Everyone is falling to the same well-done fakers' booby traps, including all the sites that are reposting these pics: there are no "reliable sources" nowadays anywhere anymore. They "look legit". This is what the fakers (and I have a weird feeling that all the fakes are Microsofter's job (and numerous of his clones), as part of WZ's unsuccessful tryouts to regain trust) want you to think that it is real, to gain attention, no more. Firstly there are very certain rules about build's intended usage tag assignment, and secondly: you cannot take a screen from a working system on this time, because if such a build would exist, a screen of this cannot be done by about 24 hours later (+ server download time, installation time etc). The build date was always been the indication of when the build has been started compiling (those who know how to compile stuff know how much time it'd take compiling such a huge thing as Windows), not when it has been finished. Take also into account that this is Pacific Time, and the default time zone is also -0800 . And builds must undergo internal signing before they would be available for use AT ALL, INCLUDING internally. No screens can be done in such a short timeframe. Now regarding AngelWZR claims about this build in apps logs: it is maybe true, but only partially. As per the above there is no such build, and the fact that Store app statistics can only list major.minor.build.delta only, he might have seen this build number taken from another lab's build user. The only real thing then, is "6.4.9795.0". Nothing more.
Tks arseny, it's very observative, my friend simply told me this morning that the watermark is fake. Also, AFAIK, there is "something" in win9 and win8.2(Threshold) builds, both desktop and metro screen, without this "something", the screenshot is fake. (I don't know what is this "something"). btw, about the build nos. shown in @Stealth's Store log, he said MS people doesn't use 3rd party apps for testing, and there is only 1 download for every build, so probably by some twist of fate, an OEM guy habitually used his apps for testing, and that might also explain why it only started from 97xx(I think it's 9740).
The recent ones look legit. Just look at the crispness of the Windows logo/button when the start menu lights up. Pretty hard to fake that one element. (The fake ones look like a bad anti-alias job).
seems to be fake simple google search shows its windows 7 sp1 C3516BC5C9E69FEE6D9AC4F981F5B95977A8A2FA
Thx for the detective work. People apparently love trolling with win7 files and fake screenshots just before a leak.
I would say generally trolling with m$ windows, never heard of such kindergarten before other OSes had been released.
In the midst of all these rabble-roussers it's hard to believe anybody's report at this time. It is becoming more frustrating to accept any news coming in. The SHA1 HASH is one of the possible means available us to prove the validity of their claims.