I have decompressed the us-en and the pt-br language packs and some of the contents do not show 7601.17514, but 7600.16385. I guess it might be normal as long as just some files were updated. Examining the properties of the DLLs, you'll find the same mix (different release dates and versions). Anyway, the LPs are working with SP1. I have attached images with the x64 pack contents, but it's the same thing inside the x86 pack. This is more weird: when you open the x86 labguage pack (7601.17514.101119-1850_x86fre_client_langpacks_1-GRMCLP1_DVD.iso) in UltraIso, it says it's a UDF DVD, but shows an overloaded CD image. It does not happen with the x64 language pack.
FukenGruven You are wrong. I have WZOR original 7600.16385 untouched iso: MICROSOFT.WINDOWS.7.ULTIMATE.7600.16385.RTM.X64.RE TAIL.ENGLISH.DVD-WZT File: 7600.16385.090713-1255_x64fre_client_en-us_Retail_Ultimate-GRMCULXFRER_EN_DVD.iso CRC32: 1f1257ca MD5: f43d22e4fb07bf617d573acd8785c028 SHA-1: 326327cc2ff9f05379f5058c41be6bc5e004baa7 hash is the same as Technet/MSDN iso. so you probably downloaded a modifided iso.
Also try installing SP1 in safe mode w/networking... I was able to install it that way (normal mode didn't work).... it goes a lot faster too!
Does anybody knows the release date for SP1 RTM from Microsoft? (not the leaked SP1). I want to download from the official microsoft website but I dont have any idea of when it will be releaed for public. sorry about my english..
Does anybody know a single topic that contains ALL the links to ALL the torrents so far? Like LangPacks, LocalPacks, OS ISO's, OPK/WAIK sup, etc...I ask because the first post is lacking
Go to wzor.net. All the links are there for everything (stand alones, iso's (retail, OEM, enterprise), all language packs, server, details of the signoff of SP1, WAIK, OEM pre installation kit. Remember....Ku! Ku!. I don't pass this info often so enjoy. Rep me if you like. Kalliedog.
If you dont have anything constructive to add the SHUT THE F*CK UP! **Admin note: Your post is as useful as the one you have quoted, that is to say useless.*** Warning received!
*laughs* That's assuming that Microsoft actually cares about these "leaks", which are almost certainly not coming from Microsoft itself, but from partners to which Microsoft has already released stuff. Consider... 1) Microsoft is extremely conservative when it comes to validation. Any change, no matter how minor, would require revalidation. They don't want to be bothered with that. 2) These "leaks" happened two months after the final build. Almost certainly came from a third-party partner and not from MSFT itself. In other words, they have already released the ISOs to their third-party partners (not to mention their internal testers even earlier). Now they are going to tell them, "oh, sorry, we're going to change stuff around; we hope you haven't gotten too attached to those bits we sent earlier"? Hell no. 3) Think about what "changing a few bits" would mean. The automated build process probably churned out and auto-hashed hundreds of ISOs. Think about all the editions, all the different language-specific builds, OEM vs. Retail, etc. All those things were built, hashed or signed at the time of building, etc. To make a change, they have to go in, make the "minor change" to all of those ISOs, revalidate all of those ISOs (even if it's as basic as rehashing the ISO and then doing a check to make sure that between the hashes, no other changes inadvertently crept in from extraneous sources such as disk corruption), and redistribute them. And this isn't speculation. I work in software engineering, with automated builds that not only compile stuff, but also automatically package them for distribution, create hashes, etc. And I know that in situations like this, going in and making a "minor change" is a major PITA, even if it doesn't require a rebuild. And this is with things that are much simpler, smaller than Windows. The very idea of MSFT making a change to snub some petty "leakers" (whose importance in the minds of the people in this forum is grossly inflated, relative to their importance in the eyes of MSFT) at the cost of extra time, effort, and a massive amount of hassle on their end is simply preposterous and ridiculous.
I made a post way back in #1070 that contained all the torrents that I could find on wzor's site using a probing script that I wrote. There were 30 of them, IIRC.
Get yours facts straight! Learn how buildnumbers are compiled.The 101119-1850 part at the end is not meaningless mumbo-jumbo but the builddate and hour.If this would indeed have been one of the first ones we would have seen leaked buildnumbers for newer builds by now.We have not.Hence there is no newer and this is RTM.
At this point it's down to wild guesses. Here's mine: Tuesday morning Redmond time, about 12 hours from now. Why? Because MS uses the 4th Tuesday of most every month to put out miscellaneous non-security releases. When SP1 does come out, expect to see it first in the subscriber downloads on MSDN/Technet and then the public Technet site, but probably not on the same day. Then weeks later in WU.
You people are unbelieveble, how do you expect others to read more than 10 pages of nothing every day? Even admins have given up and are not monitoring this thread.
What?, get your facts straight and stop assuming, you nor I have no idea really whether this build is the first made or the twentieth made, you or I have no clue what is really going on at all, the only difference between my belief's and yours is I respect others opinions you don't. the only thing that can be said for certain is that it is a build that is not beta, whos to know if another comes out?, given the fact that you get the option to uninstall the sp in the iso then its likely that another iso build will come out but there is no rule that it cant have the same build number as this release.