Windows 7 SP1 RTM Released to OEM

Ex_Brit

Ex_Brit

Moderator
Staff member
As I am sure it's against the rules to post links I wont, but Windows 7 SP1 is available on the web, just be careful where you are downloading it from.

There is also a tutorial HERE on how to slipstream SP1 into the original system disk for those who are really keen

Those of you who subscribe to Technet or MSDN, it isn't posted yet in the general downloads section. It is showing in their evaluation center though. I am sure eventually the full integrated installation disk will be available there too.
 
Last edited:
Excellent. Thanks, Peter!

(I wonder if it's wrong to post links to this? It's free software and the RTM license means anyone can download it, compared to the beta where it's for testing purpose and for tests only?)
 
Well except it's not officially released to the public. I already got chastised for posting the links I had on another forum. But then they don't like ANY links posted.

Here's the one I have (warning their downloads are torrents) : [SP1] Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (SP1) Download Available

The page will load eventually. I think that forum's servers are swamped.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to grab it off of MSDN, but here's a torrent file with more trackers for anyone interested. It has both the x86 and x64 versions included, you can untick the one you don't want with any decent torrent client.
 

Attachments

  • Windows 7 SP1.torrent
    14.8 KB · Views: 21
I see Technet only has it on their evaluation site still and as it's labelled RC I'm not too keen on trying their version.
 
I just realized a colleague at work must have changed the password for the MSDN account we use for testing, I'll have to wait until tomorrow to grab it, or go for the torrent.

Doesn't matter since I don't actually use Windows at home except once every few weeks.... it's my work PC that I would upgrade, which is currently running Beta 2.
 
I just checked your Torrent, it's a bit slower than the ones I posted...but they are also pretty slow as I am sure everyone and their uncle is trying to get the darned thing. The only advantage to the ones I posted are you can choose if you want both x86 and x64 or just one.

Don't forget to uninstall the beta first.
 
I'm pretty sure this is going to appear as a WUD fairly soon.
The pre-cursor KB976902 just popped up as a non-selected "Important" update last week.
 
Totally forgot about uninstalling the beta, though I'm sure when I try to install it'll remind to do just that. I actually may be formatting instead, though: My work PC started BSODing twice a day (after being on for exactly 3 months to the day!!!!), I updated the graphics drivers and they went away, but a couple of days ago I had another BSOD.

The interesting is that analyzing the crash dump reports, they say that Chrome is to blame. But Chrome isn't low level enough to cause a BSOD, it operates solely in user mode and can in fact be installed without admin privileges (since it installs to %appdata% instead of Program Files, to let people in enterprises without admin rights and lazy sysadmins install it without a problem)... plus, user mode isolation from the kernel, drivers, and anything that could remotely cause a BSOD has been drastically improved in Windows Vista and Windows 7, so I'm not sure.

I'm considering installing Linux and running everything in a virtual machine, never actually using the Linux install; but that way I can just create VMWare snapshots and revert to them if anything goes wrong...
 
The pre-cursor KB976902 just popped up as a non-selected "Important" update last week.
Click to expand...

Is that the one that validates genuine Windows? I'm in Vista right now but I seem to remember seeing it.
 
Terry, sites are saying "mid-March" though you may be right, since this build seems to have been created and published internally at MS in late November; so it's already been quite a while.
 
There's no rumour of an immiment release, just my gut-feeling. That's the fix which was previously issued just before the Beta was released. MS has a habit of giving pessimistic release dates ("first half 2011") so as not to be caught with its pants down if the "real" date is missed.
Peter, iirc it's something to do with the Windows release number being updated to make the SP installable.
 
Ah thanks Terry, I'll make sure it's there. It must be because I haven't missed any updates lately (it was after all 'Update Tuesday' a few days ago, except one I hid that Windows 7 insists I need for my netbook's WLAN which is in fact the driver two versions before the one I have, I still haven't figured out why Windows 7 actually wants to downgrade a driver, very strange. Probably something to do with Windows signing?
 
I just did a 'across drives' search and yes I have it....in spades.

See attached image...and that's just one drive.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    236.6 KB · Views: 5
Note to anyone trying the link I posted. I think their servers have crashed as at the moment I can't reach them at all, but the link is good I promise you.
 
@CG re #9
I've had a couple of W7 BSODs in the last week (One uploading a winter photo for a comp to win a Canon 550D, one surfing with Opera)
Very annoying and uncharacteristic of W7 so far in the last 16 months that it's been my "production" OS, especially since I had some truecrypt virtual disks open which now have the "dirty" bit set.
Is there a quick flip to turn them off ?
It offers to chkdsk them, with the warning that to do so might corrupt the contents, but I don't want to go that route because there's nothing actually wrong with them. They weren't in use, just not dismounted before W7 rebooted itself. I've blithely allowed chkdsk to do its stuff in the past and ended up with an unbooted Vista install being totally destroyed on HDDs which checkout as 100% good, all without apparent cause or reason.
 
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager

BootExecute shouldn't have chkdsk in there. It should probably say "autocheck autochk *"

Or try chkntfs /x drive:
 
Unfortunately not either of those (I've been here before). It's not a boot-time problem, it's a message from truecrypt when the volumes are mounted and I can't use chkntfs because they were created with the defaults and are therefore FAT. I'm guessing that "dirty bit" is an accurate description and that somewhere a single bit is turned on when a volume is mounted and off again at dismount, hence the discovery next time of "no previous clean dismount", but I don't know where that bit is. It's not on the Letter section of "Mounted Devices" because it moves no matter what letter it's mounted as.
It could be part of the /??/volume section above, but I'd need to do a series of tests
(snapshot registry - create TC volume - new snap - dismount - snap - remount - crash system - snap) and then look for the odd-bit-out.
Just looking for a quicker option if someone knows one, especially because I'm not sure that's even the correct place to be looking.
 
Oh, OK. Yeah, I've seen that message from TrueCrypt before.

There *is* a dirty bit in the bootsector, I remember mapping those structures back when I was working on BootGrabber. I'll look into it for you.
 
Back
Top