Build 10000

[alcid34]

I wonder why the final version of Windows 10 isn't Build 10000? Instead it's Build 10240. Why?

[wasabilee]

its like asking why 8 wasnt 8000 or 7 7000 or xp 5100

[PingTest]

Well 10240 / 1024 is 10

So I assume it's something to do with that lol

[ovctvct]

It needs to be divisible with 16....

[Courage]

It needs to be divisible with 16....

10000/16 = 625

Windows 10 simply was not complete by build 10000. Even if they did not skip any build, the RTM build would have been above 10000. (I did some calculations and the RTM range was 1002x-4x.)

[AlphaBeta]

It's indirectly caused by Sinofsky wanting the Windows 8 RTM to be build 8888. Had build 8888 not been compiled, the Windows 8 RTM would most probably be build number 8800, which would be reflected by the subsequent build numbers being shifted.

[Windows OS]

It's indirectly caused by Sinofsky wanting the Windows 8 RTM to be build 8888. Had build 8888 not been compiled, the Windows 8 RTM would most probably be build number 8800, which would be reflected by the subsequent build numbers being shifted.

Uhh. Windows 8 RTM'd at build 9200.

[lopper]

It's indirectly caused by Sinofsky wanting the Windows 8 RTM to be build 8888. Had build 8888 not been compiled, the Windows 8 RTM would most probably be build number 8800, which would be reflected by the subsequent build numbers being shifted.

Uhh. Windows 8 RTM'd at build 9200.

A build 8888 was leaked. It was compiled one day before RTM, so it is not improbable that 8888 was considered a possible build number for RTM.

[hounsell]

They compiled 8888 for RTM, then someone reminded them of the /16 requirement, which 8888 doesn't fit, so they bumped it again to 9200.

What AlphaBeta is saying, is if they'd got it straight first time, 8 RTM would have probably been 8800 instead, and correspondingly, they'd have finished up Win10 before 10k, and would have been able to use that as RTM instead.

[Windows OS]

Thanks for the clarification. I did know about 8888, but I did not know about Sinofsky wanting that to be the build number and the bump to 9200 or the /16 requirement. Hmm. I wonder what would 8.1's RTM build would be if 8 RTM'd on 8800?

[Overdoze]

9200 probably?

[wasabilee]

I don't even get it whats with that division of 16
does PC care ?

[hounsell]

It's because someone at Microsoft decided to use the lower four bits of the build number of release builds to check the service pack version - 6000 would therefore be SP0, 6001 would be SP1, etc, up to theoretically 15 service packs (0xF).

They don't do service packs these days, but there's still tools out there that work out the service pack that way, and they want to keep compatibility, so the lower 4 bits of RTM must always be 0 - which means the number will be divisible by 16.

[Windows OS]

It's because someone at Microsoft decided to use the lower four bits of the build number of release builds to check the service pack version - 6000 would therefore be SP0, 6001 would be SP1, etc, up to theoretically 15 service packs (0xF).

They don't do service packs these days, but there's still tools out there that work out the service pack that way, and they want to keep compatibility, so the lower 4 bits of RTM must always be 0 - which means the number will be divisible by 16.

Yeah. They started doing that for Vista, and that continued to Windows 7 (7600 to 7601). If service packs continued to 8+, most likely they would have also continued that.