Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (SP1) Download Available

Discussion in 'Windows 7 Help and Support' started by Mike, Jan 14, 2011.

  1. Nibiru2012

    Nibiru2012 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    466
    Likes Received:
    18
    I believe it's because MS has not "officially" released the RTM (Release To Market) version of Service Pack 1.

    The RTM versions people have been downloading and installing are genuine MS RTM, I believe it was released to the OEM manufacturers but not the general public yet.

    If anyone has any more information, that would help, but as I understand it this is what I've read.
     
  2. Mike

    Mike Windows Forum Admin
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    8,488
    Likes Received:
    783
    I would like to clarify what information we know of these files at this time:

    We are awaiting further information from Microsoft. However, this seems to be a vague response, so who knows at this point. We are theorizing, based on the fact that this is not an urgent release, that it may indeed be released on February's Patch Tuesday, which would occur on February 8th. It could also be released any time before that. As that date approaches, however, I personally feel it becomes less likely that this would be the final build. We do not know, and will not know, with 100% accuracy, until Microsoft makes an official announcement or release. At that time, links to the download would be moved to their official website for the redistributable version.

    We can only go by what information we have received thus far...

    That is why I would suggest that this download is utilized only by those people who absolutely need a roll-up of the updates right away. I do not recommend this download for deployment in large production environments. I also do not recommend removing the uninstall files without image backup and restores being made. While there are some new features in Service Pack 1, especially for Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 and Windows 7 client compatibility, we are at the behest of Microsoft awaiting to receive more information.

    There are still some good reasons to believe this is the RTM build. Once the redistributable version is released on Microsoft.com, or if it does appear on MSDN or TechNet, we will immediately try to confirm the build revision, MD5 checksum, and digital certificates, to confirm that this is the same version. It is still remotely possible that this is only a near final-revision of the Service Pack.

    However, I, as well as several others, do believe RTM is imminent and this is likely the version. If we do not receive any news in February, we would feel compelled to send further inquiries to Microsoft and start to become doubtful. Whether or not these inquiries will be answered is entirely up to Microsoft.

    I would like to address why we have made these files available:

    This site has always been a support site. These files cannot be used properly without a legitimate copy of Windows 7. We have confirmed that these files do contain the roll-up suggested in the final release. If this provides temporary help for someone in a bind, then hosting the files is worth it. We will not know, with 100% accuracy, if this is RTM until it is released by Microsoft, or until Microsoft specifically states that this build is the RTM. All of the information in the registry and an analysis of the files and digital signatures leave no doubt that it is an official file. As to whether or not development continued after these files were digitally signed and marked as RTM is something we are not able to confirm at this time.

    I hope that this clarifies the nature of these files and the reason as to why they are available here. The files are also available on other similar sites in the greater Windows community. We are hopeful we will get some information back to determine the 100% authenticity of these files as the final, RTM version of the Service Pack very soon.
     
  3. julio99

    julio99 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    2
    This is so much the answer I was looking for. I will be looking forward to any forthcoming news you have on this as it becomes available. Once again thank you .
     
  4. Digerati

    Digerati Fantastic Member
    Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,069
    Likes Received:
    159
    (1) This is not an official release.

    (2) The MVP team leaders, who are Microsoft employees but work totally separate departments from the Windows 7 Product Group, do NOT have any authority to authorize sites to host these links. Nor do they have any authority to instruct sites to take them down. Therefore, silence or advising to leave "as is" is all they can do and should not be construed as an approval from Microsoft.

    (3) MVPs are not Microsoft employees and therefore we have no authority to speak for Microsoft in anyway. All we can do is advise of their policies and official announcements.

    (4) The Windows 7 SP1 Product Group is aware of this leaked build but has decided to not announce any action, if any, they are pursuing.
    All official indications are that the "official" release will be as originally announced, in March 2011. I think it very unlikely the final release will be the same build as the leaked build, even if the official release is next week. Why? Because of all the time that has already elapsed since the leaked build was released. Noting the digital signature of the leaked build was November 21, that's over 9 weeks already and it is likely to be several more weeks.

    Again, it has been announced that it will be released in March. Therefore, to inquire before then would be pointless.
     
  5. Nibiru2012

    Nibiru2012 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    466
    Likes Received:
    18
    Thanks to all for their feedback. Tip of the hat to Digerati and Mike!

    I did do a slipstream of the SP1 into a new build DVD of Windows 7 Pro x64. That's because I am getting an OCZ 60GB Vertex 2 SSD on Tues. from Newegg. Since I use DVD-RW and USB Flash drives for installs this won't affect me so far as wasting a DVD blank disc unnecessarily.

    Some others on other websites have speculated about the release date of the final RTM on SP1, but March seems to be the most reasonable yet.
     
  6. Mike

    Mike Windows Forum Admin
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    8,488
    Likes Received:
    783
    Thank you for clarifying this. However, this may lead to more misunderstanding and suggests that we have claimed this is the official release. When this thread was made, we had claimed that it was highly probable that these leaked files were the same ones being released to manufacturer. Since this leak and information became widespread, there has been a coda of silence ongoing about these files. No denial or authenticity claim has been made by Microsoft. As you know, once a RTM build is leaked, it is usually a matter of months or weeks before the files become generally available to the public. No new builds have appeared, which should prove a temporary relief for those who have installed this build. This is an enormous difference from claiming that we are an official release source, and I would like to make sure that it is very clear we have in no way indicated or suggested that.

    1234. Thank you for this information. We (the admins on this site) are also aware of this information, but some may not be. I was informed that the product team was contacted by a lead and that this is how the message has been handed down. If I seem to have indicated that the program has validated these files, that is not correct. I have been informed that they contacted the product team, and a message was then relayed indicating that the thread should be left alone. This gives no indication as to the authenticity of the files as the final release version. This is only an internal indicator we are using to understand that we are not being asked to take down the files. As to the extent of the conversation that took place between one of our admins and his connection there, I do not have full access to this conversation, nor can I weigh in on the conversation, put words in his mouth, or give any specific details about it other than the information already presented.

    Our podcast better explains the reason why we are being cautiously optimistic about this release, but why some of our people would rather not comment. That optimism is also being met with a real level of careful analysis and precaution, and so I have tried to provide, to the best of my ability, the facts as we know them, about these files. This includes information on how to properly back up your system prior to installing the files, how to uninstall the files, how much information has been personally conveyed to me about the files, and what precautions to take before dealing with these files. These files certainly do come with the inherent risk factor of them not being the final bits, and we won't know until the end of the first quarter of this year.

    We will continue to seek information until more information is forthcoming. If there is an opportunity to get official information, I will try to pursue those avenues. At this time, our options are limited, but our hands are not tied in trying to find out more. Although we believe we will not get any forthcoming information until everyone else does, it does not hurt for us to try to do this.

    This is where I disagree with you. Primarily because I have not seen a release date of March 2011. Do you have a source that says it will definitely be made available in March? In fact, I have seen statements that it will be released by March, at the latest, and not during March itself, precisely. March is one possible month. The information we have seen states "availability during the first quarter of the calendar year". That includes March. There is no indication that it will be released during the month of March, exactly. Granted, you could also argue against February. To be precise, this information comes exactly from the Windows 7 Team Blog, in an article titled "Windows 7 Momentum and Customer Guidance". An excerpt that has been widely debated states "...we announced the Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 Service Pack 1 (SP1) Release Candidate availability, with the final version available in first quarter of calendar year 2011."
    Do you have a source that says it will be released in the month of March?

    Also, if we can draw comparisons, Windows Vista Service Pack 1, which was a much more critical release, was digitally signed on January 31st, 2008. It was not released to manufacturers until February 2008, and not released to the general public until March of the same year. That was a 6.7 week release window from when it was digitally signed until when it was made available on Windows Update. During that time, there was no change. We simply do not have sufficient information to say that this is the official release, because we do not have a confirmation or a denial. That information will likely come in the form of the official release being made available, an official statement, or official information being conveyed to a well-known source.

    I am still optimistic that this is the final build. I believe the delay may be in the fact that it is not urgent. While I do not see harm in providing these files if people need them, it becomes absolutely urgent that individuals follow the precautionary procedures prior to the installation. In the event that Digerati is correct, and that development did continue, that means this would not be the final version. To obtain and install the final version, you would need to use a safe method to uninstall this build and install the correct one. General testing shows this should not be a problem, as once this Service Pack is uninstalled, workstations are restored to a state they existed in prior to the installation.

    A form of deductive reasoning is being used to form postulations about these files. The Service Pack should not be mass-deployed on systems until there is an official release from Microsoft. As stated previously, the good news seems to be that no real denial that these are the final bits has been made by anyone in a position of authority yet, the registry entries check out, the digital signatures are real, the timing was right, and no new leaks of any later builds have taken place.

    The files are here for support, and it has not been an easy road to host them. If you want to give it a go, or have some kind of emergency problem that may require you to use these files, that is why they are here. Only when we get an official release from Microsoft, as stated in the original post, will we know with 100% validity.
     
  7. Digerati

    Digerati Fantastic Member
    Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,069
    Likes Received:
    159
    Sorry. Instead of saying "in" March, I should have said "by" March. However, I apologize again for listening to rumors and not the "official Microsoft" position. As seen here, Windows 7 Service Pack 1 is coming in the "first half of 2011" which means it should be here by the end of June 2011. Until I see otherwise, that's what I am going on. If they release early, say in April or May, then we should be happy they cut it loose early.

    I am concerned there appears to be some sort of vindication due to no one at Microsoft denying this or that, or because no one there said to take it down. Why isn't this download readily available on all the popular download sites? Because they know it is not official. Softpedia is huge and was instructed to take it down - which they did! That should be a clue. Doesn't it seem odd that if this were totally legitimate that after all this time this download is not readily available. Doesn't it seem odd that you have to get via torrents?

    Drawing comparisons with past releases just creates speculation that leads to more misinformation and more rumors. And speculations, misinformation and rumors are what these postings help fuel. :( This in turn, unduly raises expectations, and then animosities and more Microsoft bashing when those unjustified expectations are not met.

    If you want to draw comparisons note that Microsoft has a long history of pushing back release dates.
    Exactly.

    People don't need them! Any fix is already available as an update via Windows Update. If folks have been responsible users, they already have it. Most new features, which very people "need" are available as separate downloads. Therefore, the prudent and responsible thing to do is to wait until the release is final when we can verify and KNOW it to be official.
     
  8. Mike

    Mike Windows Forum Admin
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    8,488
    Likes Received:
    783
    No one here is bashing Microsoft at all.

    People are here seeking and sharing help, information, and assistance, and that is all it is about. No one has been sucked into the virus vortex by visiting this website. If you do not like the content, you can be dismissive of it, and even condemn it. You speak of Vista SP1 RTM being delayed.. I know, because we hosted it for 3 months before the public release.

    Your comments to me seem to imply that our viewers are too stupid to know what they are doing, and that is a disappointing assessment. When notices, information, and warnings have been placed, this is sufficient. The reason I keep bringing up Microsoft asking to take the files down is because we will do so if they ask us to do so, and not a moment sooner.

    At the end of the day, this is a unconfirmed support file. I think you are imagining that it is the harbinger of doom about to befall us all. I assure you that this is not the case, and we look forward to new technology instead of fearing it. We are excited about new products, software, and service packs. Best of luck, but you have stated your opinion on the matter numerous times and I won't allow you to hijack this entire thread with doom and gloom. You've made your opinion prominent, focusing entirely on this one website. Why not contact MyDigitalLife or even PC World for their terrible coverage of these support files? Maybe visit other websites? That are hosting the slipstream discs?

    As you said before, you are not an official source. You do not know if this is the official RTM build, and neither do I. But the difference is that I am willing to provide links to it to informed individuals because it is a digitally signed support file and I do not look lowly on people's abilities to make self-determinations. If I receive instructions from an official source to remove it, I most certainly will. This site is not Softpedia, and what they did was to link people to a possible unstable public Release Candidate, indicating, in enormous bold letters on their site, that it was the same possible RTM build. I would consider that more damaging to viewers than actually hosting the files.
     
  9. Super Sarge

    Super Sarge New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    64
    As one Sarge to another, I agree with Mikes comment. I keep my machine up to-date. I check for updates twice a day. I still have installled this SP1 package I initially got from Softpedia, before they put the older version on their site. I also made a pre SP1 image so I can go back if needed when the official release comes out
     
  10. Digerati

    Digerati Fantastic Member
    Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,069
    Likes Received:
    159
    That's not exactly true but not the point. I said speculation leads to misinformation and rumors which unduly raises expectations, and then animosities and more Microsoft bashing when those unjustified expectations are not met.

    I never said anything of the sort. Let's stick with the known facts instead of attacking the messenger because the message is not liked.

    The fact posters come here seeking advice is proof they are not stupid, but rather smart enough to know their limitations, and to seek advice when they need it.

    Sarge, you prove my point. You keep your systems updated and you took the necessary and recommended (which is a credit to Mike) precautions.
     
  11. stueycaster

    stueycaster Millennium Celebration Award Winner
    Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,519
    Likes Received:
    53
    I'm really not worried about any of this. Yeah I installed it then used the SP clean up tool. I knew I had a back up but I didn't realize it was 6 weeks old. But the worst case scenario of this is I might have to do a clean install of Windows. If I do that all my old files will be saved in the Windows.old folder where I can recover them. Then I could reinstall all of my third party software and have a brand new freshly cleaned computer. This doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. :razz:
     
  12. Super Sarge

    Super Sarge New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    64
    I do not have that many created files that are important Those that I do. I alsway copy them to two different Locations on different drives daily so going back to an old image would not be a big deal, I might have one or minor programs such as Opera the web browser to re-install again and some AV stuff to bring up to date. That would be about it I would have to make sure to save a PST file to different location so as not loose any old mail.
     
  13. Digerati

    Digerati Fantastic Member
    Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,069
    Likes Received:
    159
    And that's great! Daily backups? Wow! I admire that. I wish everyone were diligent at backing up their important information. I don't even backup that often. I do put everything, including Outlook's .pst file, under My Documents, which I have moved off my boot drive, and I regularly drag a copy of that to my networked backup machine. But sadly, many of us don't keep current backups, if we backup at all - even though we know we should.

    We've seen over an over again, most recently when Win7 came out, many many XP and Vista users attempted to upgrade their legacy systems and, in spite of all our warnings and precautions, did not back up their critical data first. The forums are full of cases where the update failed and no backup was available. These are not stupid people - even though they may feel that way after things don't go right. They are just people who thought the odds were good enough it wouldn't happen to them - in other words, typical humans. And they were right, the odds are in their favor. Most updates go off without a hitch. But even if we take all the necessary precautions and do all our homework, the odds some times work against us.

    If these updates are done with such due diligence as Super Sarge has done, or better yet, on a spare test machine, then great! But obviously, Super Sarge is not a "normal" user. I beta test. I experiment. I understand the desire to lead the pack and be first. But sadly, not all of us backup our data or have spare test machines, or we just have bad luck or a bad day. If we fit one of those categories, history shows us is it probably best to wait a couple weeks after the official release of the final version before we update. This will allow time for any trends and common problems to shake out from the early adapters, allowing Microsoft and the tech support forums to develop guidance for those following.

    My concerns include the mixed messages we send. We teach that practicing safe computing involves keeping our systems patched and updated. But we also teach to avoid risky practices which includes the use of P2P, torrents, unofficial software, and untrusted sites. Yes, we trust this site and it's staff, but the file is unofficial and since the file was leaked without authorization, can it be trusted?

    And let me add this - I truly believe Mike has done his homework and this file is not malicious. And I truly believe if Mike found this file to be harmful, it would be pulled in a heartbeat, or never posted in the first place. And I tip my hat to Mike's technical expertise and credentials. But it is an unofficial release that came from a questionable source. We have no way of knowing if it is the final release or not. If you want to experiment with this file, and you take the necessary precautions to protect your critical data, great! But if you only have one machine that is used for banking, school or work projects, or that you need for your regular computing/communicating activities, my advice remains to wait until the final version has been officially released and you can obtain it from official download sources.

    Now I think I have overstayed my welcome. My point is made. You all have the facts and can make an informed decision that is best for you. Now I have 6 more inches of partly cloudy and "possible dusting" I need to shovel, in -17°F wind chill. :( Have a good day.
     
  14. Super Sarge

    Super Sarge New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    64
    I try to remember to do a weekly backup of PST to a thumb drive. I was running Vista 32 bit OEM, when I did my install of 7, My & Pro update version seen Vista and since I was putting 7 on different drive other than where Vista was I had no problems. I did a completer clean install of all my programs. (way back in the day Win 98 and earlier I use to do a clean install yearly) I also did a compatibility check before installing W7 to see if I needed other software and hardware updates. My initial install of W7 went great. Oh as a side note I still have a Image of Vista 32 bit if I ev er have the need for it pretty old though
     
  15. Digerati

    Digerati Fantastic Member
    Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,069
    Likes Received:
    159
    Clearly, you're not a "normal" user! ;)

    That was a common practice back then and certainly, Windows ran better afterwards too. But "back in the the day", we had all original installation disks for all our programs too. There was no such thing as Windows Updates or downloaded programs. Today, I have many many programs installed on my computer but I have 3 installation disks; one for Windows, one for Office, and one for my motherboard drivers and all 3 are woefully outdated due to updates. All my security programs (with the exception of Windows Firewall), utilities and other programs were downloaded on to my hard drive. I believe that is typical for most users. Fortunately, beginning with XP, Windows does not need to be reinstalled regularly to run optimally.
     
  16. stueycaster

    stueycaster Millennium Celebration Award Winner
    Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,519
    Likes Received:
    53
    XP and all the previous versions needed reinstalling every year or so. The ones I used drove me nuts. Something was always acting up. Now Windows 7 works so well that it's boring. Lol. :razz:

    Update: Maybe it was because I was such a newb back then too.
     
  17. Termitescout

    Termitescout New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I've had this installed for over 2 weeks and no problems. My 2010 Microsoft Office has updated since that time also.:up:
     
  18. fjgold

    fjgold New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    60
    I made an image of my Win 7 install right after installing and updating it and installing all my usual programs.
    When\if a clean reinstall is needed (annually?) I just need restore that base image and update.
    Now that I think about it maybe I should restore that image just to update it with SP1 and then re-image.
     
  19. Termitescout

    Termitescout New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read yesterday they're already working on Windows 8 and are tentatively planning a release date around 2013.
    :eek:
     
  20. Digerati

    Digerati Fantastic Member
    Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,069
    Likes Received:
    159
    XP did not and does not need to be reinstalled regularly. That is an outdated carryover belief from times long past. Previous versions of Windows, yes, but since XP did not need DOS installed first, it did not have that problem. I have several XP systems still running that were initially installed in 2001 and 2002. Re-installation for XP and later versions is always a last resort option.

    Why? Because of the Internet. The Internet allows Microsoft, security software makers and hardware driver makers to make updates and fixes available for download and installation, thus keeping our systems current. If you were to reinstall XP now, assuming you have installation disks, you would likely be years behind in critical updates, patches and hardware drivers. And, unless you saved a current version copy of all your downloaded programs, you would have to download and reinstall all of them too. And with security software, unless you saved a current copy to CD first, you will be exposed until you get fully setup again and that is risky, to say the least.

    Yes, a total reinstall can make a poorly running XP run smoother and at peak performance - if a corrupt Windows installation is the problem. But fixing what is wrong, keeping it fully updated, and keeping the clutter to a minimum will too.
     

Share This Page

Loading...