Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 21:08 UTC
Windows Microsoft posted yet another new Vista test build on September 22. The newest - build 5728 - is only available (so far, at least) to technical beta testers and participants in Microsoft's Technology Adoption Program, testers said. The build follows on the heels of Vista Release Candidate 1, which Microsoft began distributing exactly three weeks ago, on September 1.
Order by: Score:
YANVBS
by jcinacio on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 21:46 UTC
jcinacio
Member since:
2006-03-12

Yet Another Vista Build Story...

Quite frankly, there's no other way to put it: i couldn't care less!

Vista already has more free PR than any other OS launch in history, and it's not even out yet.

RE: YANVBS
by helf on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 21:56 UTC in reply to "YANVBS"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

Whats your problem? Few months ago There were 5 ubuntu articles a day. For awhile Haiku was getting a TON of articles a day and so was skyos. It goes in spurts.

Some people like knowing when a new build of an OS they are following is released.

Why do people that 'couldn't care less' feel the need to even comment on it?

RE[2]: YANVBS
by jcinacio on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE: YANVBS"
jcinacio Member since:
2006-03-12

"Whats your problem? Few months ago There were 5 ubuntu articles a day. For awhile Haiku was getting a TON of articles a day and so was skyos. It goes in spurts."

Yes, exactly! A bit too much!

"Why do people that 'couldn't care less' feel the need to even comment on it?"

Well, because it really is too much. No trolling intended, but the linked article has absolutely NO information about this new build, except it has been released and a selected number of people are downloading it for testing.

"Some people like knowing when a new build of an OS they are following is released. "

I could understand if there was any real information, but again, there isn't any.

RE[3]: YANVBS
by helf on Sat 23rd Sep 2006 01:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: YANVBS"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

Thats true, but what you said could have been said in the initial post ;)

RE[3]: YANVBS
by kaiwai on Sat 23rd Sep 2006 05:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: YANVBS"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, because it really is too much. No trolling intended, but the linked article has absolutely NO information about this new build, except it has been released and a selected number of people are downloading it for testing.

How so? it informs people like me that a new test has been released, so maybe soon we'll hear from some of the people blessed enough to receive the update, information on what has been changed/added/removed.

RE: YANVBS
by ronaldst on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 22:50 UTC in reply to "YANVBS"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

You can skip stories that make you cranky. kthx.

RE: YANVBS
by Bajan on Sat 23rd Sep 2006 04:20 UTC in reply to "YANVBS"
Bajan Member since:
2006-01-05

It might not be important to you but it is to alot of people.Each OS has their time in the limelight.

RE: YANVBS
by DittoBox on Sat 23rd Sep 2006 17:54 UTC in reply to "YANVBS"
DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

This is *OS* News, don't like it? Go elsewhere.

RE: YANVBS
by joen on Mon 25th Sep 2006 02:23 UTC in reply to "YANVBS"
joen Member since:
2006-03-31

yet you care enough to make a post about it

RTM?
by mebarg on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 22:11 UTC
mebarg
Member since:
2006-09-22

57xx buils isn't the RTM buils???


bye

RE: RTM?
by orestes on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 22:32 UTC in reply to "RTM?"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Should be the RTM branch, unless MS have changed their minds.

Just installed 5600
by John Blink on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 22:14 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

a few hours ago!

Doh!

:B

Gotta say much faster than beta2 on same hardware. The only thing I am happy about so far.

RE: Just installed 5600
by RGCook on Sat 23rd Sep 2006 04:06 UTC in reply to "Just installed 5600"
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

I agree. I had RC1 on my system for about 4 hours. I found it to be nothing like the glowing reviews found at various pundit sites. The new file manager/explorer was crashing constantly, the boot and shut down times were abysmal, the much touted Aero interface was such a letdown. On top of that, I installed office 2007 with the beta 2 technical refresh. What a crashing pig that is. I am not the ultimate Excel guru but I know my way around it and the VBA language, and wow what a mess it turned out to be loading/upgrading and tweaking some of my more complex sheets. I am so utterly dejected by the whole thing, I just got XP back up and running this PM. I really think Vista is going to be a dog.

RE[2]: Just installed 5600
by astroraptor on Sun 24th Sep 2006 04:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Just installed 5600"
astroraptor Member since:
2005-07-22

You DO realize they're beta versions ...

What does it mean?
by hraq on Sat 23rd Sep 2006 00:33 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

What does build 5728 means in comparision with 5600 for RC1 does it mean it was totally compiled 128 times with more bugs fixed, or what exactly?! I have no clue to this!

Is the final version RTM carries the build number 5600 or 5800, or another value?

Does this also mean that we are going to have RC2?

I wish someone sure about this elaborate.

RE: What does it mean?
by PlatformAgnostic on Sat 23rd Sep 2006 01:05 UTC in reply to "What does it mean?"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Build numbers are capricious... they seem to jump to round numbers for really major releases (like an RC or RTM). XP was 2600, for instance... SRV2003 was 3700 or something. Vista will probably release at 6000.

RE[2]: What does it mean?
by mebarg on Sat 23rd Sep 2006 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE: What does it mean?"
mebarg Member since:
2006-09-22

6000 is the numbre of the final version since windows vista is windows 6!!!
win2000=5.0
Xp = 5.1
2003 = 5.2
vista=6


bye

RE[3]: What does it mean?
by kaiwai on Sat 23rd Sep 2006 05:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What does it mean?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

In correct - its version.minorvsrsion.build.patch

In the case of Windows 2000; its was 5.0.2195.1; in Windows XP it is 5.1.2600

RE[3]: What does it mean?
by BluenoseJake on Mon 25th Sep 2006 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What does it mean?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

That's not even close to true, XP's RTM build # is 2600, has nothing to do with it's version #.

Anyone can download
by Deviate_X on Sat 23rd Sep 2006 13:25 UTC
Deviate_X
Member since:
2005-07-11

You can now download it, without being a member of MSDN, CPP, TAP.

http://blogs.technet.com/mattmcspirit/archive/2006/09/23/458402.asp...

Edited 2006-09-23 13:25