newer build

  • Thread starter Thread starter alexus
  • Start date Start date
A

alexus

does anyone know if microsoft would let us continue to test their vista?
newer buidls after beta 2 (5384)? or was it more like sneak preview?
 
When you signed up they told you that you would also get RC1.
They are also sending some updates through Windows Update ...though I do not
know how much they are going to provide that way...
 
alexus said:
does anyone know if microsoft would let us continue to test their vista?
newer buidls after beta 2 (5384)? or was it more like sneak preview?

There's only one 5465, just released, and it's HORRIBLY unstable
according to my experience and that of others.
 
Don't know where you downloaded your "Build 5465" from,
but the latest Build released to authorized Vista beta testers
is "Build 5456.5". It runs just fine....

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------

:

| There's only one 5465, just released, and it's HORRIBLY unstable
| according to my experience and that of others.
 
Carey said:
Don't know where you downloaded your "Build 5465" from,
but the latest Build released to authorized Vista beta testers
is "Build 5456.5". It runs just fine....

Typo. Well there are many reports of the Explorer crashing and
inoperable or setup failures on systems that were fine with previous builds.
 
Carey--

"Clear, confident, connected" and "just fine" on the most superficial of
levels.

If you think that 5456.5 "runs just fine" I think you're not doing much more
than checking email and moving a few files around--not the stuff of an MVP
on a Win OS spanking new build "first branch of RC1." Drill it a little
Carey. Upgrading from Beta 2 is still unstable and faulty--but the money
incentive is on fixing this so eventually it will probably get fixed. It is
too integral to the main reason for Vista that dominates Redmond--mo money.

There are a few very superficial screen changes.


Try SFC /scannow a major Windows repair tool, and tell me how well that
works. It's trashing the registry much of the time forcing people to use
Win RE for which there is no MSFT documentation whatsoever on their sites.
The latest advice from Vista Redmond is not to run it. except in an sfc
/verifyonly or sfc /verifyfile switch --"does not repair" which is one of
the major repair features in the most of the previous Win OS since '98 and
Windows Server 2003.

Try Win Mail and watch the toolbar entries shuffle around constantly no
matter how many times you change them. Look at the All Programs menu.
How's it expanding? All Programs doesn't expand properly and doesn't
include many of the programs installed although you can do a simple
workaround and take the 4 file paths to folders that comprise All Programs,
copy them into one and shortcut it somewhere--but you shouldn't have to.

What happens when you shortcut to your XP boot and ole VSS System Restore
can't save your Vista restore points? They can't or refuse to fix this,
they announced in a chat on Friday June 23. I'm having a great deal of
difficulty seeing how PM Eduardo Laureano and his team have made it any
better. It's access from Win RE may be an improvement for those who can't
get into any safe mode option for it--most only try one and not the three
they could use. The 500 million people who buy OEM pre-loaded Vista aren't
going to be seeing Win RE though. Many people are going to be shocked when
they realize on a dual boot that if they so much as shortcut to the XP
desktop from Vista by typing its file path they'll lose all their system
restore points in Vista immediately.

WMP says it can't rip when it can (one of scores of false error messages).
Several Help entries are still unfilled. Explorer organization is a total
mess, failing to incoroporate the great View>Arrange Icons by> Show in
Groups Feature of XP. They've had 6.5 years plus another one to get their
"tin ear to bugs" act together. The return of list view is hardly a
substitute for that. The superficial Aero "Eye Candy" much like the brain
dead CNN and other Cable news "swooshes" doesn't work well and is transient
for a lot of people after non-intuitively requiring activation. The ratings
for hardware are inconsistent and apparently made up on the fly.

Error detection is faulty and errors are still not in usable English and
http://oca.microsoft.com is still a joke in Vista--offering no significant
info or help at all. Logs are obscure and difficult for the average user to
find and still remain metastasized and ectopic to the four corners of the
Windows Vista operating system. Setup logs have the name Tiger in them--was
Chris Jones hoping to get a free ipod with this homage to the device that
Softies hide in their purses and pockets?

CH
 
The x86 version is working for me.

There is no "Upgrading from Beta 2", however, since 5456 is just a later
Beta 2 build than 5384 was. There is of course upgrading from build 5384 to
5456 enabled this time around.

There seems to be a misconnception that 5384 was Beta 2 and 5456 is
something else. In fact there were lots of Beta 2 builds before 5384. 5384
was simply the Beta 2 build first released outside of MS (with the possible
exception of TAPs). Each new build released to TechBeta will be Beta 2
until Release Candidate 1 (RC1) is released sometime a few months from now.
There will be lots of RC1 builds internally at MS before RC1 is released to
TechBeta and to the public testers.
 
You can get two camps on the Semantics not to be confused with the devious
manipulative security company particularly in its Home and Small Biz market,
on whether all those interim builds builds are Beta 2 but does it matter? I
know on the desktop they said Beta 2 as does their winver in the runbox
lable. There was a lengthy post by the guy you call the 'Beta test Honcho
Paul' actually at one time that said they most explicitly were not Beta 2
even though labled Beta 2. Look it up if you think I'm kidding.

And I have been able to use Vista as a production box for months with Office
03 or 07-- But that doesn't mean it's "working fine". I guess like the
meaning of "is" that "working fine" is a relative term--like the meaning of
is, the unitary executive and the premise companies who wire tap you or
turn your personal info over to a government vaccum cleaner and claim it's
all legal invoking "state secret" a record 24 times in motions are.

Wonder what MSFT said when they spent two days meeting with the United
States government asking for all their customer information. Their legal
team blogging the most pedestrian and mundane knee jerk topics on the IE
blog ain't talkin' much 'bout that.


Enforcement Takes the Fight to the Phishers
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/

Wonder if the brave guys and gals who are Brad Smith's homies will be as
opaque as they were about turing over MSN search info to the point the
softies most famous bloggers were blogging on it?

In the face of multiple declarations of respecting users' privacy it seems
over the top disingenuous. But now ATT is forcing their broadband customers
to sign an agreement that all surfing, information that ATT has, and
surrealistically and stupidly that every email is ATT property. These
customers are hardly ATT employees and I hope they show ATT who their daddy
is the one way that's effective--by telling them where anatomically they can
park their fiberoptics.

CH
 
All of us in the TechBeta are aware that the Beta2 screen was checked into
the build prematurely nearly a year before Beta 2 itself was released for
testing outside of Microsoft. But it has no functionality. It is just text
on a screen. That, at least, easily passed QA.
 
Carey said:
Don't know where you downloaded your "Build 5465" from,
but the latest Build released to authorized Vista beta testers
is "Build 5456.5". It runs just fine....

I'm happy for you. Mine continually freezes up. Windows mysteriously
redraw themselves.

Sometimes Vista locks up so badly that nothing but hitting the reset
button my computer will work (Cntrl+Alt+Delete yields nothing).

Some programs will install and some won't. I'm not sure why that is.
I'd think it would be more like an all or nothing proposition.

And UAC won't even allow me when I'm logged in as an administrator to
access certain folders on my hard drive.

UAC needs serious work. I hope MS is open to improvements/changes
rather than just bug fixes at this point.
 
Some programs will install and some won't. I'm not sure why that is.
I'd think it would be more like an all or nothing proposition.

Same here. About 50-50 or less at this point.
And UAC won't even allow me when I'm logged in as an administrator to
access certain folders on my hard drive.

I originally tried to upgrade an old xp I had. Worked okay for what little
testing of installed programs I did, however every time I would access any
folder on the C drive it would BSOD. After avoiding that for a few hours,
the system would crash near the end of loading the desktop, so I did a clean
install. Now 50% or more of the programs won't install. At this point, it
is good for the wife to browse the internet and not much else. Nice eye
candy.
 
Chad Harris said:
Carey--

"Clear, confident, connected" and "just fine" on the most superficial of levels.
What happens when you shortcut to your XP boot and ole VSS System Restore can't save your
Vista restore points? They can't or refuse to fix this, they announced in a chat on Friday
June 23. I'm having a great deal of difficulty seeing how PM Eduardo Laureano and his team
have made it any better. It's access from Win RE may be an improvement for those who can't
get into any safe mode option for it--most only try one and not the three they could use.
The 500 million people who buy OEM pre-loaded Vista aren't going to be seeing Win RE though.
Many people are going to be shocked when they realize on a dual boot that if they so much as
shortcut to the XP desktop from Vista by typing its file path they'll lose all their system
restore points in Vista immediately.

I wish I could get some kind of clarification on this.

I have WinXP and Vista partitioned.

I have BitLocker turned on for Vista.

I have System Restore disabled on XP. I have SR turned on
for Vista. I have rebooted to XP several times, I have accessed
my XP partition from Vista numerous times. I have a few shortcuts
to WinXP folders on my Vista desktop. I have shortcuts to a few
XP programs on my Vista desktop that seem to work well with Vista-
*some* XP programs from the XP partition seem to work just fine
shortcutting them to your Vista desktop.

I have all my restore points still listed in System Restore
on Vista.

Please, someone through some knowledge my way.

-Michael
 
One point to remember is that whether or not SR is enabled on XP won't
matter because it is the underlying VSS driver that is the culprit. It
happens that the driver is the engine System Restore calls for creating a
restore point but not a part of SR itself. Notice that in Safe Mode you can
restore from a restore point but you cannot create a new one. That is
because VSS in not active in Safe Mode. The VSS driver in Vista has an
incompatibility with the one in XP and MS did indeed say that backporting to
XP would involve too much rewriting of XP to take on.
 
Okay, I understand that.

What I really want to know- why are my SR points still
listed? When I open up System Protection, it shows the
last restore point. If I click on the System Restore button,
and then next- it lists all sorts of restore points. Points
made after installs, uninstalls, manual restore points-
many are listed since the 21st. Like I said, I have regularly
booted to XP and my restore points are still there. I was
under the impression they would be wiped out. Would they
work? I reckon I should try one. I just hate to mess with a
machine that is working well. But that is the purpose of testing
betas.

I guess I could create a manual restore point now and see
what would happen after booting to XP and then back to Vista.

-Michael
 
MICHAEL said:
Okay, I understand that.

What I really want to know- why are my SR points still
listed? When I open up System Protection, it shows the
last restore point. If I click on the System Restore button,
and then next- it lists all sorts of restore points. Points
made after installs, uninstalls, manual restore points-
many are listed since the 21st.
Like I said, I have regularly
booted to XP and my *restore points are still there. I was
under the impression they would be wiped out.

My Vista restore points are still listed after booting to XP
and then back to Vista.
 
PaulM said:
Not here! After I boot to XP and back to Vista, my Restore Points are gone!!

Do you have BitLocker encryption turned on?

Since I turned BitLocker on on June the 21st, my
restore points have not been erased.

I wish someone else would try this, too.


-Michael
 
The VSS runs below Bitlocker. Have you tried a restore from a point made
before switching to XP? I am assuming here that you are not switching via
the BIOS but are dual booting.
 
I find this hard to understand--Michael. It actually is bug reportable--in
other words if that happens, although many of us wish it were possible, it's
a bug. And you have access to a number of ways to report it.

"My Vista restore points are still listed after booting to XP and then back
to Vista."

Michael -- this point may be helpful for you to remember in testing some of
what we've discussed with System Restore. Remember that you can always try
out the restore point and *undo* the restore. The *undo* is not iffy and is
reliable enough to protect you if you want to check out some of what you're
seeing.

CH
 
Back
Top