Vista RC1 Build 5728 Publicly Released

ClausValca writes "Doing some late-night surfing last night and came across a post over at Cybernet News: Limited Time Only: Vista 5728 Available To The Public. Although apparently intended for the TAP and Technical Beta Testers....it is available for download to the public via this Microsoft public download page for Vista 5728. There is a link on that page as well for direct download of the latest 64-bit flavor of that version as well. An Ars Technica post also has some background info on the new release. Techweb is reporting that Microsoft is specifically asking for feedback on this release, so make sure and let them know what you think."

Link to 64-bit edition

[unixmaster]

For the lazy ones like me http://download.windowsvista.com/preview/rc1/en/x6 4/iso/vista_5728.16387.060917-1430_x64fre_client-L RMCxFRE_EN_DVD.iso [windowsvista.com]

Not RC1

[the linux geek]

This build is not RC1, it's part of the RTM tree. They're currently up to 5731, and this build is about a week old.

Re:How long?

[Anonymous Coward]

It locks mid next year

Direct ISO Download Link

[in2mind]

http://download.windowsvista.com/preview/rc1/en/x8 6/iso/vista_5728.16387.060917-1430_x86fre_client-l rmcfre_en_dvd.iso [windowsvista.com]

X86 version.

File size: 2622MB
Type: 32-bit
Name: vista_5728.16387.060917-1430_x86fre_client-lrmcfre _en_dvd.iso
Build Number: 5728.16387

Note: Your Beta 2/RC1 product keys will still be valid for this version.

************** From TFA *************

How to get a valid license key

[Anonymous Coward]

Over here: http://ctrinity.wordpress.com/2006/09/14/how-to-ge t-your-vista-rc1-product-key/ [wordpress.com]

Re:How long?

[brassman]

June 2007. (I see an AC replied but he has a score of zero, so I don't feel completely redundant posting this at 2.)

Had this puppy for a week already and may actually get around to installing it, this time....

Re:Plays nice with boot loaders?

[tomhudson]

Short answer - it doesn't even play nicely with other versins of windows.

In addition, once you install Windows Vista RC1, you cannot roll back to the previous operating system installation--you will either have to acquire and install the final released edition of Windows Vista or reinstall a previous edition of Windows

This is their way of getting people to nuke their current XP installs, then having to buy the final version of Vista by July 1st.

Re:Beta is the new Alpha and RC is the new Beta

[Guppy06]

"In addition, once you install Windows Vista RC1, you cannot roll back to the previous operating system installation--you will either have to acquire and install the final released edition of Windows Vista or reinstall a previous edition of Windows"

That's interesting, considering that Windows XP will let you roll back to the previous operating system.

Re:VMWare?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had Vista working with VMWare Server; the RC installation detects the VMWare SCSI drive. There's a bug in VMWare Workstation that means the VGA mode used for installation doesn't work so although the installation starts, you can't see anything on the screen.

Put the following in the virtual machine's .vmx file and you'll be able to see what's on the screen to do the installation:

svga.maxWidth = "640"
svga.maxHeight = "480"

Re:Product Key

[ben there...]

You'll need a product key from here [microsoft.com]. Pull down "select your location" in the Download section. Fill out some stuff and you get a product key.

Re:Beta is the new Alpha and RC is the new Beta

[chrpai]

It says "or reinstall a previous edition of Windows". They aren't locking you into buying Longhorn. They are just saying you can't rollback to a previous persion of Windows without doing a full reload. I just got a new Gateway MX6920 for only $800 and it's running Vista, Aero/3D Flip and my development/fun tools just fine. There is no way in hell I'm going back to Windows XP on this machine.

Re:DRM and OpenGL?

[baadger]

nVidia's latest driver's for Vista [nvidia.com] include an "OpenGL driver for compatibility testing.". OpenGL won't be a problem, it'll be provided by third party drivers like it always has been, there just won't be any software fallback provided by MS (OpenGL in software is useless anyway).

As for DRM, well. Nothing in Vista itself is going to prevent you from copying DVD's, software or music or any other such thing. Windows Media files will still be protected of course, and HDCP will HAVE to be built into all HD-DVD/Blu-ray drives and decoders (read: the hardware) for you to watch this material.

The DRM issue with respect to Vista is all mythic. The only true rights taken away from you in Vista compared to XP are in the 64bit (x64) edition, under which, you cannot install unsigned drivers (unless you add an option to the Vista bootloader which isn't that difficult).

Re:My experience with Vista

[babbling]

Since when are there programs that don't need to be compiled on Windows but do need to be compiled on Linux?

For your information, my copy of Ubuntu came pre-compiled...

Re:Beta is the new Alpha and RC is the new Beta

[Bing Tsher E]

it downloads fine without Internet Exporer OR Windows.

Indeed. I am downloading it on a NetBSD system. Using wget. My .wgetrc has the line 'user-agent=Xlib-4.21' in it. (Also the valuable line 'robots=off' of course)

No such boot option in final release

[Myria]

The option to disable driver signing protection permanently will not be in the final version of Vista. The only option to disable it will be pressing F8 every time you boot the system and select that option.

There is something called "test signing", but this is a pain to enable. Also, if either test signing is enabled or driver signature checking is disabled, Windows Media Player refuses to play protected songs and movies. Protection against rootkits my ass.

Melissa

Re:Feedback

[KarmaMB84]

NT's POSIX compliance has always been (except SFU which isn't really part of the OS, SUA and whatever Vista Enterprise will have) the bare minimum for POSIX compliance as of 1992. SFU was an addon for 32-bit Windows only and SUA is Win2k3 and Vista Enterprise (unless they've changed that) only. Oddly enough, Windows XP x64, which is based on the Windows 2003 Server x64 codebase, does not have either SFU or SUA. Here's hoping they'll throw us poor bastards who adopted their red headed stepchild OS a bone and give us SUA in XP x64 SP2.

I reported it as it happened.

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy who fixed our computers experimented with the authorization thing. The list of components you acknowledged needed authorization missed only the hard drive to be everything in the computer. AFAK, changing the hard drive also required a phone call. What was reported to me was quite bad. I'm sorry but nobody would put up with having to phone Ford every time they changed a tire. I don't see why computers are any different. I don't appreciate being treated like a criminal especially when the one doing it is a convicted monopolist (and therefore a criminal).

Note that my comments about the phoning home thing referred to rumors I had heard and I referred to them as such. OK so part of my decision to drop Windows was based on a rumor. Mea culpa.

You basically called me a liar. I think most people know what to call you.

Re:Feedback

[TheNetAvenger]

As for your claim that vista server will ship with a full BSD subsystem, I would really like to see some evidence to back this up. I've never heard this, and a few searches with google didn't turn anything up. Not only is it an unsubstantiated claim, but it makes no sense. What purpose would it serve, why would they do that?


Ok, you really went off on a rant... Calm down, this really isn't this important, even if it bends what you thought was reality.

First to answer your questions, you could actually look this up several places on MS Sites, as they have been giving the *nix subystem away for a couple of years now, and the new features is what is going into Vista and Longhorn.

Here is another way you can tell it is included with Vista. Install Vista, open the (Control Panel) and go to (Programs and Features), Click (Turn Windows Features On or Off) and look for the Option called: (Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications). Click to turn it on, and bingo, you have a full Unix subsystem running on Vista - magical uh?

Ok, back to POSIX - Yes I think most of us understand basic POSIX compliance difference and the differences between POSIX and *nix.

WindowsNT 3.1 did ship with a basic POSIX subsystem, and it was kept in for several version, up to at WinNT4 (Fact check that for me. :) )

In order to further the *nix subsystem in Windows acquired a company that was already providing a fuller featured *nix subsystem called INTERIX. It was more than just POSIX compliant, as it is a full *nix OS.

The link I provided (which I hope was correct) was to the subsystem download site for Windows2k/WindowsXP. You can already run the newer MS *nix subsystem on both OSes for free, and they are fairly full *nix OSes, except they do not provide an XServer out of the box.

So the MS *nix subsystems are a BSD style *nix, a full *nix OS that runs on the NT Kernel and also side by side with other NT subsystem OSes like Win32, etc. (You see NT has an cool kernel in that it is designed to run multiple OS subsystems on top of the NT kernel and have then all interact through the NT kernel.) So yes, you can have your *nix terminal open and be poking around all day, and Alt-Tab to MS Word to write your next SlashDot Rant...

I am so surprised that so few people in the Slashdot world realize that not only has this *nix subsystem been available and free for Win2k/WinXP users for a while now, but that MS has taken great steps to expand it and the interoperability tools for *nix in Windows, and that these all will ship with the newest version of Windows.

One of our tech loves to port crap over to the MS *nix subsytem and run his favorite little *nix utilties on Vista or WinXP, and be able to use them concurrently with Win32/Win64 or whatever other OS Subsystem is running on the NT core.

There are also 3rd Parties that provide XServers for the MS NT UNIX subsystem, letting you go as far as your imagination and latest version of KDE will allow you to go. (And still be running all this on an NT core side by side with Windows).

MS was OS Subsystem virtualizing OSes before companies line VMWare ever existed. Go look up the NT Kernel design and why and how it operates in a client/server relationship with the base NT kernel and OS subsystem running on top of the NT kernel like Windows/Win32 does.

Re:Doesn't work on my Mac

[McGruff]

I have Vista build 5728 running under Parallels Desktop for the Mac build 1896.2 and according to
http://www.nickhodge.com/blog/ [nickhodge.com]
you can get build 1910 at
http://download.parallels.com/RC/Parallels-Desktop -1910-Mac.dmg [parallels.com]
although I have not tried it yet myself.