Maybe I miss the point but after 8-9 years working with Win Betas I still cannot figured out WHY here is a people what have some unleaked build, and don't share with all of us.

As first - what they can have it?! - Unleaked build from Post-XP or Longhorn development stages so what?.. in this systems are to many bugs to use anyone as primary OS's
As second - If they leak them in wild surely someone from this community will help to fix some bugs.
As third - Longhorn 4093/4094 as last builds are embedded systems, because they haven't WinFS component and many other things, and they are very unstable, I guess this behavior continue in future builds because build 5001 is very close to WinXP RTM at look like, and still 5048 after reset too.

When we talk about Vista Beta builds this is another story - but still we have here the same problem.
Because Longhorn OS was never released we are still in exploration to find most stable and functional version of this os. (Probably some build between 4075-4079)
But for Vista builds, here everything was told. Vista was released and don't reach big popularity (like XP and 7) because many things, but in the first place 2gbs of ram was pretty much for that time.

However I want to hear others what they thing for my question?

Yes, I agree, not leaking Windows 8 is fine (my opinion), not leaking Windows Longhorn/Vista, or earlyer what the heck?! MS don't care about these, and why should they? Like Nashville, or Neptune, or Triston(?), or Odyssey(?). Why NOT leak Windows Longhorn/Vista Build 3663? Why NOT leak Windows 95 Build 3X? Why NOT leak, ect.
Offtopic:

Yes, you are indeed correct, Windows Vista is Longhorn, just that they restarted its development from a different later compile of the continuing Whistler Server codebase (Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1, rather than Windows .NET Server 2003 Release Candidate).

Also, once again, I would like to state that it's extremely inaccurate to list the "pre-reset" builds as being "builds of Longhorn" and the "post-reset" builds as being "builds of Vista", as if the name change to Windows Vista had anything to do with the codebase reset whatsoever. The name "Windows Vista" had absolutely nothing to do with the codebase reset in any sense of the word, it was rather just a final name of which happened to be chosen for the project, as with "Windows Server 2003" (continuing Whistler Server builds), "Windows XP" (Whistler), "Windows 2000" (Memphis NT), and earlier.

Yes, exactly. Which means the most stable Longhorn build is 6002. (In my opinion)

E-peen size. That's about it.

First of, you need to understand the circumstances. Some people actually bought certain builds, so imagine you bought a bike for 500$ and then let everyone else ride it for free... Not exactly what I call profit. People also have other reasons - some good and some bad. Perhaps it's a controversial build that could cause distrubances in the community or they're just selfish and hoard builds for their own pleasure.

Second, why fix a 7 yo build? As you said yourself, these builds are obsolete and barely usable. Besides, we preffer originality - so frankenbuilds aren't as welcome as originals...

And third: how is this related to the topic's primary question?

Whatever the reason, let them keep the builds if they decide to do so. It's not that you can force anyone into leaking something...

Why? Because there are still honest poeple which if they once give a promise not to leak something, they don't leak it.

I see your point. So.. part of your question is why people don't leak unleaked builds, right?
I'm not sure.. but I will tell you cases that I saw(or experienced).

The reason why MS wants their win8 builds not to be leaked is simple. It's because win8 RTM didn't come out yet. For 7 betas, I think they do since many people are using 7 today. For Vista, not really. For past XP, no. Why would MS care about more than 10 years old betas? Hmm?

Next, why do beta collectors who own unleaked betas don't leak them?
I think there are two kinds of beta collectors.
A group - is composed of normal beta collectors who get unleaked betas from trading with other collectors. They don't own many. Average is about 20~30, and some have more than 100. However, 100 are still low number compared to number of all beta builds.
B group - is composed of beta collectors who get unleaked betas from purchasing. Usually, they get quite many beta CDs.

I'm not saying that collecting betas from trading is bad, but that way produces only a few betas, about 20~30 as I said above. Because A group doesn't own much, they treat their betas as possesions.. like money. Sometimes, they leak one or two as a contribution.. but in most cases, they don't leak their betas because they don't want to make their betas to be 'leaked.'

Maybe I'm saying too much..
I hope this may help you..

Yes, anstein99 told it quite right.

I guess it is right not only for betacollertors, but for any other collerctor's circles too.

If some collector's item is rare, it has a value. If it has a value, you can trade it. In the other hand, if you make this rare item public, it'll lose it's value. That's why.
(It is right for people who get their builds in trades, as there's a collectors here who never had anything to do with trades as well.)

And second. Leak is completely under will of owner. You cannot force anyone to leak something.

Much has been said - most likely the case here just in greed and selfishness. I am ready to share with udovlstviem the fact that I have, but of course, as a true beta-collector, I want to get in return is that you need me. No money or profit - simply exchange

X user gets unleaked build from his friend, y user. X user meets Z user, another person who has unleaked builds. He asks to trade/exchange their builds. Now user X has 2 unleakeds. User X asks user A to trade and so on...

Basically, they keep it for honesty or trading.

nonsense - by and large these assemblies for the collection of any money you say?

That's right... Windows Vista codename is still Longhorn.

And about if there was a reset... I think Microsoft didn't really 100% reset the OS.

Maybe they "resetted" the kernel, maybe they "resetted" the UI... but they did not reset the ideas, that's why both Vista and Longhorn have sidebar, that's why it's so difficult to separe pre-reset and post-reset builds.

And if a "reset" was really done, some build would be more similar to XP than to previous Longhorn builds, right? Is there any beta where this happens?

The code was reset, but a lot of the Longhorn ideas weren't. Second, Longhorn 5001 is the earliest known post-reset build. As such, it looks basically identical to Windows XP: http://uxunleaked.blogspot.com/2008/05/ ... -1610.html
Third, while early pre-reset and post-reset Longhorn may look an awful lot like Windows XP, it's not. Longhorn was and is based on Server 2003.

Okay, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003... okay... I'm not an expert in this things...

(A bit off-topic: WHAT IS DOING THAT ANIMAL IN THE XP WALLPAPER? Is that a change of the post-reset OS??)

It's a Texas Longhorn cow/bull.