Download build 5536 of Windows Vista ((( 100,000 only )))

[DarkManX4lf]

this is kinda weird, i downloaded the 5536 x86 version of vista and i got to where it asks about your keyboard layout and stuff, after that i click install now, and it comes up with some crap saying that i need dvd/cd drom drive drivers....it doesnt even detect my dvd drive!....when i had beta 2 it had no problems detecting m dvd drive....is this only me? or is it happenening to anyone else?

 

[13Gigatons]

Still buggy but at least the speed is improved some.

 

[Doh!]

Originally posted by: stash

Originally posted by: Doh!

Originally posted by: SkuLLyRT
Is it possible for us without Beta2 keys to install and play around with this build of Vista?

Yes. You'll be limited to 14 days though. A CD-key is required for the activation (not needed for the installation). Without the activation, you'll have 14 days of testing.

Not sure why you keep posting this. A key is required for installation, unless it is a Business or Enterprise volume license SKU. Which it isn't.

I keep posting the above because I've installed it w/o the key. Have you tried it? If not, you wouldn't know about it, would you?

 

[jonessoda]

F*****CK Download interrupted and failed after 10 HOURS WTF OPERA I THOUGHT YOU CARED

 

[e b h]

Originally posted by: Doh!

Originally posted by: SkuLLyRT
Is it possible for us without Beta2 keys to install and play around with this build of Vista?

Yes. You'll be limited to 14 days though. A CD-key is required for the activation (not needed for the installation). Without the activation, you'll have 14 days of testing.

Or lots of practice/experience re-installing twice a month with testing in between!

 

[stash]

I haven't tried the public download of that build, but internal builds certainly need a key.

Again, the only way it would not need a key is if it is a volume license version. VL SKUs have never been made public during the beta program, and if it were a VL SKU, you would never be able to activate it, because of the differences in activation specific to VL SKUs.

 

[Doh!]

Originally posted by: stash
I haven't tried the public download of that build, but internal builds certainly need a key.

Again, the only way it would not need a key is if it is a volume license version. VL SKUs have never been made public during the beta program, and if it were a VL SKU, you would never be able to activate it, because of the differences in activation specific to VL SKUs.

I don't know if it's a VL version.

And frankly, I don't care because the build that was made available to the public by MICROSOFT, as linked on the first page, does not require a key for the installation. For activation, yes, you would need a key which I've repeatedly stated above.

But it's ok. Even a monkey falls off the tree once in a while.

 

[davenyl]

What is the filesize on the iso? Mine shows 2.58 gig but my download may have been interrupted. Is this what it should be?

 

[ginfest]

Originally posted by: davenyl
What is the filesize on the iso? Mine shows 2.58 gig but my download may have been interrupted. Is this what it should be?

Correct

"2.58 GB (2,771,730,432 bytes)"

 

[Bill Kunert]

My downloaded file size is 2,706,768KB. Created a dvd from it and it works.

Bill

 

[spyordie007]

I was wondering how long it would take for them to pull the page.

 

[johnh123]

This doesn't really make sense- anybody can download and install, but only those who signed up earlier can use it for more than 14 days, but they don't tell you that anywhere. So you have people who will not be able to keep using it taking up one of the 100,000 downloads, and people who have a key and would like to use it can't because they weren't quick enough.

 

[Mesix]

LIKE ME

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: johnh123
This doesn't really make sense- anybody can download and install, but only those who signed up earlier can use it for more than 14 days, but they don't tell you that anywhere. So you have people who will not be able to keep using it taking up one of the 100,000 downloads, and people who have a key and would like to use it can't because they weren't quick enough.

Maybe I'm missing something, but every build of Vista I've installed has required a product key. Using any of the builds from the past 6 months required a product key before files even get copied (it is after all the key that determines which version for the installer to set you up with).

I dont think they intended 5536 to be publicly downloadable like it was. You should be able to request new keys for RC1.

 

[stash]

Originally posted by: Doh!

Originally posted by: stash
I haven't tried the public download of that build, but internal builds certainly need a key.

Again, the only way it would not need a key is if it is a volume license version. VL SKUs have never been made public during the beta program, and if it were a VL SKU, you would never be able to activate it, because of the differences in activation specific to VL SKUs.

I don't know if it's a VL version.

And frankly, I don't care because the build that was made available to the public by MICROSOFT, as linked on the first page, does not require a key for the installation. For activation, yes, you would need a key which I've repeatedly stated above.

But it's ok. Even a monkey falls off the tree once in a while.

Well, I owe you an apology, because you are absolutely right.

I've probably installed Vista a few hundred times now over the past year, usually at least once a week, with countless builds. But I never thought to try leaving the PID field blank on a non-VL SKU. And whaddya know, it works.

It will warn you, and then it will ask you to enter the SKU you are installing. This part is critical, becuase if you enter the wrong SKU, and then later enter a non-matching PID, you won't be able to activate.

So you were right, and I guess I am a monkey But this is not just for public 5536 build, it's apparently been this way for awhile.

 

[Doh!]

No need for an apology. I've seen your posts for the past several years (we're more than 6 yrs. old in this forum), all of which were sound & valid comments.
So I knew where you were coming from when you initially questioned my claim. What you've said is absolutely true when dealing w/ all other Windows OS released to date.

However, maybe the fact that Vista is still in its beta testing stage, MS hasn't enforced the use of cd-key during the installation process. I've found out about this by accident. I am, too, a beta tester of Vista but I didn't have access to my email at the time of installation. So I just tried the installation w/o the cd-key & voila! It worked.

Like I said above, even a well-informed expert (as noted as a monkey previously) can make mistakes. But it takes a real man to admit it.

 

[spyordie007]

Interesting, I've probably done 50 installs in the past year and also never thought to leave it blank (one of the advantages to the connect site is you can find your old, and request new, keys whenever you need them).