Talk:Ver (command)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Image copyright problem with Image:Winver.png[edit]

The image Image:Winver.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typos in Edits of 29 July 2015[edit]

The edits made by 83.202.206.150 on 29 July 2015 introduced an unknown number of typographical errors to the table listing important OS version numbers. He subsequently caught and corrected two of them (one later the same day, and another the next day — 30 July 2015), but I believe at least one more remains, and I suspect others are likely. Or at least possible, and worth double-checking for.

(If I were slightly more certain than I am, I would go ahead and make two changes myself. I may yet make them, but I thought I would wait a week or two for someone more knowledgeable than I to jump in.)

The first and most important probable typo I spotted is in the row for Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2. The version number given is the same as that for Windows 8: 9200. Surely the build number of even the earliest version of Windows 8.1 cannot be the same as that of Windows 8, can it?

I'm pretty sure the actual build number is 9600 — the number previously reported by this article for Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2 for the year and a half prior to 83.202.206.150's edits, and the number reported for them by Wikipedia's article on Windows NT. What is confusing, and what probably led to 83.202.206.150's probable mistake, is that Windows 8.1 Update 1 has the same build number as the original version of Windows 8.1 that was released some 6 months earlier!

(I verified this for myself earlier today. The winver command still reports my OS version as "Microsoft Windows Version 6.3 (Build 9600)" ("Version 6.3.9600" when ver is used instead of winver), but I verified in several ways that "Windows 8.1 Update"/"Update for Microsoft Windows (KB 2919355)" was in fact installed by Windows Update just yesterday. So I do in fact have Update 1 of Windows 8.1 installed, but the system is still reporting the same build number as it would for Windows 8.1 without Update 1.)

So the table entry for Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2 should be changed from "6.3.9200" to "6.3.9600".

A second probable mistake — but slightly less important, and of which I am slightly less sure, than the first — appears in the row entry that includes Windows Server 2008 R2 RTM — the entry whose value is 6.1.7600.16385. I believe that that entry should say "Windows 7 RTM" rather than just "Windows 7", in addition to "Windows Server 2008 R2 RTM". And originally it did say "Windows 7 RTM"! But 83.202.206.150 accidentally put the line break before the first occurrence of "RTM" instead of after, thereby causing "RTM" to appear twice in the line for Windows Server 2008 R2 RTM ("RTM Windows Server 2008 R2 RTM"). And when he later spotted the typo and came back to correct it, he simply deleted the redundant, leading "RTM" instead of bumping it up to the end of the previous line (for Windows 7), where it belonged.

In view of these errors, and the relatively large size of 83.202.206.150's initial edit to the table, I think there is a non-trivial chance that other typos may be present as well. Enough of a chance that someone who actually knows all these version and build numbers should take a gander at the table looking for additional mistakes.

184.53.33.131 (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kasajian (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Why are the version numbers for Windows XP and SP identical?[reply]

Output of the ver command in Windows 10 and 11[edit]

The "Version list" section of the article has a table with a column that claims to show the output of the ver command.

There are a couple of issues with this. 1) The output of the ver has never been any of the strings shown in the table. It's been things such as:

"Microsoft Windows NT [Version 4.0.1381 Service Pack 6]"
"Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]"
"Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]"
"Microsoft Windows [Version 5.2.3790]" - Windows 2003
"Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]" - Windows 2008 and Windows Vista
"Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]" - Windows 2008R2 and Windows 7
"Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]" - Windows 2008R2 and Windows 7
"Microsoft Windows [Version 6.2.9200]" - Windows 2012 and Windows 8
"Microsoft Windows [Version 6.3.9600]" - Windows 2012R2 and Windows 8.1

2) Up to November 2019 Windows 10's ver command output changed every six months.

"Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.10240]" - Windows 10 version 1507 - Threshold 1
"Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.10586]" - Windows 10 version 1511 - Threshold 2
"Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.14393]" - Windows 10 version 1607 - Redstone 1
"Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.15063]" - Windows 10 version 1703 - Redstone 2
"Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.16257]" - Windows 10 version 1709 - Redstone 3
"Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.16299]" - Windows 10 version 1709 - Redstone 3
"Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.17134]" - Windows 10 version 1803 - Redstone 4
"Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.17763]" - Windows 10 version 1809 - Redstone 5
"Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.18362]" - Windows 10 version 1903 - 19H1

3) In November 2019 Microsoft added the build number to the ver' command's output. The build number changes least every Patch Tuesday. As a result the ver command's output changes at least once a month.

"Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.19041.264]"
"Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.19041.329]"
"Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.19041.331]"

...

"Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.19044.1586]"

For now, I changed the table header from "Ver output" to "Version number." This does not deal with the issues that the output of the ver command is changing at least once a month and is poorly sourced. The current sources seem to be web pages maintained by various fans of various things. Ideally, we would be be using WP:RS. Unfortunately, Microsoft seems to have moved to a model of documenting things using a wiki. Their page for the ver command is maintained by users and apparently those users realized that documenting the command's output was a moving target and there are no available reliable sources. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]