Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (SP1) Download Available

The Folder 04224de24c507825bb3be301cf say's is empty 0 bytes, 85 Folders but when I click on it I see another folder, then another one, the in this I find 83 folders, dated Yesterday 17 January 2011 @ 2:33:22PM. ( found this one at 2PM) so dunno why the time is out, this folder sounds a bit sus.

The Folder fba02c06f91ebe5b26b98242 say's 5.20GB and has 128,987 Files and 16,120 Folders, dated Yesterday 17 January 2011 @ 1:49:15PM, this contains a SPinstall file and a folder that contains more folders and files and a SP1 Data cab file

and The Folder fcae2967c33610319138e5cc78 is 3.57GB and has 45,757 Files and 5,342 Folders, dated Yesterday 17 January 2011 @ 1:41:00PM and also has Files, Folders and 2 SP1 Data Cab files.

These wern't there before the Install and the install started at 1:00:45 and found the at 2PM after the install. I said before too I got two updates after then, but these folders were there before those.

The install did stall a few times resulting in a BSOD and I Quit it. BSOD was resovled by updating my Nvidia driver.

I started getting the following on windows explorer, it may be related to Star docks fences. I make this assumption based on the fact if Fences is disabled the problem does not occur.
I may be doing a backup image install
Faulting Application Path: C:\Windows\explorer.exe

Problem signature
Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
Application Name: Explorer.EXE
Application Version: 6.1.7601.17514
Application Timestamp: 4ce7a144
Fault Module Name: StackHash_003e
Fault Module Version: 6.1.7601.17514
Fault Module Timestamp: 4ce7c8f9
Exception Code: c0000374
Exception Offset: 00000000000c40f2
OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
Locale ID: 1033
Additional Information 1: 003e
Additional Information 2: 003ea4977b9b9399e10625544ff2dddf
Additional Information 3: bbe4
Additional Information 4: bbe48fafa602b1e318842e73c7b0bba1

Extra information about the problem
Bucket ID: 28093821
I installed my Backup image, I then re-installed the SP1 to see if the problem can be duplicated. So far Knock on wood it has not re-appeared.

Just installed the 64 bit, seems to run pretty well. It installed on the first try, but can anyone list the new features or what exactly the service pack addresses? (sorry if someone listed it before, don't feel like going through 13 pages reading everything).

I will install 32 bit later tonight, and see how it goes!

Thanks a lot Mike!

Just discovered a issue with the SP pertaining to Nero.
Nero 8 fully updated.
Trying to burn an .iso or create a audio CD to a Memorex CD-R using Nero results in a "power calibration" error.

No problem noted in the pre SP install.

Blank CD-RW work fine.

Originally Posted by Super Sarge

I started getting the following on windows explorer, it may be related to Star docks fences...

Sarge, I also have Stardock ObjectDesktop, and I purchased it some time ago to enjoy the vast feature set in the software. I do not use it regularly, and I have not run the software in some time. However, I regularly use Fences, not to draw them, but to double-click my desktop background and remove the icons from display when needed. This is due to a bad habit of saving files everywhere. After I saw your message I tested Fences extensively and did not find a problem. Keep in mind that I did not have any pre-drawn Fences prior to the installation and was not actively using Stardock products. I do not know if you have the entire bundle, but I had no difficulty with DeskScapes. I had issues with themes for WindowBlinds and a Explorer.exe crash when changing desktop icons using IconPackager.

If you continue to discover problems, I recommend that you try using Impulse to update or re-install your products. This seems to have resolved the majority of issues for me. Joe believes some improvements to UAC were made, and this may somehow have an effect on the desktop. If the problem re-occurs, you may want to give it a try. Best of luck.

Originally Posted by Firecracker

The Folder 04224de24c507825bb3be301cf say's is empty 0 bytes, 85 Folders

Firecracker, it is my experience, in many instances, that canceled or interrupted updates from Microsoft will leave temporary install materials, files, and folders in locations such as these. Assuming that the Service Pack installed and that these files serve no use to you, it would appear to me to be safe to delete these folders without consequence. For so long as you can still uninstall the Service Pack using View Installed Updates, I would see no problem in deleting these temporary folders. They were most likely left there by the installer when your crash took place.

Originally Posted by fjgold

Just discovered a issue with the SP pertaining to Nero.
Nero 8 fully updated.
Trying to burn an .iso or create a audio CD to a Memorex CD-R using Nero results in a "power calibration" error.

No problem noted in the pre SP install.

Blank CD-RW work fine.

fjgold, this will be a tough one to diagnose. Is it always re-occurring? I have Nero 10 and have not performed any tests thus far. Even if I did I will have a substantially different DVD-RW than you do, and version of the program. I recommend trying to confirm that it is always burning coasters and not just an unlucky occurrence. Once you've established this, you may want to uninstall the program and re-install it to see if these types of problems persist.

Originally Posted by fjgold

Just discovered a issue with the SP pertaining to Nero.
Nero 8 fully updated.
Trying to burn an .iso or create a audio CD to a Memorex CD-R using Nero results in a "power calibration" error.

No problem noted in the pre SP install.

Blank CD-RW work fine.

I have Nero 8, when I get home tomorrow I will try to see if I have the same issue and let you know.

Originally Posted by Termitescout

The article referenced above states hackers are trying to insert viruses, malware, and trojans into the original RTM release. If you ran the MD5 check-sum program as I did I would think this would prevent you...

Originally Posted by fjgold

Correct. Unless the D\L was infected already and the posted MD5 sum was generated from that.

Originally Posted by Digerati

Correct. Unless the D\L was infected already and the posted MD5 sum was generated from that. And since this came from an unauthorized Russian site, the concern is how can anyone be sure it has not been tampered with from the start? Certainly the Russian site claims it is safe, but where's the validation from Microsoft?

This is a heavily publicized leak, and it has happened before. What must be understood is that the following facts are in everyone's favor and a catalyst for the downloads and claims we have been seeing. Here are the positives about this release, and the reason for some clarity and certainty in this release:

• Digital Signature: The verification options are all important, but in the case of a leaked Service Pack near RTM, a most important variable in this instance is the file's digital signature from Microsoft. The digital signature does not confirm that this is the final release, or do anything of the sort. What it does do, is give a very good indication that this file was signed by a Microsoft Certificate Authority (CA) and that it is valid. This digital signature does contain the information that would invalidate the file if it were altered after the file was signed. This means, despite media fluff about downloading a plate of worms, that the file, on a fundamental basis, is very likely to not have been tampered with in any way whatsoever for so long as the digital signature remains valid. This information ties in with root certificates that are pre-installed from Microsoft on nearly every Windows operating system and updated when it becomes necessary (if the private key they use becomes compromised or the signing authority's authenticity expires). When this happens, it is still possible for them to retract root certificates from your system.
• No Time Bomb: When leaked copies or development versions of Service Packs have appeared in the past, they have almost always contained a pre-installed time bomb, that will dismiss the product key on your computer and automatically shutdown after a set period of time. We, as well as many others, have confirmed, that unlike other leaked builds, this is not the case.
• No Evaluation Watermark: Prior leaked builds of Service Pack 1 contained a evaluation watermark on the bottom right-hand corner of the screen. This watermark makes it clear to the user of the software that this is a copy that is either used for internal testing or evaluation purposes. It will usually include the internal build number on the desktop itself. Again, this is not the case with this Service Pack.
• Origin of Release: Many news organizations have reported that it is very likely this build was leaked to OEMs (i.e. the large conglomerates that sell computers, hardware, and partner closely with Microsoft). If this is true, it is highly likely, and with great certainty that this is the RTM. On the 14th of January, various reports were circulating that Service Pack 1 was sent out to TechNet/MSDN to prepare for a coordinated release. It seems that when this happens, these files are put on hold until a great deal of preparation can be made to make them available to subscribers of these services. Prior to the 14th, leaked builds were appearing, however, this, by far, seems to be the most complete of all builds and coincides with when development likely ended. This release coincides with other important dates. For instance, the Windows Update Blocker Toolkit for Service Pack 1 was built shortly thereafter. It is extremely unlikely it would have been built before Service Pack 1 was finalized. In the past, we were able to identify that Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista was complete by cross-referencing the build number with Windows Automated Installation Kit (WAIK) information. The initial rumor was that someone at TechNet Russia may have leaked these files. One thing is for sure is again that they were digitally signed by Microsoft and not altered after that signing.
• Registry, Version Information: After the Service Pack is installed, it is possible to take a closer look. When looking at "winver", "systeminfo" and System Information, and various other "quick tools" to gather information, we get an interesting look at the aftermath of the installation. Software like Lavalys Everest Engineer Edition give a quick look at this data. This information all points to a finalized release. Normally, in many areas of the OS, you would see "Service Pack 1, Build xxxx" with the build number being indicated where xxxx is. This is not the case in this release. When looking at registry entries, we also see no indication that this is a debug or development version.
• Language Compatibility: Perhaps one of the most convincing pieces of evidence that this may be the RTM is that the build contains compatibility for all 36 localized language packs. It is likely to be released to MSDN/TechNet and we will know if the digital signatures are the same, MD5, and so on. Likely too, then, this will also pop up on Microsoft.com as the redistributable version for IT professionals (the extremely large version and not the one you'd get from Windows Update necessarily). Only the necessary files for your version of Windows are installed with these files, but they contain the pre-requisites to be installed on any version of Windows 7.

Here are some of the cons:

• These files are not officially released by Microsoft yet, and there could be many reasons for this. More experienced users will remember that Windows Vista SP1 RTM leaked significantly early and was an extremely important support file due to the fact that it updated the Windows kernel to Windows Server 2008 standards and brought an important level of stability to that OS. Still, naysayers believed it was not the official version until the very day the exact same build was released by Microsoft.
• Microsoft will not officially comment on leaked builds, whether they are really the RTM or not. This seems to be because the company follows a strict timetable, especially when their support files are complete. They will not be pressured into releasing anything early just because it hits the Internet. Even though there is certainty that this is an official build, there is still that very small chance it is not the final build and we will never know with 100% certainty until the official release.
• There is always confusion when something is not officially released via Windows Update or other means. This means that people, without proper instruction, may install the support files without taking proper precautionary measures such as performing a full backup prior, and so forth. Instructions may be misconstrued, incompatibilities may arise, and debate will be commonplace.
• If you already have all Windows Updates, installing this particular service pack, may be somewhat pointless. While there is a good list of new features, it is not going to improve performance or stability intensely for you.

Windows7Forums.com linked to these files and provided them because our site has become all about support. Providing digitally signed support files is not something unusual, especially if its a Service Pack that's being withheld so that businesses can ready their retail computer division first. These files are digitally signed, many software experts (and not news pundits who happen to work for a computer magazine and warn about virus-laden hodge podge) believe it is the RTM, and evidence points in that direction. If this is inaccurate, and people have followed the precautionary warnings that are customary for this Service Pack, the ability to uninstall it is very simple. Either the uninstaller is used from Control Panel, or the system is restored by the full back up that was supposed to be made. Those of us who remember how important and useful Windows Vista Service Pack 1 was to the community, even when it was withheld for an extended period of time, are looking at the same scenario with these files.

So I hope this clarifies why we linked to these files, presented the information we have, and indicate to you that homework was done. We are looking forward to some confirmation this is the official release, but probably will not get it even though its very likely Microsoft compiled their last build of SP1 during November 2010. It is their decision as to when to officially announce and release these files. But for so long as someones computer seems to be broken, and they take on the risk of downloading these files, you will see software like this hosted here and at places like Softpedia.

(I would like to state that these are my opinions and observations, and that I am not speaking for any official source, obviously)

Originally Posted by Mike

Firecracker, it is my experience, in many instances, that canceled or interrupted updates from Microsoft will leave temporary install materials, files, and folders in locations such as these. Assuming that the Service Pack installed and that these files serve no use to you, it would appear to me to be safe to delete these folders without consequence. For so long as you can still uninstall the Service Pack using View Installed Updates, I would see no problem in deleting these temporary folders. They were most likely left there by the installer when your crash took place.

I uninstalled the SP deleted all these and reinstalled SP1 again and it just put them back again all the same ones, They eat up 8GB of disk space. I ran the thing to delete the uninstall option and they stayed there.