Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Official Windows 7 RC Available Right Now!

06 May 2009   #411
matrixv

Win7
 
 

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


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
06 May 2009   #412
mxosder16

Windows 7 Ultimate x86
 
 

Quote:
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
My System SpecsSystem Spec
06 May 2009   #413
djhallucn8

XP Pro, Windows 7 Ultimate 64 & 32 Build 7022
 
 

Installed & running just as good as the last build!
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

06 May 2009   #414
kpo6969

 
 

Quote:
Then why keep re-hashing it?



Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Night Hawk View Post
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!)
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Satch View Post
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
My System SpecsSystem Spec
07 May 2009   #415
Night Hawk

W7 Ultimate x64/W10 Pro x64 dual boot main build-remote pc W10 Pro x64 Insider Preview/W7 Pro x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Satch View Post
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...-sharing-users
My System SpecsSystem Spec
07 May 2009   #416
YupYup

Win 7
 
 

My System SpecsSystem Spec
07 May 2009   #417
TomW

Windows 7 Professional x64
 
 

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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
07 May 2009   #418
darkassain

Windows 7 Ult x64(x2), HomePrem x32(x4), Server 08 (+VM), 08 R2 (VM) , SuSe 11.2 (VM), XP 32 (VM)
 
 

My System SpecsSystem Spec
07 May 2009   #419
kpo6969

 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by YupYup View Post
Absolutely, positively incredible.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
07 May 2009   #420
Satch

Windows 7
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Night Hawk View Post
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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Official Windows 7 RC Available Right Now!




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Using official backup windows 7 dvd
Hi I had to re-install my windows 7 installation today. I have the original Microsoft Backup DVD & it worked fine. Then I got to the Product key part of the installation. I still cant find my key, so I just pressed escape when I got to the part where you should type in your product key ( its...
Installation & Setup
Official Windows 7 RC x86 Size
Can anyone tell me ,what is the original size of x86 ? is it 2.36 gb or 2.35 gb? In some torrents it is 2.35 and some it is 2.36 gb.. So wanted to confirm.... Note:- I cannot download from MS site due to some reasons :cry:
General Discussion
Download Windows 7 RC Official Wallpapers
Windows 7 RC is Wallpapers, this time Microsoft has added many new stunning, cool wallpapers which you will love to have on your desktop. Well You don’t need to download leaked Windows 7 RC to access these wallpapers. We have got Windows 7 RC wallpapers for you. Windows 7 RC Official Wallpapers ...
Customization
When is the official release of Windows 7 RC?
I have looked on msdn & Technet and no news on either? I mean for MSDN/Technet subscribers.
Chillout Room
Windows 7 Official Beta
The official beta has just surfaced in Microsoft's Taiwan's technet site, but does not seem to be active just yet. Is this a sign of things to come over the next few days? TechNet Evaluation Center
News


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:55.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App