Talk:Development of Windows Vista

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDevelopment of Windows Vista was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Known fake builds[edit]

Is there really a need for the known fake builds section? — Alex (T|C|E) 21:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. 70.104.16.14 18:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

release candidate 1?[edit]

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but is there a release date for Release Candidate 1? I heard sometime in July, but I'm not sure. Maybe this could be added to the article. 70.104.16.14 18:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the person who put the RC1 date on the article or to any other interested person: please cite your supposed date of availability of Release Candidate 1 for Windows Client Code-Name "Longhorn". Thank you so much. --Cumbiagermen 08:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-RC1 or Post-Beta 2?[edit]

I'm running a copy of build 5456 right now and nowhere does it mention that it's a pre-RC1 build. It's still considered a Beta 2 build, and since the official public beta is 5384 wouldn't it make sense that 5456 is a Post-Beta 2 build? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.184.31.122 (talk • contribs) .

I've seen a couple of MS employees state that 5456 is part of the RC1 branch, not the Beta 2 branch, which was closed at Beta 2's release. There's not really enough information out there to reliably go one way or the other, though. Warrens 20:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an official tester so let me explain a bit. The preliminary release schedule for Windows Vista is that there are two betas follows with release candidate (RC) builds. Decision would be made in the development team to see which build/feature sets will be ready for the beta 2 build. Development still continues even the build has been decided, so the code will fork (or branch) for beta 2 release. When build 538x is in escrow for beta 2 release, the build number for the main tree is bumped up to 54xx and being considered as a post-beta 2 and pre-RC1 builds. The build number is just cosmetic so the beta 2 label persists even it is pre-RC1.Xavier Fung 20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to at least one Microsoft guy on the Windows community Neowin, the build series 5400 was started for the RC1 branch, so at least all 54xx builds can probably be considered part of the RC1 branch, and possibly more too if RC1 isn't out before 5500, which seems unlikely. (and then I also think it's more appropriate to call those pre-RC1 rather than post-beta 2, as the latter lacks information of what branch they're part of) Btw, a similar build "jump" seem to have happened with the 52xx builds because I doubt MS did almost 100 builds in 1 month (see 5112 -> 5219). So Microsoft do seem to make "jumps" in build numbers if necessary to indicate new target releases this way. Similarly, build 5000 and onwards were to indicate the major diversion from the old "Longhorn" vision and the new Windows 2003-based kernel. -- Northgrove 22:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speech Recognition[edit]

Does anyone else feel the story of Vista's speech recognition failing is not relevent to the Development of Windows Vista? If anywhere, I feel this excerpt should go under the Speech Recognition section of Features new to Windows Vista. JamesWeb 15:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say wha? Can you explain exactly how a failed demo caused by a bug that's been fixed belongs in a list of new features, and not in an article covering the history of the software's development? -/- Warren 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, fair point, perhaps not move it to new features, it just strikes me for a software development that's been plagued by problems, this particular one has been a bit over-hyped and gets its own paragraph where barely any problems have been spoken of here in any detail since the Vista name was announced. Just stands out like "Why have they put that in there?" JamesWeb 16:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vista 5700 a post-RC1 build?[edit]

How can we be sure about Vista 5700 being a post-RC1 build? It's from the WinMain lab, and we only have one source saying that the RC1 will be build 5536. — Alex (T|C|E) 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since IE7 RC1 is build 5700, I'm going to put build 5700 into the pre-RC1 section. — Alex (T|C|E) 17:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems strange they made the common "build jump" that use to mean a new branch having been made. An article linked to from this page also says: Jeff Alexander used build 5700 (5700.winmain.060810-1900) branched off from RC1. I believe it may be so that RC1 may not have had its final polish and release yet, while work has already begun on RC2. I'm also not sure IE 7 is a good judgement of what the corresponding branch would be for Vista. It may be that IE 7 simply was suitable as an RC1 here, despite in reality being the very first build of the RC2 branch. Unfortunately we have little official word on this, unless the quote I mentioned originated from the MS exec actually saying it happened. -- Northgrove 15:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5536 not RC1[edit]

This information seems to be incorrect:

Microsoft expects to release Windows Vista RC1 to the public on or after September 7, 2006[24] via the Customer Preview Program. There have been rumours that Microsoft planned RC1 to be Build 5520, but since discovered two major flaws and have now named Build 5536 as the RC1 build.

The 5536 build has now been released, and it's clearly marked as a Pre-RC1 build, even on the desktop wallpaper build string. -- Northgrove 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5552 Leaking[edit]

Vista 5552 is quite definitely now leaking on to P2P networks, and is marked as "Pre-RC1." I tried to add the information about leaking, but it got deleted. Rhys42 19:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5728 is attributed as "RC1" in windows download site.[edit]

Therefore, the builds 5700 and 5728 are in the same fork as in "RC1"

XP-based?[edit]

The pre-5000 LH builds are not XP-based, they're based on Windows Server 2003 RC1. This is evidenced by the serial keys they use, the fact that 4028 is marked as "Windows .NET Server", and by other factors.

Done.--Adam Maras 16:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the new logo?[edit]

After scrolling through all the Vista articles (main, Features new to, Development of, etc.) I was suprised there is no pic of the Windows "orb". If there is a pic of the original Longhorn icon, there should be one of the new one. I suggest having it replace or put near the start of the "Mid-2005 to present: Windows Vista" section, or next to the build where it makes its 1st appearance as the new Start Menu button (sometime between Beta 1 and 2, I think.), or even next to the old Longhorn icon for a comparison. I would do this myself, but I'm not yet a Wikipedian.

Takes all of half a second to become one, you know! Anyway, done and done. JamesWeb 12:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JamesWeb. (The only thing keeping me is that I can't decide on a username:))

Vista RTM date is delayed?[edit]

Why the release date of RTM pushed to late November? --210.14.16.102 10:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because they want to sell it when it's done, not when their deadline is up. After all, the bugs that are on there now, will still be in freshly set up Vista systems in five years, so they are probably paying very close attention to detail. Patience. :–) — Mütze 11:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longhorn build 4074 screenshot[edit]

Hey! Why does the Longhorn build 4074 screenshot use the slate theme from Longhorn build 4051? I'd like the REAL jade theme in build 4074 screenshot from this URL:

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/4074_ui_07.gif

–210.213.86.121 09:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too, but can't change it. Here's another good pic! Oh, and this screenshot (or one of the others in that large gallery) should be used for Build 4051 so there's a pic for Milestone 6 like in most of the other sections. And if you dig deep enough, you'll find pics for Build 3646 (M1) and 3663 (M2) too! :)--67.167.93.51 01:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can't change it too. Because you're a anonyomous user and you can't upload the image. Also, in Longhorn build 4051 screenshot, that is NOT actual size. The text is very small. This one is the actual size screenshot of Longhorn build 4051, it is a PNG image for high-quality. Why do not to create your account in Wikipedia? --210.5.85.163 11:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or these other actual-sized screenshots like:
--210.5.84.234 13:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown sign(s)[edit]

Is there any change someone can snap a picture of the count down sign or future signs on the redmond campus? 68.33.187.203 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vista SP1?,etc.[edit]

I disagree, Warrens, that information regarding Service Pack 1 doesn't belong here. I agree that service packs would typically not belong here, as they are just a sort of roll-up of all the security updates and contain only a few other tweaks. Vista SP1, however, is unlike previous service packs, as it will update the kernel itself and add other major new features that were dropped in previous builds, such as PC-to-PC Sync. A kernel update seems to me that with it, the Vista development process will continue, and the details of that process would be in this article. It should also be noted in the article when features that were dropped in previous builds are added back onto the OS. I agree the paragraph should have had a source, and I was planning to add one soon. However, in the mean time, you can add one yourself, or mark the info as unreferenced with a [citation needed] or something. By the way, Akhristov, I preferred the larger screenshots, as I didn't have to click on each one to see details, and they added more color to the article. (although the new LH icon is nice:-)) I am considering reverting some of these edits, but I will wait and see if there is a counter-argument or other reply to this post first. Oh, and can someone PLEASE get a better Milestone 6 screenshot? (see above post- "Longhorn build 4074 screenshot") 67.167.93.51 02:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:VERIFY. Any speculative or otherwise unverifiable information is subject to removal at any time at the discretion of any editor who cares about building a high-quality encyclopedia. That doesn't mean the most information -- that means the best information.
By the way, Paul Thurrott is not an authoritative source of information about what's going to be in future releases of Windows. He's been wrong so many times that he just can't be trusted to get it right. And really, how much does it help the article to say that "Paul Thurrott thinks that Service Pack 1 will include features missing from RTM, including peer-to-peer file sharing, WinFS, and a pony?" Not very. If people want the latest gossip, they can go hunt down news web sites that follow every burp and belch. But that ain't us -- we have five years worth of history we can expand on without getting into speculation. When Microsoft announces something, either officially, or via an employee blog, then we can go ahead and assert an authoritative tone, and in the case, it probably belongs in Windows Vista, not here. Thanks. -/- Warren 02:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Thurrott is not the only person I get my information from, and others (including MS execs) have had plenty of similar things to say about SP1. This article is just one example of that. In WP:VERIFY, you will see under "Burden of Evidence" (2nd paragraph) that perhaps the info could have been given a chance (although Jimmy W. has a point in the 3rd paragraph.) I suppose you are correct, however, that it is probably a bit early to discuss SP1 here in detail, as there aren't that many details about it at this point. When it comes time, however, to write about it in Wikipedia, I think it should at least get a mention in this article (i.e. "although network search was dropped in this build, it was re-added to Vista in SP1" or something.) By the way, I still think the new build screenshot thumbnails are too small...67.167.93.51 03:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista Beta 1 screenshot[edit]

The screenshot of Windows Vista Beta 1 had been commented, because that screenshot is just only JPEG image and is not actual size. I've found the PNG screenshot images from Flexbeta, there's a lot of PNG images of Windows Vista, choose the desired screenshot and upload it. — 210.1.91.103 01:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting your removal of this screenshot. The Beta 1 screenshot comes from Microsoft's web site, which is an official and reliable source of screenshots. The fact that it's JPEG is not a serious problem. Unless someone wants provide a self-created Vista Beta 1 screenshot. We can't just take screenshots from other web sites, either. -/- Warren 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warren, I'm insert the {{BadJPEG}} and {{ifd}} templates on the screenshot of Windows Vista Beta 1. And will be delete that screenshot soon. Also, I think the Windows Vista Beta 1 screenshot is real or fake. — 210.1.91.182 02:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the screenshot of Windows Vista Beta 1 is nominated at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. When that screenshot is now deleted, you may upload at Flexbeta yourself. --210.1.91.182 03:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it done. The Windows Vista Beta 1 screenshot is uploaded and I uploaded as PNG screenshot (image source: Geekpedia. --Jigs41793 11:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Finally"[edit]

In the third milestone, where Build 3706 is covered, it says "Build 3706 (build date of October 29, 2002) was finally leaked on May 22, 2006.". Does anyone else feel this is quite a pirates point of view? Shouldn't this be changed to something like "was leaked"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fimbulfamb (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not particularly, its just pointing out the fact that the leak came years after it was compiled. 24.18.27.44 (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2008 -A. Friend

Build 3646 - original research?[edit]

Is this a trustworthy source for build 3646? Windows:Longhorn:3646 - 203.87.129.111 10:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Windows Vista[edit]

I think this might be a decent resource to look at for some of the early Microsoft press releases regarding Vista, although some of the delays are already covered in the article.

[1] --71.120.67.59 22:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

onghornLay rofessionalPay[edit]

Why did someone change it to say build 4029 was Longhorn Professional? The rest of the paragraph still implies and the screenchot caption still says build 4029 is named "onghornLay rofessionalPay", as a test of changing the name. I would change it back to the pig latin, but theres no source, so I don't know for sure that the whole thing wasn't made up in the first place and the name really is Longhorn Professional. Josh the Nerd 00:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Josh[reply]

Build 3790[edit]

"Build 3790 (build date of September 7, 2004) is notable, as it was the first build of Longhorn based on the Server 2003 codebase, but with the Windows XP interface."

I noticed that's the same build number as Windows Server 2003 itself, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and (I think) Windows XP 64-bit Edition 2003. So is this saying that there was also a "version" of build 3790 that had the Windows XP client stuff but called itseld Longhorn? Josh the Nerd 19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Josh[reply]

GA Nominated[edit]

This article has been put up for GA candidacy. Tarrettalk 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: checkY Yes.
2. Factually accurate?: checkY Yes.
3. Broad in coverage?: checkY Yes.
4. Neutral point of view?: checkY Yes.
5. Article stability? checkY Yes.
6. Images?: ☒N The images are appropriate, but they need specific fair use rationales (see WP:IUP).

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Sandstein 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination failed[edit]

The article has failed good article nomination because the above issue was not addressed in time. Several images are also otherwise improperly tagged (no source, etc.) Sandstein 21:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Vista 5259 desktop.png[edit]

Image:Windows Vista 5259 desktop.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Build Screenshots[edit]

I read on the todo list that you are looking for a collection of build screenshots. May I be of assistance? http://justin.nobber.org.uk/screenshots/ You can use any of these that are in the whistler (although not applicable to this topic), longhorn, and vista folders. Jrdaigle1000 (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Server 2008[edit]

I'd like to mention how each build relates to Windows Server 2008, but I'm not sure about some of the less major builds. Does anyone know of a comprehensive Windows Server 2008 release history I can use for reference? - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there isn't much in the way of good coverage of Windows Server Longhorn's beta process, or what happened with each successive build. Vista and Office got all the attention. -/- Warren 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Vista Beta 2 Desktop.png[edit]

Image:Vista Beta 2 Desktop.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Longhorn build 4074 screenshot.png[edit]

Image:Windows Longhorn build 4074 screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Vista 5472 desktop.png[edit]

Image:Windows Vista 5472 desktop.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Vista Beta 1 Desktop.png[edit]

Image:Windows Vista Beta 1 Desktop.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Vista RC1 desktop.png[edit]

Image:Windows Vista RC1 desktop.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Build number[edit]

A. S. Castanza: No, the version reported is the kernel version. This has always been the case with NT. Apply the hotfix and then manually revert the changes to the kernel (you will need to schedule an operation at shutdown since the file is in use, or change it while booted to another OS with access to the HDD) and watch what happens. Or apply the QFE branch of the hotfix (instead of the default GDR branch) and see what happens. Or apply any other hotfix that modifies the kernel (there may be some non-public request-only hotfixes, though I haven't checked to see if there are any post-SP1). You'll see that this "build number" is nothing more than the version string in the kernel. You'll also see that the information in the registry is unused (i.e., nothing happens if you change it) and serves only as a mirror of the kernel's version string. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.197.142 (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you made is self contradictory "Because this update updates the Vista kernel, the version Windows is now 6001.18063 (winver only reports the version of the kernel and takes no account of other parts of the operating system)" thus it has been reverted to my version, either leave it with what I said, or fix your text so it makes sense. Besides, what you are saying has no relevence to the subject, by updating the kernel, they are making significant changes to Vista, my version stands. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A change in the "build number" is ambiguous and leads people to think that this is a far-reaching change, when it may not necessarily be so. All I did was clarify that this build number change corresponds only to an update in the kernel (of unknown significance) and that it is misleading to think of it as a new build of the OS. And just because there is a change in the kernel doesn't mean that the change is significant--the kernel is just a small part of a huge collection of components that make up Vista (this isn't Linux where kernel updates are fewer and where the kernel itself is much bigger and encompassing; NT kernels are much smaller and have much, much smaller scopes), and even the smallest minor bug fix in the kernel will result in a higher reported build number even if nothing else on the system changed. Normally, build numbers are used to denote more far-reaching changes. For example, XP build 5512 is a significant build because it's SP3, and with build 5512, over half of the system files on the operating system were updated to this new build. However, if I were to install KB950162, my "build" number would become 5586, but that means nothing--of the thousands of system files that make up Windows, only one was updated to 5586, while all the rest are still at 5512 or earlier, and the only change was that the kernel's build number was incremented to include a fix for what appears to be a rather obscure and edge-case bug. So if you are going to include hotfix build numbers (instead of release build numbers), then you should make it clear what that build number really is--that it is just the build number of the kernel and only the kernel and reflects nothing else of the system. Or better yet, just don't mention hotfix build numbers in the article at all (hence my deletion of that section). Unless you can disambiguate and make it clear what exactly is going on, what you had there constitutes misleading and confusing information. BTW, if you request, download, and install the Vista version of KB950162(see http://support.microsoft.com/hotfix/KBHotfix.aspx?kbnum=950162&kbln=en-us), your "build number" will become 6.0.6001.22137. I don't think you want to go through every single hotfix that just so happens to update the kernel (and there's more like that).
I should also add that to call KB952709 build 18063 is very misleading and borderline incorrect. If you examine the KB952709 hotfix carefully, you'll see some components were updated to 18063, some to 18051, some to 18069, some to 22151, and if you happened to do a QFE branch install of that hotfix, you'll get build 22167 of the kernel instead of build 18063. Unless you are willing to clarify all that, the section should just be stricken entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.197.142 (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You completely misunderstand why this build is significant, First, its the first Public release to increase the build number. But what is the MOST significant is that it removed the mention of Longhorn from the build string that was present in the release version of service pack 1. The longhorn build string hadn't been seen since the build days before the name was finalized as Vista (afaik). Now, if someone doesn't like the way I worded it, feel free to change it, until then, there isn't anything wrong with my version as there is nothing Significant about KB950162, it is not the first public update to change vistas build number, kb952709 IS, and is notable because its removal of longhorn_rtm. Now, I'm going to rewrite the post-sp1 section in a way that will hopefully make this clear. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still dispute the significance of this. I posit that the build number increase is NOT significant. Yes, that's my opinion, and if you think that it is, then fine. But at the VERY LEAST, you should make it clear that it's not the Vista build number that was increased, it's the kernel's build number. As I noted above, there is a world of difference between the Vista build number (which suggests the entire OS) vs. the OS build number (just one of many components of the OS). I also dispute the significance of the "longhorn" string; that is, at best, trivia. "longhorn" has always been present in the server builds, and the presence of "longhorn" in SP1 RTM was only to signify that Vista was re-synced with 2008. IMO, the entire section is still insignificant (WRT to both the build number and build string), AND it is still misleading. At the very least, the "build number" language should be dropped entirely or clarified (instead of "this is the first publicly-released update to the build number", the accurate language would be "this is the first public-released update to the kernel"). And you appear to have misunderstood my point about KB950162. My point is that KB950162 *is* insignificant and that by extension, so is KB952709. It may be slightly more important since it was publicly-released, but overall, I still stand by that the significance of all this is overblown. Either remove it entirely or clarify the language so that (A) you avoid the kernel-vs-OS ambiguity/confusion and (B) you do not overblow the significance of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.197.142 (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to explain the build number increase just sounds awkward and makes things veer off-topic. I don't think the build number should be mentioned for hotfix updates. Sure, they should be mentioned for releases, mentioning them for hotfix updates is silly. We provide a KB number, which should be enough--providing a build number in the article is not only inappropriate, but is unnecessary. If someone wants to know what build numbers are in this hotfix, they can read the KB article, which lists all the build numbers (as already noted, not all the files updated are 18063) for all the different files updated by the hotfixes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.197.142 (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you as you are wrong. The HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion key is where the full Operating system build string is stored in Vista and all NT based Windows Systems, therefore is is the Operating system build that has been increased, and therefore relevant (note that nowhere in that key does it say KernelBuild). If you are going to dispute that then source your statements as what I have said is the commonly accepted belief (<- which is what Wikipedia requires) as well as completely verifiable, until then you have NO place to revert the article. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for my bluntness, but the gloves come off now. To put it plainly, it would appear that you have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't YOU source YOUR information? Why is the burden of proof on me? I have stated clearly that the registry entry is useless. It's there for reference, just like winver is. Yes, it (and what winver displays) gets updated whenever the kernel is updated. I never dispute that. But I do dispute that this is significant in any way whatsoever, beyond a cosmetic change to a string. My source? Observation. Common sense. Looking at what ACTUALLY changes. Looking at what files get updated. READING what the KB article says. Your source? Digging through the registry? Looking at some text that winver shows? You have YET to refute, disprove, or rationally counter anything that I have stated in this discussion. Instead, you continually revert to INCORRECT and MISLEADING information. You obviously have been around Wikipedia longer and know how to play the system. I don't. I don't know how to set a dispute tag. I don't know what exactly the proper hoops that need jumping through Wikipedia are. But what I DO know is what the information as presented is incorrect. I stand by that. And while I don't know what the proper dispute procedures are, I do know how to correct bad and misleading information. If all that you can do is revert those changes and degrade the quality of the article and then hide behind procedure, then so be it. But why is this even necessary? I have stated clearly why this is wrong, why this is misleading, and why it needs to be changed. If you think I am wrong, then refute my arguments. Address my concerns or state clearly why my concerns are invalid. Don't just repeat "this is notable" without backing it up and countering my arguments why it's not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.197.142 (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on you, because the burden of proof always goes with whoever is trying to remove (even arguably) valid, non-vandalism, information. You are the one who tried to bring in WinVer information, not me, I made it clear that the only thing winver does is report the Primary Version (Vista XP etc) and Service pack number of the OS, nothing else, which is the commonly accepted view, and is backed up by direct observation of the WinVer dialog. All other information Including the System root, processor license, product ID, Install date, and Build Number is found in the registry and you can "observe" that for yourself. Anything that changes Vista's Build lab string indicates that the operating system was significantly altered, note that on all dev builds the build string from BuildLabEx is what is shown in the watermark on the desktop, indicating that it IS in FACT the operating systems FULL build string, not just the kernel (as you are trying to assert, without proof). As you can clearly see, the BuildLab string from the registry is the equivalent of the WinVer dialog, where as the LabBuildEx string shows the Operating systems full version number as well as compile date. By saying the the 18063 build is not significant, by extension of your logic, you are postulating that all of the 17xxx builds of SP1 development aren't significant because all they do is update the kernel, something that is blatantly false, the only difference is that the different 17xxx builds weren't silently slipped out over Windows Update, also during the sp1 beta program the Development team referred to builds by the 17xxx portion of their build string, indicating that they are more than just minor kernel updates like you are trying to say, but instead the actual build version of the OS, note that the build string reads as: PrimaryOS.unknown.OS00ServicePack.BuildNumber.BuildYearMonthDay-Time If the fourth section does only represent the kernel version (which is doesn't) it isn't supportable with any verifiable dialog within Windows (which only labels the key as LabBuildEx not anything to do with KernelBuild), or from any credible MS source. Consider yourself refuted. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images?[edit]

There seem to be a large number of images on this page listed with a 'fair use' rationale... from the looks of this talk page, at least five images have been deleted due to this. Could I suggest that somebody take a look at the remaining images on the content page, most of which have a speedy deletion caption, and fix 'em? I'd imagine that this page used to have images for almost all builds, but they're falling off on a weekly basis. 79.78.251.153 (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Windows Longhorn Build 4015.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Windows Longhorn Build 4015.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"KiTTY" Was Not The Leaker Of 3790[edit]

mrpijey at BetaArchive did confirm that KiTTY is not the leaker of 3790 and therefore should not be credited for that leak. I myself know the leaker but I cannot tell you the real identity of the leaker. He wishes for a private leak and for nobody to attempt to take credit for it. He says he may admit he leaked it one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.96.105 (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I leaked it. -soulman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.107.150 (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Development of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Development of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Development of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Development of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Development of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Development of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Development_of_Windows_Vista&oldid=1206951305"