Queenz Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 (edited) OMG I just got Windows Vista Build 5536 Pre RC-1 in my email and installed it since they released it a couple of days ago, and all of a sudden they sent out a new build today . http://www.winbeta.org/comments.php?id=4616&catid=1 Edited September 1, 2006 by QueenzPCfreak90 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cchalogamer Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 And to think, I just got everything halfway running on the main rig...dang you to hell M$. Oh well, ill keep thing as they are and continue a little bug reporting Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenz Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 (edited) But I think its just because they never made an X64 version of 5536. Notice that 5536 only has an X86 version. I bet 5600 was made to add X64 and ofcoarse fix more bugs, crashes, driver problems, and blah blah blah that were in 5536. But if you ask me I think 5536 runs very smooth besides the compatibilty issues I was having with the ATI Catalyst control center, certain games, ATI Tool, and Radlinker. Edited September 1, 2006 by QueenzPCfreak90 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigred Posted September 2, 2006 Posted September 2, 2006 first off, it's the POINT of a beta... find the mistakes before you start charging the public for it, and the average joe schmo starts crying about how bad it is. it absolutely drives me up the wall when people cry about a beta being buggy. those are the people who shouldn't be using a beta OS. PERIOD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehit Posted September 2, 2006 Posted September 2, 2006 (edited) whats even worse is when they blame the web sites for bugs in the browser... Edited September 2, 2006 by Rehit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenz Posted September 3, 2006 Posted September 3, 2006 But really I think they should of waited to release build 5600 so that people could have more time to find other bugs with 5536. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigred Posted September 3, 2006 Posted September 3, 2006 trust me they KNOW about 90% of the problems prior to a public release (hence the new release not being 5537). there are constant internal builds that never see the light of day. I still have a copy of release 2100 something... looks NOTHING like what you see today. the GUI was different, it actually was using WINFS instead of NTFS. but you needed a beast of a system to even think of running it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now