I smell RTM...

[kcnychief]

how do i get that?

You need to purchase it -

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/default.aspx

 

[madmatt]

Outlook is no longer included with Basic or Home/Student.

FBD: MSDN Subscriptions are very expensive. The OS Subscription is $699.00/year and you only get operating systems (no Office, etc.).

 

[Mastershakes]

Or politely ask your management to get an account for the team.

 

[kcnychief]

Or buy it yourself for personal use and have your job re-imbruse you :lick:

 

[kop48]

Shouldn't we be talking about Vista in the Windows Desktop forum now?

 

[GEN3RIC]

Sure, when it's released

Shh, I am on build 6000, testing it out, until my MSDNAA pulls through for the official version. Odd how there is no bootscreen aside from the typical in the last few builds..

 

[kop48]

According to the supersite, omitting the boot screen stopped OEMs from attempting to modifying it and slowing down the boot time. Apparently, it shaves off 6 seconds from boot.

I can't wait till MSDNAA releases Vista. Do you know if we'll get it before January?

 

[LikeyLicky]

When doing an install once all the files are copied, windows indicates loading files, the error 0xc0000e9 appears (winload summit). It indicates that an external device may be disconnected while using it, however this is not the case. It happens with both X86 and X64 versions.
What can be the problem ?

 

[GEN3RIC]

When doing an install once all the files are copied, windows indicates loading files, the error 0xc0000e9 appears (winload summit). It indicates that an external device may be disconnected while using it, however this is not the case. It happens with both X86 and X64 versions.
What can be the problem ?

I had install issues when I loaded the files in XP.. when I booted into setup, I had 0 issues loading and expanding the files.

Try that!

 

[LikeyLicky]

I wanted it as a dual boot and this is the error i get from boot (sorry, should of mentioned that)

 

[GEN3RIC]

I dual boot, too. Still gettin that error huh... hmm.

 

[kop48]

OK guys, if anybody got hold of the BillGates release, it is NOT the RTM - I'm guessing that it is the Pre-RTM which had the issues with upgrading XP.

You have been warned.

 

[kop48]

When doing an install once all the files are copied, windows indicates loading files, the error 0xc0000e9 appears (winload summit). It indicates that an external device may be disconnected while using it, however this is not the case. It happens with both X86 and X64 versions.
What can be the problem ?

What hardware do you have and how did you configure it? It might be your SATA drivers thinking that you've unplugged your HDD.

 

[GEN3RIC]

OK guys, if anybody got hold of the BillGates release, it is NOT the RTM - I'm guessing that it is the Pre-RTM which had the issues with upgrading XP.

You have been warned.

I'm not part of that bandwagon - but you've got me curious.. whats the BillGates version and how is it not RTM? (it must be fooling some people)

 

[kop48]

I haven't doubled-checked the build numbers, but - and I'll confirm this when it gets released on MSDN - it cannot upgrade from XP properly. This was the 'show-stopper' bug which stalled RTM for two weeks (remember the Winsupersite post?).

However, like I said, I cannot confirm it until I can get checksums from MSDN, but it seems that the build was leaked before the actual RTM.

That said - I do not condone pirating of this software. If you want it, pay for it. This post is simply a warning to people who think that they have gotten hold of the final version (as advertised almost everywhere). Do not be surprised if MS pulls the plug on this release as soon as RTM hits the streets.

 

[GEN3RIC]

That's interesting - so it was literally build 6.0.6000, yet it was still not bug-free (with the showstopper bug you mentioned) so they fixed the bug and refused to change the build number due to the "6000" moniker? Peculiar...

Theoretically, with just that 1 bug, it should be the complete version.

 

[madmatt]

The build is 6000, that is preceded by another set of numbers. The number preceding the build was changed.

 

[American Zombie]

I read that a patch for Bill Gates version is out on torrent that you can apply to the iso before burning to make the checksum MSDN.

original md5 = c7792c31aeea98be645ab295d35e8eef

After patch md5 = d1ff9802d93871c9b90fe5542e84f89e

According to Bink the build of BG version is:6000.16386.061101-2205

Also read that the full MSDN vista iso has been leaked to torrent as of the 12th so I suspect people will just download that now.

 

[kop48]

I read that a patch for Bill Gates version is out on torrent that you can apply to the iso before burning to make the checksum MSDN.

original md5 = c7792c31aeea98be645ab295d35e8eef

After patch md5 = d1ff9802d93871c9b90fe5542e84f89e

According to Bink the build of BG version is:6000.16386.061101-2205

Also read that the full MSDN vista iso has been leaked to torrent as of the 12th so I suspect people will just download that now.

I was about to post that. However, since noone has the OFFICIAL MSDN build, can't get checksums yet.

Yes, it's the MINOR build numbers which are different (datestamp, plus build increment).

From the look of comments for the MSDN and BG patch, they appear to fix the XP upgrade bug.

That said, as the Bink.nu article states, we have no idea what else has been added to any cracks and/or patches to the ISO. Use at your own risk.

 

[LikeyLicky]

Ok, I have it sorted. Turns out that if you have a failed install before and you managed to get the rid of the boot with vista boot pro, then for some reason it sees it as a corrupt boot.
I created another partition on another drive and it install flawlessly.

Thanks for you help anyway guys

Time to play with Vista Ultimate 64

Sounds like an old nintendo game