Official Windows 7 RC Available Right Now!

[Bare Foot Kid]

No luck T_T my monitor is working at 59 Hertz But it doesnt fix my problem my Main monitor Works perfectly But im starting to think its the VGA cable ... but it works Just fine with windows XP....

Try switching monitors around, main to secondary; see if that makes a difference.













Later :shock: Ted

 

[Cncmasterw]

Try switching monitors around, main to secondary; see if that makes a difference.













Later :shock: Ted

I tried that as well and the funny thing is the same monitor was Lagging.. but the second *my real main monitor* was fine.

 

[Bare Foot Kid]

Well, it goes without saying that it's the monitor and not Windows; now, if you could figure out what it is; I'm fresh out of ideas, maybe someone else will have some ideas.

The best thing would be to start a new thread at the "Hardware & Devices" forum, at the link below.

Hardware & Devices - Windows 7 Forums














Later Ted

 

[Cncmasterw]

Well, it goes without saying that it's the monitor and not Windows; now, if you could figure out what it is; I'm fresh out of ideas, maybe someone else will have some ideas.

The best thing would be to start a new thread at the "Hardware & Devices" forum, at the link below.

Hardware & Devices - Windows 7 Forums














Later Ted

Well im gunna try my DVI port on my monitor the only reason i didnt use it in the first place is because I love playing RST games with 2 screens.. but i can live without... its not my monitor becaues it works perfectly fine with Window xp maybe its Not reciginized by Win 7

 

[mynameiszanders]

Aww, you people make me depressed
I went over my bandwidth this month, and now my ISP has restricted my download rate to 30 kb/s. SAD TIMES.

I cant wait until normal speed is restored!!!

Hopefully RC has ironed out the bugs that annoy me. I dont care about the rest, they dont affect me

mniz

 

[Cncmasterw]

Aww, you people make me depressed
I went over my bandwidth this month, and now my ISP has restricted my download rate to 30 kb/s. SAD TIMES.

I cant wait until normal speed is restored!!!

Hopefully RC has ironed out the bugs that annoy me. I dont care about the rest, they dont affect me

mniz

Im really sorry for ya ..

 

[xan K]

Aww, you people make me depressed
I went over my bandwidth this month, and now my ISP has restricted my download rate to 30 kb/s. SAD TIMES.

I cant wait until normal speed is restored!!!

Hopefully RC has ironed out the bugs that annoy me. I dont care about the rest, they dont affect me

mniz

I feel your pain. my download speed can't never go past 53 kb/s. that's all I can get from my ISP. it is one of the downsides of living in a undeveloped country. but I'm used to it and I have grown the patience to deal with it. :shock: well, at least sometimes.

 

[Night Hawk]

Then why keep re-hashing it?

No one is rehashing anything. You simply referring to it.

If you got the original leak and the hashes/crc match (as we said they would about a week ago) then it is EXACTLY the same file.

There was nothing fake or sceptical about the 7100 leaked, unless you ended up with some modded copy and not the original.

The 7100s seen before the 24th were seen before the actual hashes were posted at Technet and obviously some were tampered with. Someone simply made them look like they came from the RC branch at that time.

The valid RCs leaked simply lack what the actual public release saw in the way of some newer updates while being found clean of any malwares when tested. That's quite a contrast from people were rushing after before.

All that is old news at this point anyways. At this time I'm rather busy putting the MS downloads through some tests knowing just where they came from rather then worrying about what someone else wants to take risks with. By the way the Windows.old folders were deleted without problem with the MS downloads. No bugs found! (at least not that type!)

 

[YupYup]

 

[Satch]

Night Hawk,

With all due respect, you are the only one still here maintaining that the leaked "official" RC is different to the one distributed officially via the MS website.

The compelling argument for the validity of the leaked "offical" RC being the same as the one on the MS site is the fact that the hashes of the two ISO files match.

Now can you please, without discussing anything else you may or may not have found, explain how two ISO files can have the names hashes if the contents of each are even slightly different?

Any why am I "re-hashing" this too? Because I'm getting a little fed up with the disputes without the above being explained. And I am one of the many around here who has installed the leaked "official" RC which had matching hashes.

Please just address the one question I asked without clouding the issue with other observations you may or may not have had.

Thank you.

 

[matrixv]

Anyone see it different CRC or MD5 with torrent file download before? Thanks

 

[mxosder16]

Anyone see it different CRC or MD5 with torrent file download before? Thanks

take a peak at the point being made in the post above you :sarc:

 

[djhallucn8]

Installed & running just as good as the last build!

 

[kpo6969]

Then why keep re-hashing it?

No one is rehashing anything. You simply referring to it.



The 7100s seen before the 24th were seen before the actual hashes were posted at Technet and obviously some were tampered with. Someone simply made them look like they came from the RC branch at that time.

The valid RCs leaked simply lack what the actual public release saw in the way of some newer updates while being found clean of any malwares when tested. That's quite a contrast from people were rushing after before.

All that is old news at this point anyways. At this time I'm rather busy putting the MS downloads through some tests knowing just where they came from rather then worrying about what someone else wants to take risks with. By the way the Windows.old folders were deleted without problem with the MS downloads. No bugs found! (at least not that type!)

Night Hawk,

With all due respect, you are the only one still here maintaining that the leaked "official" RC is different to the one distributed officially via the MS website.

The compelling argument for the validity of the leaked "offical" RC being the same as the one on the MS site is the fact that the hashes of the two ISO files match.

Now can you please, without discussing anything else you may or may not have found, explain how two ISO files can have the names hashes if the contents of each are even slightly different?

Any why am I "re-hashing" this too? Because I'm getting a little fed up with the disputes without the above being explained. And I am one of the many around here who has installed the leaked "official" RC which had matching hashes.

Please just address the one question I asked without clouding the issue with other observations you may or may not have had.

Thank you.

Agree 100%
You did not answer a similar request from myself either, so you either don't understand that verification of your statements is being requested or I will leave the rest to other's imagination of what I would have said. Thanks

 

[Night Hawk]

Night Hawk,

With all due respect, you are the only one still here maintaining that the leaked "official" RC is different to the one distributed officially via the MS website.

The compelling argument for the validity of the leaked "offical" RC being the same as the one on the MS site is the fact that the hashes of the two ISO files match.

Now can you please, without discussing anything else you may or may not have found, explain how two ISO files can have the names hashes if the contents of each are even slightly different?

Any why am I "re-hashing" this too? Because I'm getting a little fed up with the disputes without the above being explained. And I am one of the many around here who has installed the leaked "official" RC which had matching hashes.

Please just address the one question I asked without clouding the issue with other observations you may or may not have had.

Thank you.

There's far more then that involved. I received the following from a contast and am still waiting for a link for the following article that was brought to my attention.

"Internet service providers are cooperating more and more with copyright holders to crack down on illegal downloading and peer-to-peer file-sharing.

Some of the changes are due to strict new piracy laws, but others appear to arise from sheer self-interest on the ISPs' part.

Somali pirates aren't the only ones making headlines recently. The widely publicized Pirate Bay verdict in Sweden has sent a chill down the spines of BitTorrent freaks worldwide and cast a spotlight on the intensifying battle against illegal downloaders.

In addition to helping convict the Pirate Bay operators, Sweden's new Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) allows courts to order ISPs in that country to reveal to copyright holders the names of anyone suspected of sharing files illegally. The copyright holders can then use the information to sue or collect damages. Immediately after the law went into effect last month, Internet usage in Sweden dropped by 30%.

While most ISPs in the U.S. and other countries will release information about subscribers only when presented with a court order, these ISPs may not be displeased by the increased pressure being placed on file-sharing networks. Reducing peer-to-peer traffic by the threat of legal action would help unclog the ISPs' networks and free up some of their bandwidth.

"Fundamentally, ISPs (like all communications carriers) have a primary obligation to their customers not to inspect traffic unless it is necessary for the service, or to disclose information without being required to do so," Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) president Marc Rotenberg told me in an e-mail interview.

However, Rotenberg also notes that "ISPs are being pulled in several different directions. Advertisers want access to ISP data traffic for marketing. Governments want ISP data retained for surveillance. But the ISPs have one of the most stable business models around — a subscriber-based service — and clear obligations to protect the privacy of their customers."

Just last year, Charter Communications introduced a deep-packet inspection (DPI) program to gather information from subscriber traffic that online ad firm NebuAd would have used to deliver targeted advertising. Aborted due to the widespread outcry, the program nonetheless illustrates the power of today's filtering technology.

According to EPIC, "DPI provides ISPs with access to the content of all unencrypted Internet traffic that ISP customers send or receive." DPI used to be logistically infeasible on a large scale due to the resources required, but that's no longer the case.

Basically, if unencrypted files are coming through your pipe, your ISP can read them. And since most e-mail, browsing, downloading, and media streaming is not encrypted, your data and your privacy are at risk.

Only federal privacy legislation can prevent such filtering and information gathering. Right now, the U.S. Congress is working on just such a privacy bill, but any legislation able to pass the House and Senate will likely be tempered with provisions for copyright holders.

Recording industry's new global-scare tactics

So what are the rights-holders doing? After many years of futile efforts, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) finally recognizes that filing lawsuits against individual illegal downloaders is ineffectual in reducing piracy and is a public-relations disaster to boot. The association has stopped filing new cases in the U.S.

Instead, the RIAA instituted a new "graduated response" program earlier this year under which ISPs forward warning letters threatening repeat offenders with account suspension, termination, and other consequences.

The strategy attempts to make parents responsible for their children's activities, school administrators liable for the network use of their students, and ISPs accountable for all their users. Underlying this policy is the belief that suspension or cancellation of Internet access can be applied much more broadly than lawsuits — to millions of customers rather than to hundreds.

The first warning letter typically contains this statement: "Please bear in mind that this letter serves as an official notice to you that this network user may be liable for the illegal activity occurring on your network. This letter does not constitute a waiver of our members' rights to recover or claim relief for damages incurred by this illegal activity, nor does it waive the right to bring legal action against the user at issue for engaging in music theft."

ISPs are cooperating with this program, but not just to appease the RIAA. They are mandated by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to pass on the letters and to provide illegal downloaders' identities to copyright holders, pursuant to a court order. Any action beyond that is up to the ISPs.

Some service providers cut off access after repeated infringement, while others leave further enforcement up to the RIAA. For example, Comcast says it has already sent 2 million warning notices to downloaders but that it has no plans to cut off users' access.

AT&T agrees. At last month's Leadership Music Digital Summit, AT&T senior executive vice president Jim Cicconi avowed that "AT&T is not going to suspend or terminate anyone's policy without a court order. What we do is send notices and keep track of violations and IP addresses. It's our view that any stronger action has got to rest with the copyright owner ... That's what the courts are there for."

However, other countries are taking a harder line by enacting new laws and requiring that ISPs suspend repeat offenders. Here are a few examples:
§ In Ireland, major ISP Eircom was sued by four large music labels this January. The companies were seeking to have the ISP monitor its subscribers for illegal file-sharing. A settlement was reached that will disconnect customers after three strikes.
§ In Taiwan, a new anti–file-sharing amendment was passed in April that makes it a crime to deploy peer-to-peer technology that facilitates the exchange of copyrighted material. In addition, users who are caught downloading copyrighted material more than twice face restrictions on their Internet access.
§ In France, legislators are working to pass a similar law that would "boot repeat file-sharers from the Internet for up to a year at a time," according to an Ars Technica report. A blacklist preventing suspended users from signing up with any ISP in the country would be maintained, and ISPs who fail to promptly cut off suspects would be subject to a €5,000 fine for each instance.
Perhaps the most onerous and insidious part of the proposed French law is that users will also be required to keep their networks secure with certified software so that they can't claim that someone used their network without their knowledge. This puts the responsibility on network owners for the actions of their users, whether family, friends, students, employees, or customers. The law may be altered before it passes, but so far it has major-party support.

MPAA and RIAA identify illegal downloaders

The laws aren't the only things getting tougher — so are the downloaders. Predictably, P2P users are employing technology to fight technology, creating an arms race between file-sharers and the recording industry.

To identify illegal downloaders, the RIAA, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and other industry organizations are taking advantage of the public nature of peer-to-peer file-sharing and streaming networks to determine users' IP addresses. Then they get court orders to force ISPs to identify subscribers. In Canada, the courts have ruled that no warrant is needed and that an IP address is public data, just like a home address.

File-sharers who want to hide from this type of surveillance are using proxy services and anonymous networks such as Freenet, GnuNet, and Mute. While these services currently offer only a small fraction of the content of BitTorrent and Gnutella, the anonymizing movement has grown fast since the recent prosecution of the Pirate Bay operators in Sweden.

Pirate Bay itself is introducing iPredator this month, a global service that promises more anonymity than traditional virtual private networks (VPNs). According to TorrentFreak, "the weak link in any VPN/anonymity service is always their willingness (or otherwise) to hand over your customer data when pressured under the law. However, with iPredator, this should not be an issue since the service is promising to keep no logs of user activity whatsoever."

Sounds foolproof, right? Well, only if no laws are passed requiring ISPs to keep user logs — as has been proposed in Great Britain — and only if ISPs don't use DPI to see what you're downloading and filter it out before it even gets to you, as may become the case in Australia.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT, which is similar to the MPAA) launched a lawsuit last fall claiming copyright infringement against major Australian ISP iiNET. AFACT appears to want Australian ISPs to filter out illegal downloads for the movie industry.

In the long term, according to EPIC's Rotenberg, "the best safeguards for ISP data may come about from a combination of good privacy law and stronger technical measures, such as IPsec."

In the meantime, if you're concerned about the privacy of your Web downloads, use a VPN, proxy, or anonymizing service as a first line of defense. The free Tor program is one such option; you'll find more information about the software at the Tor Project site."

Once I have the link I'll edit in here. Thanks to darkassain! http://windowssecrets.com/2009/05/07/02-ISPs-assist-in-cutting-off-file-sharing-users

 

[YupYup]

:roflmao:

 

[TomW]

Hey Howdr,
Thank you for posting up the link in here, brother. It's good to see it without a .torrent at the end
I actually got it the other night... stilll trying to decide whether to dual-boot or use it as my default OS.

 

[darkassain]

umm..
ISPs assist in cutting off file-sharing users
im confused...

 

[kpo6969]

:roflmao:

Absolutely, positively incredible.

 

[Satch]

There's far more then that involved. I received the following...

Ok, so I guess that confirms that you will not answer the specific question about how two ISO images with the exact same hashes can contain different files. I'll leave it at that.