Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Windows SP1 Leaked

Reply
Thread Tools

Windows SP1 Leaked

 
 
William Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2011
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 12:38:01 -0800 (PST), Nathan Mercer
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Jan 16, 9:58*pm, Sweetpea <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:35:09 +1300, EMB wrote:
>> >> Anything like this "leaked" software from Microsoft is usually
>> >> available deliberately. The only possible options are that Microsoft's
>> >> security is sub standard, or that persons with authorised access
>> >> released it to someone in the public.

>>
>> > Deliberate (but not on MS's part) sounds likely as it has been released
>> > to OEMs

>>
>> How do you know that it wasn't done by Microsoft?
>>
>> What would be their advantage for releasing it? And what would be their
>> advantage for keeping it locked up?

>
>Its really quite simple, Windows 7 SP1 is close to being ready but it
>is not signed off on as being the final finished SP1 release already
>
>Why download something off the Internet when you can download it from
>the source once it is ready




Because some people like to be the first on the block, like all those
that queue up when the iPhone was released.

There is some Russian Hack Wzor or web site that seems to know more that
MS does and make statements on released MS products..

http://wzor.net/ log on with Ky! Ky!

States that SP1 has been signed off.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nathan Mercer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2011
On Jan 17, 11:48*am, William Brown <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 12:38:01 -0800 (PST), Nathan *Mercer
>
>
>
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 9:58*pm, Sweetpea <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:35:09 +1300, EMB wrote:
> >> >> Anything like this "leaked" software from Microsoft is usually
> >> >> available deliberately. The only possible options are that Microsoft's
> >> >> security is sub standard, or that persons with authorised access
> >> >> released it to someone in the public.

>
> >> > Deliberate (but not on MS's part) sounds likely as it has been released
> >> > to OEMs

>
> >> How do you know that it wasn't done by Microsoft?

>
> >> What would be their advantage for releasing it? And what would be their
> >> advantage for keeping it locked up?

>
> >Its really quite simple, Windows 7 SP1 is close to being ready but it
> >is not signed off on as being the final finished SP1 release already

>
> >Why download something off the Internet when you can download it from
> >the source once it is ready

>
> Because some people like to be the first on the block, like all those
> that queue up when the iPhone was released.


except its not released

> There is some Russian Hack Wzor or web site that seems to know more that
> MS does and make statements on released MS products..
>
> http://wzor.net/* log on with *Ky! * Ky!
>
> States that SP1 has been signed off.


Strange that you would believe a Russian hack site more than Microsoft

That may be the final build, it may be very close to the final build,
but regardless SP1 is not signed off by Microsoft has final and
complete yet
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
William Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2011
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 12:41:09 -0800 (PST), Nathan Mercer
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Jan 16, 7:35*pm, EMB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 16/01/2011 6:37 p.m., Enkidu wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 16/01/11 16:24, EMB wrote:
>> >> On 16/01/2011 3:45 p.m., Nathan Mercer wrote:
>> >>> On Jan 16, 12:49 pm, William Brown<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >>>> Windows 7 SP1 Final RTM (7601.17514.101119-1850) Leaked Download

>>
>> >>>>http://www.mydigitallife.info/2011/0...final-rtm-7601...

>>
>> > this could have any piece of malware included in it, given that you
>> >>> are not downloading it from the source

>>
>> >>> Why don't you just wait for Microsoft to declare they have
>> >>> finished developing SP1, and make it available for free download?

>>
>> >>> FWIW Windows 7 SP1 is not even signed off as final yet

>>
>> >> So why has it been released to OEMs to be included as part of new
>> >> system builds?

>>
>> > For their testing?

>>
>> Released by the look of it -http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/14/windows_7_service_pack_1/
>>
>> The testing phase is supposedly over (we've been a part of it and have a
>> pretty good idea of the timeline).- Hide quoted text -

>
>The Reg is wrong, it is not final yet, hasn't been signed off on as
>final by the various Microsoft stakeholders, the article is just plain
>wrong, going off a Russian blog poster




That Russian web site has found to be correct, its the Bible on MS
releases.


Have a good read


Wzor.net log on with Ky! Ky!


 
Reply With Quote
 
William Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2011
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 12:42:05 -0800 (PST), Nathan Mercer
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Jan 16, 4:24*pm, EMB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 16/01/2011 3:45 p.m., Nathan Mercer wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 16, 12:49 pm, William Brown<(E-Mail Removed)> *wrote:
>> >> Windows 7 SP1 Final RTM (7601.17514.101119-1850) Leaked Download

>>
>> >>http://www.mydigitallife.info/2011/0...final-rtm-7601...

>>
>> > this could have any piece of malware included in it, given that you
>> > are not downloading it from the source

>>
>> > Why don't you just wait for Microsoft to declare they have finished
>> > developing SP1, and make it available for free download?

>>
>> > FWIW Windows 7 SP1 is not even signed off as final yet

>>
>> So why has it been released to OEMs to be included as part of new system
>> builds?

>
>it hasn't been released yet




Not acording to Wzor.net


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nathan Mercer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2011
On Jan 17, 12:03*pm, William Brown <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 12:41:09 -0800 (PST), Nathan *Mercer
>
>
>
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 7:35 pm, EMB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On 16/01/2011 6:37 p.m., Enkidu wrote:

>
> >> > On 16/01/11 16:24, EMB wrote:
> >> >> On 16/01/2011 3:45 p.m., Nathan Mercer wrote:
> >> >>> On Jan 16, 12:49 pm, William Brown<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >>>> Windows 7 SP1 Final RTM (7601.17514.101119-1850) Leaked Download

>
> >> >>>>http://www.mydigitallife.info/2011/0...final-rtm-7601...

>
> >> > this could have any piece of malware included in it, given that you
> >> >>> are not downloading it from the source

>
> >> >>> Why don't you just wait for Microsoft to declare they have
> >> >>> finished developing SP1, and make it available for free download?

>
> >> >>> FWIW Windows 7 SP1 is not even signed off as final yet

>
> >> >> So why has it been released to OEMs to be included as part of new
> >> >> system builds?

>
> >> > For their testing?

>
> >> Released by the look of it -http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/14/windows_7_service_pack_1/

>
> >> The testing phase is supposedly over (we've been a part of it and have a
> >> pretty good idea of the timeline).- Hide quoted text -

>
> >The Reg is wrong, it is not final yet, hasn't been signed off on as
> >final by the various Microsoft stakeholders, the article is just plain
> >wrong, going off a Russian blog poster

>
> That Russian web site has found to be correct, its the Bible on MS
> releases.
>
> Have a good read
>
> Wzor.net *log on with Ky! * Ky!- Hide quoted text -


Its published on the Internet, it must be true!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nathan Mercer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2011
On Jan 17, 12:04*pm, William Brown <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 12:42:05 -0800 (PST), Nathan *Mercer
>
>
>
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 4:24*pm, EMB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On 16/01/2011 3:45 p.m., Nathan Mercer wrote:

>
> >> > On Jan 16, 12:49 pm, William Brown<(E-Mail Removed)> *wrote:
> >> >> Windows 7 SP1 Final RTM (7601.17514.101119-1850) Leaked Download

>
> >> >>http://www.mydigitallife.info/2011/0...final-rtm-7601...

>
> >> > this could have any piece of malware included in it, given that you
> >> > are not downloading it from the source

>
> >> > Why don't you just wait for Microsoft to declare they have finished
> >> > developing SP1, and make it available for free download?

>
> >> > FWIW Windows 7 SP1 is not even signed off as final yet

>
> >> So why has it been released to OEMs to be included as part of new system
> >> builds?

>
> >it hasn't been released yet

>
> Not acording to Wzor.net-


They're wrong, SP1 has not been signed off as final yet
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2011
On Jan 17, 1:29*pm, Nathan Mercer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 12:03*pm, William Brown <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > That Russian web site has found to be correct, its the Bible on MS
> > releases.

>
> > Have a good read

>
> > Wzor.net *log on with Ky! * Ky!- Hide quoted text -

>
> Its published on the Internet, it must be true!


I wonder how Wogers information evaluation algorithm works. The way he
sticks to the first thing he hears as gospel and combined with the
complete and utter lack of error correction or reevaluation due to new
information makes it seem as braindead simple as:

truth(topic) = not
( have_i_heard_something_vaguely_about_this_already( topic) )

Unfortunately his tendency to read all kinds of obscure rumour sites
first before reading sites with slightly more credibility means that
the algorithm works even worse than you'd normally expect. The only
way something has a chance of being corrected is for Woger to forget
all about it, and then read about it again much later when most
information out there is actually correct. eg like when he finally
switched from Win98 to XP.

It's almost like he was coded back when memory and cpu resources were
very scarce... oh wait...

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
William Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2011
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 20:27:24 -0800 (PST), "AD." <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Jan 17, 1:29*pm, Nathan Mercer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Jan 17, 12:03*pm, William Brown <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > That Russian web site has found to be correct, its the Bible on MS
>> > releases.

>>
>> > Have a good read

>>
>> > Wzor.net *log on with Ky! * Ky!- Hide quoted text -

>>
>> Its published on the Internet, it must be true!

>
>I wonder how Wogers information evaluation algorithm works. The way he
>sticks to the first thing he hears as gospel and combined with the
>complete and utter lack of error correction or reevaluation due to new
>information makes it seem as braindead simple as:
>
>truth(topic) = not
>( have_i_heard_something_vaguely_about_this_already( topic) )
>
>Unfortunately his tendency to read all kinds of obscure rumour sites
>first before reading sites with slightly more credibility means that
>the algorithm works even worse than you'd normally expect. The only
>way something has a chance of being corrected is for Woger to forget
>all about it, and then read about it again much later when most
>information out there is actually correct. eg like when he finally
>switched from Win98 to XP.
>
>It's almost like he was coded back when memory and cpu resources were
>very scarce... oh wait...




Go do some Net Reading as Wzor is referenced by vast number of Web
sites, don't comment when you just don't have a clue..


I just passed on the Info I did not make it at all, its on Stacks of
Well know Web sites.


So go do some of your own reading and then come back and say sorry for
slagging me off.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2011
In message
<(E-Mail Removed)>, Nathan
Mercer wrote:

> The Reg is wrong, it is not final yet, hasn't been signed off on as
> final by the various Microsoft stakeholders, the article is just plain
> wrong, going off a Russian blog poster


You, on the other hand, speak for Steve Ballmer himself.
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2011
On Jan 17, 7:43*pm, William Brown <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Go do some Net Reading as Wzor is referenced by vast number of Web
> sites, don't comment when you just don't have a clue..


So are sites claiming things like the Apollo mission was a hoax, the
US government attacked the World Trade Center, the earth is flat, and
the measles vaccine causes autism.

Doesn't mean any of it is actually correct.

>
> I just passed on the Info I did not make it at all, its on Stacks of
> Well know Web sites.


What does that have to do whether or not the information is true or
not? Have any of them independently verified the information or are
they just repeating the original report? What evidence is there that
this is ACTUALLY the final service pack? What evidence is there that
MS is lying when they say it hasn't been finalised yet?

You'll have to do better than that.

> So go do some of your own reading and then come back and say sorry for
> slagging me off.


OK I'm sorry for slagging you off - I just read your link, and there
was a comment from Bill Gates himself confirming it - "I can confirm
this is the real deal (RTM)" he said.

Wow, you were right after all.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Windows SP1 Leaked << I was Right all along. William Brown NZ Computing 13 02-22-2011 11:07 AM
Re: Where to get stand alone Dot Net Framework version 1.1, version 2.0, version 3.0, version 3.5, version 2.0 SP1, version 3.0 SP1 ? V Green ASP .Net 0 02-05-2008 02:45 AM
Leaked Windows 2000 Source Code File fake@yahmoo.com C++ 1 02-19-2004 11:22 AM
Leaked Windows 2000 Source Code File fake@yahmoo.com C Programming 0 02-17-2004 05:06 PM
Leaked Windows 2000 Source Code File fake@yahmoo.com Computer Security 0 02-17-2004 08:48 AM



Advertisments