"Windows Blue" Screenshots?

[Binky Boy]

So earlier today, a friend of mine claimed to have a Windows Blue build and he sent me some screenshots.


BA Verdict: Real or Fake? I talked to him and he said he can provide at least a couple more screenshots if need be.

[Derf]

Very difficult to know for sure given how little those screenshots show, but as a general rule I wouldn't believe anything without proper evidence confirming its existence.

[MSUser2013]

Might be real, 9420 seems more like a more legit number than 9622, That 1301xx is just a date code, It didn't necessarily need to be censored

[WinPC]

These screenshots seem very interesting to me, but are you sure that they're actually for Windows Blue (Windows 8) update, and not for Windows 9? Because I've heard about Windows Blue and Windows 9 sharing the same build numbers at this point, with the latest Windows 9 build apparently being at Build 9622, which in my opinion creates a great deal of confusion, especially since even with Windows 9, we're still nowhere near a 7850-level build and probably won't be for many months yet.

From what I've heard and seen, though, as of Build 9622, Windows 9 has apparently lost the translucency in the taskbar, but it's also possible that Build 9622 was mistyped, since this Build 9420 was compiled earlier this year unlike Build 9622 (unless Build 9622 came from another lab). Also, even for "Windows Blue" (unless they were mislabeled Windows 9 builds), I've heard about 957x and 958x builds as far back as around December, but again, it's quite possible that they came from different build labs.

However, I'm not really sure now what exactly is going on, but I don't see anything unusual about them except possibly for the translucency still being present in the taskbar, but even at that, it's very hard to distinguish builds of the update to Windows 8 (Windows Blue) from the same builds of Windows 9 at this point, and it especially gets more confusing when people refer to Windows 9 as Windows Blue and vice versa (not referring to anyone in this topic by the way).

However, I would like very much to see more screenshots. Not only that, but if it's possible, I would greatly appreciate it if the person released the build itself. If it's not possible for the build to be released, though (such as being a Non-Disclosure Agreement, or protecting the source who originally received it from Microsoft), then I understand.

As for the build itself, though, it's interesting how the copyright has been changed to 2013. This is making me look more and more forward to what the rest of the year will bring in terms of Windows's development (especially in relation to Windows 9).

[john11]

Might be real. Does your friend usually have access to private Windows betas? Does he usually tell the truth?

Might be real, 9420 seems more like a more legit number than 9622, That 1301xx is just a date code, It didn't necessarily need to be censored

Looks like he's censored a bit more than 2 numbers...

[NHL fan]

Very cool.

[hounsell]

Might be real. Does your friend usually have access to private Windows betas? Does he usually tell the truth?

Might be real, 9420 seems more like a more legit number than 9622, That 1301xx is just a date code, It didn't necessarily need to be censored

Looks like he's censored a bit more than 2 numbers...

build hash, like in Win8 builds.

However, I doubt these screenshots.

These screenshots seem very interesting to me, but are you sure that they're actually for Windows Blue (Windows 8) update, and not for Windows 9? Because I've heard about Windows Blue and Windows 9 sharing the same build numbers at this point, with the latest Windows 9 build apparently being at Build 9622, which in my opinion creates a great deal of confusion, especially since even with Windows 9, we're still nowhere near a 7850-level build and probably won't be for many months yet.

From what I've heard and seen, though, as of Build 9622, Windows 9 has apparently lost the translucency in the taskbar, but it's also possible that Build 9622 was mistyped, since this Build 9420 was compiled earlier this year unlike Build 9622 (unless Build 9622 came from another lab). Also, even for "Windows Blue" (unless they were mislabeled Windows 9 builds), I've heard about 957x and 958x builds as far back as around December, but again, it's quite possible that they came from different build labs.

However, I'm not really sure now what exactly is going on, but I don't see anything unusual about them except possibly for the translucency still being present in the taskbar, but even at that, it's very hard to distinguish builds of the update to Windows 8 (Windows Blue) from the same builds of Windows 9 at this point, and it especially gets more confusing when people refer to Windows 9 as Windows Blue and vice versa (not referring to anyone in this topic by the way).

You are far too trusting. With your comment about different labs being behind the wildly contradictory build numbers, it's simply not possible. Since the Longhorn reset, you no longer get wildly different build numbers, because the various branches are kept more or less in sync.

[AlphaBeta]

That 1301xx is just a date code, It didn't necessarily need to be censored

Windows 8 added a hash code to the buildtag.

[WinPC]

Might be real. Does your friend usually have access to private Windows betas? Does he usually tell the truth?

Might be real, 9420 seems more like a more legit number than 9622, That 1301xx is just a date code, It didn't necessarily need to be censored

Looks like he's censored a bit more than 2 numbers...

build hash, like in Win8 builds.

However, I doubt these screenshots.

These screenshots seem very interesting to me, but are you sure that they're actually for Windows Blue (Windows 8) update, and not for Windows 9? Because I've heard about Windows Blue and Windows 9 sharing the same build numbers at this point, with the latest Windows 9 build apparently being at Build 9622, which in my opinion creates a great deal of confusion, especially since even with Windows 9, we're still nowhere near a 7850-level build and probably won't be for many months yet.

From what I've heard and seen, though, as of Build 9622, Windows 9 has apparently lost the translucency in the taskbar, but it's also possible that Build 9622 was mistyped, since this Build 9420 was compiled earlier this year unlike Build 9622 (unless Build 9622 came from another lab). Also, even for "Windows Blue" (unless they were mislabeled Windows 9 builds), I've heard about 957x and 958x builds as far back as around December, but again, it's quite possible that they came from different build labs.

However, I'm not really sure now what exactly is going on, but I don't see anything unusual about them except possibly for the translucency still being present in the taskbar, but even at that, it's very hard to distinguish builds of the update to Windows 8 (Windows Blue) from the same builds of Windows 9 at this point, and it especially gets more confusing when people refer to Windows 9 as Windows Blue and vice versa (not referring to anyone in this topic by the way).

You are far too trusting. With your comment about different labs being behind the wildly contradictory build numbers, it's simply not possible. Since the Longhorn reset, you no longer get wildly different build numbers, because the various branches are kept more or less in sync.

That still doesn't necessarily mean that Build 9622 wasn't a mistyping of, for example, Build 9262, or Build 9226.

Also, if I remember correctly, Build 7965 of Windows 8 was compiled in one build lab (definitely not winmain, I think it might have been FBL or something else but I'm not sure right now), when the rest of the winmain builds were already in the 80xx build range.

To everyone else, I believe everything based on merit, and not based on popular opinion, and not even so much based on the person making the claims. I'm almost certain that Microsoft is working on a future release of Windows at the moment, because this is exactly how they have done so in the relatively recent past with Windows 7 and Windows 8. But as I've said earlier, we're still nowhere near a 7850-level build, and probably won't be for many more months.

As a sidenote: Windows 7 Build 6519 was compiled in December 2007 and was released here in June 2008. Similarly, Windows 8 Build 7850 was compiled on September 22nd, 2010 and was released here on April 12th, 2011. Personally, I think that this should give us an idea as to when the first Milestone 1 builds of Windows 9 will be compiled, and when they will be released.

[Phenom II]

And what involvement does "your friend" have with MS ?

If none, I call Photoshopped or found on a Chinese forum or something else

[Binky Boy]

Friend sent me another screenshot,

[hounsell]

Also, if I remember correctly, Build 7965 of Windows 8 was compiled in one build lab (definitely not winmain, I think it might have been FBL or something else but I'm not sure right now), when the rest of the winmain builds were already in the 80xx build range.

...

As a sidenote: Windows 7 Build 6519 was compiled in December 2007 and was released here in June 2008. Similarly, Windows 8 Build 7850 was compiled on September 22nd, 2010 and was released here on April 12th, 2011. Personally, I think that this should give us an idea as to when the first Milestone 1 builds of Windows 9 will be compiled, and when they will be released.

I do not recall this 7965 build...

I would actually be surprised if a future OS didn't take longer to leak (and leak is a more appropriate term than release here, release implies some sort of structure or scheduling, or even intent). Things are drier all round since Win7 finished up. We were relatively lucky with Win8 builds, and I'm unconvinced we'll be so lucky this next time round.

[Rob Jansen]

I call it fake.

1) The text lines do not match up, the bottom one matches up perfectly, size and space, the top one however does not.


2) Screenshot above: Why only fade out the date of NTOSKRNL and not setup.exe?


Sadly, screenshots can be easily faked these day's, because those ''OMG I downl0ad3d Ph0t0s0up C$6 pirat3'' kids who want fame, can whip those up and claim it to be real.

[AlphaBeta]

1) The text lines do not match up, the bottom one matches up perfectly, size and space, the top one however does not.

Maybe the user cut the screenshot. If you look carefully you'll see the o letter on the first line isn't fully visible.

[Rob Jansen]

If you bothered to look before replying, you see that the first screenshot isn't ''cut'', otherwise the background shouldn't match.

[canouna]

Confirmed fake.

[WinPC]

Well, actually, thank you for pointing this out.

I actually was, to be honest, finding it rather odd that Windows Blue and Windows 9 builds are apparently being compiled side by side, that the latest Windows 9 build was Build 9622 from around late December, but that this Build 9420 was supposed to have been compiled on January 13th this year.

By the way, since you're here, is it possible that you could post some real information (and possibly even some screenshots) of Windows Blue and/or Windows 9? It would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

[canouna]

Well, actually, thank you for pointing this out.

I actually was, to be honest, finding it rather odd that Windows Blue and Windows 9 builds are apparently being compiled side by side, that the latest Windows 9 build was Build 9622 from around late December, but that this Build 9420 was supposed to have been compiled on January 13th this year.

By the way, since you're here, is it possible that you could post some real information (and possibly even some screenshots) of Windows Blue and/or Windows 9? It would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

No sorry.

[Binky Boy]

Confirmed fake.

I usually don't trust people saying this without any sources...

[canouna]

Confirmed fake.

I usually don't trust people saying this without any sources...

Not my problem, you can change of friend, my 2 cent.

[Binky Boy]

Confirmed fake.

I usually don't trust people saying this without any sources...

Not my problem, you can change of friend, my 2 cent.

I don't quite understand. What does changing of friends have to do with the sources officially saying the screenshots are faked?

[Derf]

Confirmed fake.

Confirmed real.*

*Not really, but see how easy it is to make a claim with the word "confirmed" in front of it? Anyone can do it. Doesn't make it true.

[john11]

Looks like its a fake photoshop, although really, who would be so careless as to misalign text... I suppose mistakes happen. Would be interesting if someone did have real screenshots though, and actually showed some additional features, rather than just an about box (even though there is some info there).

Confirmed fake.

I usually don't trust people saying this without any sources...

Pretty sure he referred to Rob Jansen's post a few posts above, not to an external source.

I don't quite understand. What does changing of friends have to do with the sources officially saying the screenshots are faked?

Who is your friend? Why are they lying to you about having a private alpha/beta of Windows Blue? If its only a prank who cares. Binky Boy most likely thought that the "friend" was not a friend really, since he's giving you misleading information etc.

PS. why did you think he would have a private copy of Windows anyway?

[canouna]

Nevermind, like Rob Jansen said, watermark don't fit.

[SotirisMichail]

Nevermind, like Rob Jansen said, watermark don't fit.

That's like saying that you reject that Windows Vista is real, just because the watermark was in a different place and font in comparison to XP's. What? Microsoft cannot change the style of the watermark? Do you think that they are some OCD psychos, sitting all day around just searching for a proper watermark? Frankly, I don't think so