Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Vista RC1 Build 5728 Publicly Released 317

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vista RC1 Build 5728 Publicly Released

Comments Filter:
  • by ergo98 ( 9391 ) on Sunday September 24, 2006 @07:34AM (#16173769) Homepage Journal
    Wasn't there a time when "RC" literally meant release canadidate as in if this works we're burning this exact image on the retail CDs? Nowadays release candidates are really betas, and betas -- which are supposed to be feature complete, almost 100% apps that are only being tested for technical faults, are really alphas, with endless new feature additions and changes.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24, 2006 @08:37AM (#16174049)
    Now that even Mozilla's release candidates aren't really expected to become the final release, can you really blame Microsoft for their nomenclature? It's like ergo98 wrote: RC is the new beta, and this time it isn't Microsoft's fault.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24, 2006 @08:49AM (#16174105)
    Good god man,

    If you give up that quickly on Windows, an OS that often takes the approach of insulating users from functionality through a very fine-tuned UI aimed for maximum user friendliness, then I hate to think what must have happened when you tried an OS that takes a "more power to the user" ideology, like say, "Linux"?

    Step 1: Install Linux
    Step 2: Try to compile something
    Step 3: It breaks, throw-away Linux in absolute disgust
    Step 4: Return to pre-configured Microsoft Bob, where it's safe.

    To further add to the absurdity of the previous post, the code you are using is _NOT_ finished. I'm not defending Windows, just preaching common sense. It's quite possible it could have been a bug specific to the users setup.

    It's uninformative, ridiculous comments like the former that harm Slashdot, offering a stereotypical Windows bashing with no real merit, contributing nothing.
  • by theCoder ( 23772 ) on Sunday September 24, 2006 @12:13PM (#16175649) Homepage Journal
    Sadly, Microsoft won't have much trouble at all selling Vista. I'm sure every OEM out there will begin putting it on all their computers as soon as MS relases it. The exact same way with XP. And in five years time, Vista will be the dominent OS, simply by people getting new machines. Sure, there won't be a mad rush to go buy Vista like there was for Windows 95, but really there hasn't been a rush like that since Windows 95. Microsoft is in a very good position. I know I'd like to get $40-$100 for every new PC sold in the US (and most of the rest of the world) without having to do much actual work.

    Though from a pure ROI viewpoint, I think Microsoft made a mistake developing Vista at all. They spent who knows how many millions of dollars developing Vista, and I doubt they're going to get much more revenue out of Vista than they would have from continuing sales of XP over the next 5-10 years. Sure, they might loose some marketshare, but they'd still be getting billions in revenue with very little expenses.
  • Re:Feedback (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheNetAvenger ( 624455 ) on Sunday September 24, 2006 @12:17PM (#16175681)
    Probably a bit too late to ask for POSIX interoperability, eh?

    Ya, considering they have been POSIX compliant since NT was built in 1992...

    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=896c9688-601b-44f1-81a4-02878ff11778&Displa yLang=en [microsoft.com]

    BTW Vista and Longhorn Server ship with a full BSD *nix subsystem (minus an XServer.)

    Nothing new to see here, move along...
  • by neoform ( 551705 ) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Sunday September 24, 2006 @01:05PM (#16176157) Homepage
    Let's be honest, given how often you have to reinstall windows, does anyone ever really use the "rollback" feature?
  • Re:Feedback (Score:3, Insightful)

    by flithm ( 756019 ) on Sunday September 24, 2006 @04:08PM (#16177567) Homepage
    Ya, considering they have been POSIX compliant since NT was built in 1992...

    Useless link posted: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa [microsoft.com] milyID=896c9688-601b-44f1-81a4-02878ff11778&Displa yLang=en

    BTW Vista and Longhorn Server ship with a full BSD *nix subsystem (minus an XServer.)


    Uhh... no it hasn't. First of all the link you pasted doesn't even mention POSIX once. Usually when you post a link to corroborate a claim, it's supposed to actually do that.

    Do you even know what POSIX means? Obviously not. Try doing some reading on it. This page will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX [wikipedia.org]

    Even this page tells you that in order for Windows NT to achieve any measure of POSIX compliance you need to activate optional features.

    And if you check Microsoft's own web page about this: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/ntwrkstn/ reskit/poscomp.mspx?mfr=true [microsoft.com]

    You can see that Windows has only ever been [optionally] posix compliant with respect to its C api and API language bindings. This is one (perhaps two) sections of more than 12 that are required for full POSIX compliance.

    Clearly what the grandparent meant is the suite of posix compliant command line utilities and other useful things that make unix so nice to use. It was also a funny joke, because microsoft would never do this.

    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?

    Basically I call bullshit.
  • by TheNetAvenger ( 624455 ) on Sunday September 24, 2006 @06:13PM (#16178435)
    Vista is like XP but with even more pointless visual effects to turn off, not to meantion it runs alot slower.


    Ok, I think you should at least try it. You are the target audience MS is trying to hit.

    I think you will find yourself surprised. Vista is faster than WindowsXP if you have 512mb of RAM. (Yes a step jump from the 128mb XP threshold)

    The other thing you will find as you use Vista is the OS doesn't look 'extremely' different, but you find yourself using many of the new features.

    Right now going back to XP from Vista (after only running it on my personal system full time for a couple of weeks) is already painful. I am forever missing the quick find abilities, saved searches, and tons of 'little' things that are just more polished and just work for you in Vista.

    And going back to speed, when editing large graphics, or even working in CorelDraw or AI on a massive drawing, the speed difference is 10x the difference between Vista and XP or OSX.

    The Vista Video Composer is truly top notch and not only will you find your 3D applications flying, but even your older 2D GDI+ applications will perform at amazing levels, as MS is even accelerating basic vector and GDI+ calls through the GPU. This along with the the true Vector level composer in Vista, you will find everything from CorelDraw to AutoCad and even stuff like Photoshop run so much faster on the same hardware, it is a bit surprising at times.

    The biggest change for users in usability is the integrated search and the more consistent use of the folder placement and how it operates within the OS, and yes it is more *nix like, but I think that is a good thing.

    The search features is not only a search service, but it is a part of the OS at every level. You will find yourself hitting the start button and typing "Donkey" and in 1 second getting a list of every file and every email you have ever used the word "Donkey" in. The search is fast, and integrated throughout to every UI Dialog or folder window. (Once you use Vista, you will see why WinFS is not needed at this point, as they have pulled off the speed and you can already add 'relational' attributes and Tags to all your files, folder and documents.

    I would move to Vista for the Video and application performance alone, as I do a lot of graphic design work, and watching CorelDraw repaint a multi-layered drawing and take 5-10secs under XP and paint instantly in Vista is enough of a reason to move to a new OS. (And like I said, this is also true of almost any application that does a lot of drawing to the screen.)

    Also if you have a Video Card made in the last 3 years, you won't have to turn off the 'visual' effects, unless they annoy you. There is no performance hit that our techs can even measure between running with Glass on or off.

  • by spoco2 ( 322835 ) on Sunday September 24, 2006 @08:03PM (#16179237)
    Stop surfing porn sites.

    Problem solved.

    Really.

    I have had a few friends computers who I've had to repair from a state of just hardly running, and in all cases, even when they said 'no... no we don't', all the spyware and adware and junk that was loading them down was due to surfing porn sites or similar.

    A cleanup with AdAware, Spybot search and destroy and Hijack this... perfectly working system

    Oh, and using Firefox instead of IE.

    Problem solved.

    No slowdown.

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Working...