Evidence of existence of Microsoft Windows 2000 Build 2121.1

[Random_User]

In %windir%\iis5.txt in Microsoft Windows 2000 Build 2128 and higher, there is a reference to Microsoft Windows 2000 Build 2121.1

[2/2/2000 19:21:43] LogFile Open. [***** Search on FAIL/MessageBox keywords for failures *****].
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] Initial thread locale=409
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] returned from France fix with locale 409
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] OC_PREINITIALIZE:[iis] End. Return=1 (OCFLAG_UNICODE)
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] OC_INIT_COMPONENT:[iis,(null)] Start.
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] OC_INIT_COMPONENT:9/10/1999 0:00:00 A_______ 5.0.2121.1: 5.00.0984: x86: C:\WINNT\System32\Setup\iis.dll

[gurkenglas123]

And now you would have this build? Google doesn´t know anything about this build nr.

[Coppermine]

Very interesting, thanks!

And what about 5.00.0984? What is it?

[David Nucrdale]

Goddamnit!

Final is 2195. You are talking about 2121.1. Isnt it quite clear, that it exists? They dont jump like 60 builds just for nothing if we even had 2183 and so on. And .1 just means recompile. Whats the deal?
I may open a topic for
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
...

Got it?

[dans34]

In %windir%\iis5.txt in Microsoft Windows 2000 Build 2128 and higher, there is a reference to Microsoft Windows 2000 Build 2121.1

[2/2/2000 19:21:43] LogFile Open. [***** Search on FAIL/MessageBox keywords for failures *****].
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] Initial thread locale=409
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] returned from France fix with locale 409
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] OC_PREINITIALIZE:[iis] End. Return=1 (OCFLAG_UNICODE)
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] OC_INIT_COMPONENT:[iis,(null)] Start.
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] OC_INIT_COMPONENT:9/10/1999 0:00:00 A_______ 5.0.2121.1: 5.00.0984: x86: C:\WINNT\System32\Setup\iis.dll

or could that be the version number of iis.dll , might not be a reference to Microsoft Windows 2000 Build 2121.1

[Panda X]

Goddamnit!

Final is 2195. You are talking about 2121.1. Isnt it quite clear, that it exists? They dont jump like 60 builds just for nothing if we even had 2183 and so on. And .1 just means recompile. Whats the deal?
I may open a topic for
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
...

Got it?

Calm down. You should be riled up over numbers.

[Matth360]

Goddamnit!

Final is 2195. You are talking about 2121.1. Isnt it quite clear, that it exists? They dont jump like 60 builds just for nothing if we even had 2183 and so on. And .1 just means recompile. Whats the deal?
I may open a topic for
...

Got it?

btw calm down dude,we cant solve problems by being agressive like this!

In %windir%\iis5.txt in Microsoft Windows 2000 Build 2128 and higher, there is a reference to Microsoft Windows 2000 Build 2121.1

[2/2/2000 19:21:43] LogFile Open. [***** Search on FAIL/MessageBox keywords for failures *****].
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] Initial thread locale=409
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] returned from France fix with locale 409
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] OC_PREINITIALIZE:[iis] End. Return=1 (OCFLAG_UNICODE)
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] OC_INIT_COMPONENT:[iis,(null)] Start.
[2/2/2000 19:21:43] OC_INIT_COMPONENT:9/10/1999 0:00:00 A_______ 5.0.2121.1: 5.00.0984: x86: C:\WINNT\System32\Setup\iis.dll

so what you mean with this?(i think that this build is unleaked)

[David Nucrdale]

This topic, like all those "I found a build number" topics, are useless. Yes, its unbelievable, but there are builds inbetween the leaked ones. There is Longhorn 3663, and there is Longhorn 3683, and also there is 3664, 3665, 3666, 3667, ... there is no sense of opening a topic for that. It would be useful to open a topic for a leak, but not for this.

[Rioter]

This topic, like all those "I found a build number" topics, are useless. Yes, its unbelievable, but there are builds inbetween the leaked ones. There is Longhorn 3663, and there is Longhorn 3683, and also there is 3664, 3665, 3666, 3667, ... there is no sense of opening a topic for that. It would be useful to open a topic for a leak, but not for this.

Shut up.

All Random_User has done is shown evidence that there's 2121. If you think it's a stupid and useless topic, hows about NOT replying and ignoring it. You are not bound by the word of the law to read it or acknowledge it. Now go away and bother a different topic.

[David Nucrdale]

This topic, like all those "I found a build number" topics, are useless. Yes, its unbelievable, but there are builds inbetween the leaked ones. There is Longhorn 3663, and there is Longhorn 3683, and also there is 3664, 3665, 3666, 3667, ... there is no sense of opening a topic for that. It would be useful to open a topic for a leak, but not for this.

Shut up.

All Random_User has done is shown evidence that there's 2121. If you think it's a stupid and useless topic, hows about NOT replying and ignoring it. You are not bound by the word of the law to read it or acknowledge it. Now go away and bother a different topic.

I wouldnt mind if there wouldnt be a hundred of those topics a day.
And yes, theres proof. But just that doesnt mean its useful to post.

[fzajac]

It'd be better if the information was added to the wiki, instead of creating topic here.

[rayle]

I wouldnt mind if there wouldnt be a hundred of those topics a day.
And yes, theres proof. But just that doesnt mean its useful to post.

This is BetaArchive, a beta forum where we talk about betas, hence why we have "a hundred of those topics a day"

Nice find Random_User.

[David Nucrdale]

This isnt a beta and theres nothing to discuss about here. Its just a number.

[Matth360]

This isnt a beta and theres nothing to discuss about here. Its just a number.

so WHAT?
what it's not beta?
here is for discussion of betas,not only RTM's and abandonware.
the name BetaArchive explain everything.

[David Nucrdale]

Its just a number.

[Matth360]

Its just a number.

so what?
it does not matter.
it's a beta anyway...

[Derf]

It'd be better if the information was added to the wiki, instead of creating topic here.

Agreed. Sure it's arguably "contributing", but in such a weak manner that it doesn't even deserve it's own topic. Perhaps in a Windows 2000 Build List Topic?

[Random_User]

Goddamnit!

Final is 2195. You are talking about 2121.1. Isnt it quite clear, that it exists? They dont jump like 60 builds just for nothing if we even had 2183 and so on. And .1 just means recompile. Whats the deal?
I may open a topic for
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
...

Got it?

This topic, like all those "I found a build number" topics, are useless. Yes, its unbelievable, but there are builds inbetween the leaked ones. There is Longhorn 3663, and there is Longhorn 3683, and also there is 3664, 3665, 3666, 3667, ... there is no sense of opening a topic for that. It would be useful to open a topic for a leak, but not for this.

It's not that obvious that certain builds exist or don't exist. As you know, sometimes certain build ranges are skipped.

You also mentioned that the Microsoft Corporation "doesn't skip 60 builds for nothing". Well the "for nothing" part I might agree with, but they do skip 60+ build numbers. For example, Microsoft Codename Whistler Builds 2296-2410 (Not including 2296 and 2410) were skipped (Correct me if I am wrong).......and what about Longhorn...the last confirmed pre-reset build is 4093 (4094 might exist, but is unconfirmed), and the first post-reset build is 5000.

[fzajac]

I got to agree with Random_User on the build skipping. Just to make few things clear:

Microsoft Codename Whistler Builds 2296-2410 (Not including 2296 and 2410) were skipped (Correct me if I am wrong)

Yes, the 23xx build range has propably been skipped.

.......and what about Longhorn...the last confirmed pre-reset build is 4093 (4094 might exist, but is unconfirmed)

We don't count 4094 because we are aware of only few private compilations of this build. There's no 4094.main, no 4094.idx0*, not even an official 4094.lab0* build known.

and the first post-reset build is 5000.

Remember the 3790.winmain & 3790.1232.winmain builds. These are the real first (propably also some other recompliations of 3790) and here's a big jump to build 5000.


EDIT
Done the wiki thing. I know that we are missing a lot of stuff on the wiki, i am doing what i can whenever only i can...

[Random_User]

Remember the 3790.winmain & 3790.1232.winmain builds. These are the real first (propably also some other recompliations of 3790) and here's a big jump to build 5000.

Builds of Longhorn with the build number 3790 (Longhorn D1) are the development reset builds of Longhorn, not the first post-reset build.

Very interesting, thanks!

And what about 5.00.0984? What is it?

5.00.0984 is the version number of the RTM build of Internet Information Services 5.00 (IIS 5 (Which is the version of IIS included in Microsoft Windows 2000)).

[Matth360]

why you didn't putted these informations on BA wiki?

[ultrawindows]

He has no useraccount there

[Matth360]

but he could have his useraccount

[gamelover101]

It'd be better if the information was added to the wiki, instead of creating topic here.

Agreed. Sure it's arguably "contributing", but in such a weak manner that it doesn't even deserve it's own topic. Perhaps in a Windows 2000 Build List Topic?

I think you're right. One single beta (especially one that has probably not downloadable) shouldn't have it's own topic