build 5800 or greater

cbdeans wrote:

>> How does one go about getting the latest and greatest of all the beta
>> versions of vista. How do you qualify?
>> I sever al students on several campuses have the latest, why is
>> Microsoft holding backing and causing severe headaches for the many.

You don't [unless you have an "in" at Microsoft or are willing to torrent
download pirate trojanned hackware]. So until there's some surprise RC3
release, the "latest" builds are not available to the public. You can obtain
RC2 if you have one of those subscriptions .. otherwise it's RC1. Then
otherwise it's a wait for the RTM/Gold version available at your favourite
retail/online outlet or pre-installed on a new computer.

Saucy Sass wrote:

> cbdeans wrote:

>>> How does one go about getting the latest and greatest of all the beta
>>> versions of vista. How do you qualify?
>>> I sever al students on several campuses have the latest, why is
>>> Microsoft holding backing and causing severe headaches for the many.

>
> You don't [unless you have an "in" at Microsoft or are willing to torrent
> download pirate trojanned hackware]. So until there's some surprise RC3
> release, the "latest" builds are not available to the public. You can obtain
> RC2 if you have one of those subscriptions .. otherwise it's RC1. Then
> otherwise it's a wait for the RTM/Gold version available at your favourite
> retail/online outlet or pre-installed on a new computer.
>
>

LOL- You all kill me.
#1 it's not illegal-the beta is free
#2 its not hacked or full of viruses

Point of reference-5744 was on the torrents before MSFT decided to
release it through their servers- It was neither hacked-nor was it
infested with viruses or spyware(oops;yes it is-SPP)

And it being free; and readily available; the comments of legality and
being hacked and full of viruses; are just complete bs.

Jeff

Stop your winging and be happy with what you have got.

NIK

"cbdeans" <cbdeans@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:EF565258-EF12-490B-BA51-79C84B96F6F5@microsoft.com...

> How does one go about getting the latest and greatest of all the beta
> versions of vista. How do you qualify?
> I sever al students on several campuses have the latest, why is Microsoft
> holding backing and causing severe headaches for the many.

Probably more correct to say "#2 You don't know if it's hacekd or full
of viruses". All that you know is that it comes from an untrusted
source; it's probalby ok, but it might not be. And there is no way to
be sure (either way) unless you have a known good copy or at least a
checksum of a known good copy.


Jeff wrote:

> Saucy Sass wrote:
>

>> cbdeans wrote:
>>

>>>> How does one go about getting the latest and greatest of all the beta
>>>> versions of vista. How do you qualify?
>>>> I sever al students on several campuses have the latest, why is
>>>> Microsoft holding backing and causing severe headaches for the many.

>>
>>
>> You don't [unless you have an "in" at Microsoft or are willing to
>> torrent download pirate trojanned hackware]. So until there's some
>> surprise RC3 release, the "latest" builds are not available to the
>> public. You can obtain RC2 if you have one of those subscriptions ..
>> otherwise it's RC1. Then otherwise it's a wait for the RTM/Gold
>> version available at your favourite retail/online outlet or
>> pre-installed on a new computer.
>>

> LOL- You all kill me.
> #1 it's not illegal-the beta is free
> #2 its not hacked or full of viruses
>
> Point of reference-5744 was on the torrents before MSFT decided to
> release it through their servers- It was neither hacked-nor was it
> infested with viruses or spyware(oops;yes it is-SPP)
>
> And it being free; and readily available; the comments of legality and
> being hacked and full of viruses; are just complete bs.
>
> Jeff

Barry,
Fair enough, point taken; true true
:-)

Jeff

Barry Watzman wrote:

> Probably more correct to say "#2 You don't know if it's hacekd or full
> of viruses". All that you know is that it comes from an untrusted
> source; it's probalby ok, but it might not be. And there is no way to
> be sure (either way) unless you have a known good copy or at least a
> checksum of a known good copy.
>
>
> Jeff wrote:
>

>> Saucy Sass wrote:
>>

>>> cbdeans wrote:
>>>
>>>>> How does one go about getting the latest and greatest of all the beta
>>>>> versions of vista. How do you qualify?
>>>>> I sever al students on several campuses have the latest, why is
>>>>> Microsoft holding backing and causing severe headaches for the many.
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't [unless you have an "in" at Microsoft or are willing to
>>> torrent download pirate trojanned hackware]. So until there's some
>>> surprise RC3 release, the "latest" builds are not available to the
>>> public. You can obtain RC2 if you have one of those subscriptions ..
>>> otherwise it's RC1. Then otherwise it's a wait for the RTM/Gold
>>> version available at your favourite retail/online outlet or
>>> pre-installed on a new computer.
>>>

>> LOL- You all kill me.
>> #1 it's not illegal-the beta is free
>> #2 its not hacked or full of viruses
>>
>> Point of reference-5744 was on the torrents before MSFT decided to
>> release it through their servers- It was neither hacked-nor was it
>> infested with viruses or spyware(oops;yes it is-SPP)
>>
>> And it being free; and readily available; the comments of legality and
>> being hacked and full of viruses; are just complete bs.
>>
>> Jeff

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:46:08 -0500, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>Probably more correct to say "#2 You don't know if it's hacekd or full
>of viruses". All that you know is that it comes from an untrusted
>source; it's probalby ok, but it might not be. And there is no way to
>be sure (either way) unless you have a known good copy or at least a
>checksum of a known good copy.
>
>

But then the known (if it had been made public by MS) MD5 would be
wrong? right?

Very few run build checksums. Most don't even know what they are.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Steve Urbach" <dragonsclaw@NOTmindspring.com> wrote in message
newslalk2hovnvnpcsvg8tk65b3e6v4mqroe1@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:46:08 -0500, Barry Watzman
> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>

>>Probably more correct to say "#2 You don't know if it's hacekd or full
>>of viruses". All that you know is that it comes from an untrusted
>>source; it's probalby ok, but it might not be. And there is no way to
>>be sure (either way) unless you have a known good copy or at least a
>>checksum of a known good copy.
>>
>>

>
> But then the known (if it had been made public by MS) MD5 would be
> wrong? right?

Rick Rogers wrote:

> Very few run build checksums. Most don't even know what they are.
>

And Rick,
When was the last time you actually did?
Yup, I know it's best practice to do so, just playin devil's advocate here.
Me, the last time I did,was 5384,and that's cuz of AKAMI funkying out
when I was dloading. When I figured out not to use them; never had an
issue since.
:-)

Jeff-lucky maybe;using free download manager instead