I was going to post this in Announcements but I can't make a new topic in there.

Well anyways, Look at my finding!!



Screenshot on my PC, and here's source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8

I didnt knew that we got first 7850

was also mentioned on Wikipedia at some point.

Theres another one above about milestone 1.

That was kinda vague, could you reply with more detail please?

There was a page about BA, probably got removed now.

I have taken the time to correct the facts concerning Windows 8 build 7989 was leaked on win7vista first and not beta archive as verifiable by a bunch of ex-win7v staff.

A 64-bit Milestone 3 build, build 7989, leaked to Win7vista on June 15, 2011 after screenshots were revealed on MDL forums then June 17th pic's leaked to the BetaArchive.. Approximately 3 days after the intial leak the build was re-compliled using 7850 and leaked from win7v the original source being HP. An SMS feature, a new virtual keyboard, a new bootscreen, transparency in the basic theme, geo-location services, Hyper-V 3.0, and PowerShell 3.0 were revealed in this build.[19]

This is how it should read since respectfully the Beta Archive had absolutely nothing to do with the leak at all no further information need be filled in at this time in my opinion. While I don't take much pleasure in setting the matter straight since I've been banned indefinitely from win7v I guess someone had to say something.

After trying to edit the windows 8 page 3-5 times I'm throwing in the towel I guess I'll keep the facts to myself on this thread .

It is also mentioned on windows vista developer page on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen ... dows_Vista

Misattribution of leaks is sadly pretty common, and it goes both ways - Win7 b6519 was repeatedly attributed to "MSBP" rather than BetaArchive for example.

I don't like it myself but hey just wanted to set it straight.

Funny though how wiki keeps trying to revert what I put in since the initial leak was 3-4 days before the 18th.

And I'm not gonna verify the sources as it would drag some people through the mud again.

I'd rather not help Win7vista forums at given what they did to some of the senior members.

Here's the tl;dr version

I don't know why is this such a big deal... Who cares who they credit the leak to, as long we know we had it first...

Its not imprortant but its great to hear.

People too, such as the Development of Windows Vista topic on Wikipedia. They can never get things right first time. At least they got 3790 correct now.

Not really exciting since Wikipedia can be edited by ANYBODY. I can easily change it to say that the Pope leaked all the builds.

The exiting part is that It's on the official Windows 8 page my friend.

What's your point?

I'm sorry, I fail to see how a Wikipedia entry for Windows 8 makes it official.

Someone edited that Win7Vista first recieved the build 7989, but its WRONG. BetaArchive got it first. There is also an article that says so.

No, Win7Vista got it first. I downloaded it from there and uploaded it to BA.

Whether you count W7V as a public leak is another matter - you had to pay for VIP to gain access.

Got it first yes, but leaked we were the first I believe.

Well unfortunately its true since you have to wonder how the build was made yes win7v had it first. Giantsteen just read up on what I said if you need proof I'll be happy to provide it.

In regards to leaking Andy from the information I have it was leaked again there first the irony was that I was a moderator there like a month prior to this.

BA have been mentioned alot of times on wikipedia...

http://www.google.se/search?sourceid=ch ... etaarchive

yes, but this is the official Windows 8 page!

A Wikipedia page being the "official" page for anything other than Wikipedia and its services is like calling a grocery store "The official store of Super Tools Breakfast Cereal" because they just happen to carry that brand.