to win7 aero makes the change in smoothness very noticeable.

[GryphonPhoenix]

7077.0.090404-1242_x64fre_client_en-us_Retail_Ultimate-GRC1CULXFRER_EN_DVD

This string looks just a little better :)

[andy_rose]

I am surprised so few people mention it as well, considering that going from vista aero to win7 aero makes the change in smoothness very noticeable.

Indeed!

Not hardware related at all, I have a quad-core with geforce gtx 260, and Vista ran smooth as silk. I really hope they nail the bug until RC1, but I have my doubts.

[vask]

Indeed!

Not hardware related at all, I have a quad-core with geforce gtx 260, and Vista ran smooth as silk. I really hope they nail the bug until RC1, but I have my doubts.

In fact after trying all the leaked builds since the pre-beta 1 and seeing no improvement in regard to animation smoothness I have a strong suspicion that this will be present in the rtm as well. If this turns out to be the case it might stop me upgrading from vista all together. I just wish more people would voice their annoyance as if only few do it is very likely they won't bother fixing it.

[2III7]

that is not a w7 bug. it's related to nvidia drivers. you have to disable powermizer in order to make aero smooth.

[marinebio72]

that is not a w7 bug. it's related to nvidia drivers. you have to disable powermizer in order to make aero smooth.

exactly. use either powermizer switch http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/forum/index....showtopic=21782 or NV GPU Pro http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=4718176 disable on AC, this "bug" goes away.

@vask -- more people aren't "voicing" their annoyance because most people aren't having the issue.

ironically, it is actually intended, and is a powersaving use that is far better than the vista power saving was capable of being.

Edited April 9, 2009 by marinebio72

[Andrmgic]

It feels smooth to me on my ATI card.

I guess I'd have to see a video to see the problem

[stezo2k]

is there a patch to get rid of "evaluation copy" yet?

suprised this works with the build 7000 serial numbers

loving this build so far, love the new login theme and sounds

[terminx]

is there a patch to get rid of "evaluation copy" yet?

suprised this works with the build 7000 serial numbers

loving this build so far, love the new login theme and sounds

There's a universal shell32.dll.mui patcher that removes all of the desktop watermarks... the build number, "evaluation copy", "for testing purposes only", "test mode", et cetera. I think this is the one I used: http://www.mydigitallife.info/2009/01/06/r...nd-server-2008/

[lee31]

No problems here with the windows animation. Definately hardware related anyways you can also disbale the animation if do have an issue with it.

Start--->right click Computer---> Properties--->Advanced System Settings--->Performance Settings--->Untick "Animate windows when minimizing and maximizing"--->Apply and Ok.

Job done.