Does anyone have Windows Whistler Build 2309?

[coltonspleen]

I know it may be unlikely, but does anyone happen to have an iso (or have stumbled across one) for Windows Whistler Build 2309? Look, I know, the compilation date's all messed up, & it's part of a range of builds that never existed in the 1st place.

[MacTaylor]

Are you sure? I never heard Whistler Build2309!

[coltonspleen]

This was a fake build of Whistler. It happens to have a page up on betawiki. Here's the link: http://betawiki.net/index.php?title=Win ... 9:prebeta2

[DiskingRound]

As you said, this build is not leaked (if it even exists at all which it likely doesn't), and all the screenshots online are fakes. The compile date is October 47, 2000 at 12:79 PM which is nonsense.

[coltonspleen]

Which if it WAS real, then it would actually be compiled on November 16, 2000 at 1:19 PM.
Here's how I figured this out:
Since October 47th-31st=an extra 16 days, I applied these to the next month.
Foe the time issue: Since 60 minutes=1 hour, 79 minutes=1:19. You apply this to 12:79 by converting the first 60 minutes to 1 hour, then applying that to the hour portion. Then keep the extra 19 minutes at the minute portion.
That's the way I would give the compilation date some actual sense.

[hounsell]

Which if it WAS real, then it would actually be compiled on November 16, 2000 at 1:19 PM.
Here's how I figured this out:
Since October 47th-31st=an extra 16 days, I applied these to the next month.
Foe the time issue: Since 60 minutes=1 hour, 79 minutes=1:19. You apply this to 12:79 by converting the first 60 minutes to 1 hour, then applying that to the hour portion. Then keep the extra 19 minutes at the minute portion.
That's the way I would give the compilation date some actual sense.

No, it doesn't make sense because the person who put together the fake screenshot was a complete tool who didn't know the first thing about what he was trying to fake. Going to such lengths to explain nonsense is just irrational.

Though there have been one or two times Microsoft have utterly screwed the build system to the extent that there are legit builds out there with impossible dates/times.

[classiconthebox]

I'm pretty sure Whistler 23xx wasn't compiled.

[haroldas.velioniskis]

In early 2000s there was stricter requirements in Microsoft of naming builds. They didn't skipped build numbers as the do today. So Whistler 2309 was compiled for testing in lab. But was never released to public or beta testers. All screenshots are fake so it's nearly impossible to find this build on unless someone from MS would leak it for us.

[hounsell]

They didn't skipped build numbers as the do today.

hahhahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahah.

Microsoft went from 2296 to 2410 (114 builds) in 45 days (33 week days). Previously they had been compiling at most one build per week day.

Is it your contention that for one eager month, Microsoft were compiling 2-3 builds every day including working weekends? or perhaps 3-4 builds every week day?

That would be particularly impressive, considering Paul Thurrott quoted Mark Lucovsky as saying that a full compile of Server 2003 took around 12 hours, and that this figure had remained pretty consistent over the years for a full NT build.

[haroldas.velioniskis]

They didn't skipped build numbers as the do today.

hahhahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahah.

Microsoft went from 2296 to 2410 (114 builds) in 45 days (33 week days). Previously they had been compiling at most one build per week day.

Is it your contention that for one eager month, Microsoft were compiling 2-3 builds every day including working weekends? or perhaps 3-4 builds every week day?

That would be particularly impressive, considering Paul Thurrott quoted Mark Lucovsky as saying that a full compile of Server 2003 took around 12 hours, and that this figure had remained pretty consistent over the years for a full NT build.

Microsoft used their own source versioning system, which makes a fresh build every night (tst,fre,chk).
Also the build number changed even ANY change submitted to the server.
And as far as I know from November 2000 untill March 2001 they really compiled 6 to 8 builds every day

[Roo_the_Vickty]

6-8 every the they couldnt
Just watch youtube documentary on whistler compilewithin ms
Devs themself said they let it compile and they go home till it finishes
next day

[haroldas.velioniskis]

6-8 every the they couldnt
Just watch youtube documentary on whistler compilewithin ms
Devs themself said they let it compile and they go home till it finishes
next day

The video is just short clip to promote upcomming version of XP. They compiled so much builds, because Microsoft was planning to release Windows XP to RTM in April 2001. So they worked very hard. But release date was delayed to October 2001

[DiskingRound]

There is evidence for a build 2400.1:
https://buildfeed.net/build/fa9809f9-1d ... 43e96069d/
Compiled October 22, 2000 and from Lab01_N. 2296.1 is from October 24th and is main.
I'm surprised nobody pointed this out.