Agreed. I have been arguing this point on another rather self opinionated site, where any mention of torrents is removed as soon as seen by moderators (not this one!!)
I am not a linux user, but it has even been brought to my attention that some major linux distributers are now offering torrent downloads.
I have to agree that Microsoft could put a stop to it if they really wanted to. As a musician, who's music gets ripped, I make it a point not to support torrents in any way, shape, or form.
On the Microsoft TechNet forums, they discourage using "leaked" versions, quote.....
"There are always many internal builds being used by the developers during the beta process, there could be several every week. These are used by the developers to immediately test bug fixes and new code. Some of these interim builds are shared with outside organizations, usually major third party software or hardware developers, for their own internal testing. These builds have not undergone the usual, extensive internal testing before being released to these organizations.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for one of these builds to be occasionally 'leaked' to the public and placed on Torrent sites.
Anyone who downloads and uses any of these builds is at risk, since they could contain malicious code that was added to the program before being placed on the Torrent site. This is very common. Whoever the person was who leaked one of these builds is of dubious character, since this violates every contract and agreement designed to keep these interim builds private.
Sorry to sound like a cynic pirate, but that's a load of horse sh!t. You know how hard it would be to insert malicious code in a closed source OS? Especially one with such tight knit security? Sure, they could vlite it, and install what? You can't just go 'oh, well I'm going to put this Virus in this Windows 7 ISO' , it doesn't work like that.
The statement has been oft repeated on the Microsoft sites. But, Kyle, I think there can be misunderstanding about leaked "builds"
They are not neccessarily leaked from Microsoft sources. Builds, as indeed quoted, are sent out, often to complaining hardware or software developers. In the former case, and, given the circumstances, sometimes to the software people, the source code is included.
As such, it is not difficult for mischevious persons, within those multiudinous organisations, to alter the code. If they are prepared to leak, why not prepared to do worse. I have not read of such instances (using the term "malicious")
However, maybe MS should not, in this particular bulletin, have used the term "malicious". I am sure they meant something milder, such as erratic code which could blow certain aspects of the OS.
No one in MS is suggesting the public should be using "builds", for the reasons stated. They are, after all, for the most part, an adaption from a previous build, or even a public release, and are not, at that stage, representative of the final product.
I can see, in retrospect, it makes the whole point, in forums such as this, of offering help for strange OS behaviour, rather irrelevant. But as an active participant, I beieve it leads to a possible "leaked" (lol) path to feedback for the information of Microsoft, and a cleaner finished product.
A long long time ago ..."In a galaxy far far away" .. I used to test some IBM mainframe Code for MVS systems -- I don't do much now in I.T except a lot of Digital Photography, and some Audoi visual stuff (Live recording (Bands) etc.
Even back then I could guarantee it's VERY VERY difficult to put malicious code into an OS kernel EVEN WITH the SOURCE CODE.
Modern OS'es are written like "Spiderware" or "Spaghettiware" compared with the essentially clean IBM Mainframe Kenel (known as the Nucleus in those days - (MVS 370 and its later siblings MVS/390, MVS/ESA)
Incidentally to those interested the old MVS 370 is now in "Public domain" source and all and there's an emulator for it so you cam run old IBM mainframe apps (and the system) on even a laptop --you've got a lot more computing power than the old mainframes had.
If you want to run it (works on Windows and Linux) look at the Hercules emulator
Without the source code it's well nigh on impossible to do it and still ensure the OS looks like it's working so the victim is unaware of "embedded nasties". Of course stuff can be installed later but that's relatively easy to spot from a "Clean OS with no 3rd party apps installed".
Sometimes hooks and debug points are put in for specific manufacturers so they can send diagnostics back to MS in the event of failing drivers -- sometimes its these that cause BSOD's when you are usingf builds from "alternative sources".
Any "self respecting hacker" (?) isn't going to kill the OS BEFORE it's released -- no point --you want to "Bollix" up peoples machines AFTER release to achieve the maximum effect --or that's how theur "warped minds" probably work.
As I've posted previously if Microsoft really wanted to stop all these leaks it's easy enough to do -- and really is an "Internal Build Only" going to last for a Year. At this stage of W7's development if this is true there must be a huge amount of snags that we don't know about or their development departement must now be functioning at "Glacial Speed".
just did it for build 7048... here are results.
Name: Windows(R) 7, Ultimate edition
Description: Windows Operating System - Windows 7 RETAIL channel
Partial Producy Key: RYRJ9
License Status : Licensed
Also i am getting ready to upgrade to 7057 x 64 and post results asap. question could 7057 be a leaked copy of the RC1??? just wondering.
Truth is, Jefin, I have found little difference between the builds, performance wise. I have access to most builds, which I treat with caution, as some can be a step backwards, rather than progess. The only difference I have found is that there are different bugs in each, slowly being eradicated.
I have a previous post bleating about window7/Vista, so will not repeat. Briefly, I have an "ultra tuned" Vista on my desktop. It runs as fast as any 7 to date. It installed at the same amount of time. It boots slightly quicker than 7, with all software loaded. I admit, on the last, to having removed quite a bit of non essential stuff from the boot.
7 has had all the tuning completed, which took me weeks to investigate with Vista. It has snappier features and has , for the most part, sorted out the compatibility and driver problems that cursed Vista. I also feel it is definitely being orientated towards 64bit. For these reasons alone, and there may be others I have not remarked on, I will certainly move on to 7 when a stable, final release is available.
Same problems here than jefins. damn slow and problems with home network doesnt work,drive cache cant be enabled, just feels like this version is totaly crap Perhaps i have to instal 7048 version what worked just fine(no go for online Pb games)
Startup Bug, Desktop.ini Opens in Notepad on Every Boot Ã¢â‚¬â€œ FIX
This is an odd bug, mostly due to the fact that some instances of desktop.ini are visible and not set to system and hidden. Fortunately the fix for this is quite easy:
Navigate to C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup
Navigate to C:\Users\USERNAME\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Window s\Start Menu\Programs\Startup
I got W7 run'in smoothly, but it seems Aero is not supported (intel 915 chipset).
I tried your suggestion> didn't work so it looked like, tried the W7 registery hack for Aero too > system frooze.
In safe mode I could change the registery, now its back to Aero themes's enabled.
But no transparant Taskbar etc.
I get the message :
The current video card may support Aero with a driver that is compliant with the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM). Contact the manufacturer of your computer or video card for a WDDM-compatible driver.
_ Can that get it fixed?
_ Can I change the color of the taskbar to Black? (how?)
- Can I use third party progam for a Vista Aero Look?