RC1 or RC2 iso?

[Chas]

I have Vista RC1 installed (Build 5600)

I downloaded what i think is RC2 and its file name is
vista_5744.16384.061003-1945_x86fre_client-lrmcfre_en_dvd.iso which
would suggest that it is indeed RC2. (build 5744)

I burnt that to a DVD which has a title of LRMCFRE-EN-DVD (my RC1 dvd
is called LR1CFRE-EN-DVD).

However when I begin the install of the RC2 dvd, the license terms
refer to Vista Release Candidate1 (tried doing both an upgrade and a
clean install and I get the same license terms.)

Looking inside the License folders on the disk all references are to
Release Candidate 1, so my question is have I got RC1 or RC 2 and is
there any way I can tell from something on the disk that I do indeed
have RC2.

If it is RC2 why are all the license references to RC1?

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

RC-2 is Build 5744.
5744 are the first four numbers of your download so you have RC-2.
I did not notice the references when I installed RC-2 but IIRC it happened
with Windows XP.

 

[Chas]

RC-2 is Build 5744.
5744 are the first four numbers of your download so you have RC-2.

Yes I realise that but was confused by the License referring to RC1.

Is there anywhere within the installed operating system itself that
refers to Beta2/RC1/RC2 or is it just the build number which appears
on the desktop which tells you the status of the installed system?

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

The build number on the Desktop is the easy one.

Also Start/Run
Type "winver" ENTER
Will also give the build #.

I am not aware of RC-1 or RC-2 appearing anywhere.

 

[Chas]

The build number on the Desktop is the easy one.

Also Start/Run
Type "winver" ENTER
Will also give the build #.

I am not aware of RC-1 or RC-2 appearing anywhere.

Okeydoke. Thanks very much.

Chas

 

[Guest]

I understand what you mean. Even though it is RC2, the liscense still says
RC1. No biggie, someone just forgot the change the number, or used the
"copy/paste" method for the liscense.
What impresses me more is that someone actually takes the time to read the
liscense. I usually just click "I agree" and move on.
But hey, great catch!

 

[John C. Iliff]

Hi

Are we the only ones that read that ?? I had the same problem, and finally
installed
the 'RC1', which indeed turned out to be RC2...desktop now says RC2.

 

[Chas]

Hi

Are we the only ones that read that ?? I had the same problem, and finally
installed
the 'RC1', which indeed turned out to be RC2...desktop now says RC2.

Thats good to hear. I'll go ahead with renewed confidence!!!

 

[Chas]

I understand what you mean. Even though it is RC2, the liscense still says
RC1. No biggie, someone just forgot the change the number, or used the
"copy/paste" method for the liscense.

Thats a bit of a worry that a company such as Microsoft would overlook
something so fundamental. Wonder what else was 'forgotten",,,,,,,,,,

 

[Mark Gillespie]

Thats a bit of a worry that a company such as Microsoft would overlook
something so fundamental. Wonder what else was 'forgotten",,,,,,,,,,

More than likely, the decision was made to call this RC2, AFTER the build
was compiled.

 

[Guest]

RC2 is technically a second interim build. If you'll recall MS said they
would not release an RC2, but then later changed those plans and probably
took some of the programmers by surprise.

dxdiag shows it as build 5744.

 

[SAM-R]

5744 is a edw interim build off of the RTM branch. I don't know how an RC2
label ended up on an interim build.