Neptune Build 5000 doesn't exist?

Discuss Windows 2000, NT, XP and Windows Server 2000, 2003, SBS 2003.
Locked
Thlump
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:52 am
Location: United States

Neptune Build 5000 doesn't exist?

Post by Thlump »

Today, I checked AeroXP and I found that the list of all the Neptune builds was replaced by a new one, because it was proven that the old list is fake.

http://www.aeroxp.org/board/index.php?showtopic=11431 (contains both the new and old list)

Namronia

Post by Namronia »

well, neptune 5000 was never proven, just someone invented it in OSBA, the earliest proven one is 5022 from files in ME.

earlier's are not known.

A.Nonymous

Post by A.Nonymous »

i have neptune 5000 but im not sure its real, its logo is much closer to win 2k than to neptune 5111 and it has no activity centres

Thlump
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:52 am
Location: United States

Post by Thlump »

A.Nonymous wrote:i have neptune 5000 but im not sure its real, its logo is much closer to win 2k than to neptune 5111 and it has no activity centres
Pictures please, or it's fake.

motherboardlove
Donator
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:43 pm
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Post by motherboardlove »

A.Nonymous

Can you upload it - I've been searching for it for years!

Namronia

Post by Namronia »

motherboardlove wrote:A.Nonymous

Can you upload it - I've been searching for it for years!
Hes a ... and doesnt have anything, sorry but i dont want you to have wrong hopes.
Last edited by Namronia on Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

lucas93
Posts: 913
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:34 am

Post by lucas93 »

Namronia wrote:Hes a fake and doesnt have anything, sorry but i dont want you to have wrong hopes.
You never know. Maybe it's a build earlier than 5111.
Thlump wrote:Pictures please, or it's fake.
But I'll agree with you there.

Namronia

Post by Namronia »

lucas93 wrote:
Namronia wrote:Hes a fake and doesnt have anything, sorry but i dont want you to have wrong hopes.
You never know. Maybe it's a build earlier than 5111.
Thlump wrote:Pictures please, or it's fake.
But I'll agree with you there.
there are 2 proven builds earlier than 5111, but the account a.nonymous is a ... and he doesnt have them, id wonder if he even has 5111
Last edited by Namronia on Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Daniel
User avatar
Posts: 2607
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:11 pm
Location: Germany, Earth
Contact:

Post by Daniel »

Fake Files
14a. Do not accuse someone of having a fake file/build or faking something unless you have proof.
14b. Because of so many people arguing on the forum over fakes and the ongoing problems resulting from it, this rule is going to be heavily enforced. Any accusations without proof will result in a warning. Any further accusations without proof will result in a ban.
14c. If you suspect someone of faking files to annoy/con members, please contact an Admin or moderator about it so further action can be taken. Do not attempt to solve the situation yourself or you could end up in more trouble.
....

Dion

Post by Dion »

Namronia wrote:there are 2 proven builds earlier than 5111, but the account a.nonymous is a ... and he doesnt have them, id wonder if he even has 5111
What are the 2 builds earlier than 5111 ?
And please don't quote file versions as being proof, different file versions
exist in ALL windows 2000 builds, regardless of the build version of the
operating system they're in.

Namronia

Post by Namronia »

Dion wrote:
Namronia wrote:there are 2 proven builds earlier than 5111, but the account a.nonymous is a ... and he doesnt have them, id wonder if he even has 5111
What are the 2 builds earlier than 5111 ?
And please don't quote file versions as being proof, different file versions
exist in ALL windows 2000 builds, regardless of the build version of the
operating system they're in.
well, again file version are the only things i can say there, but if a file says "5.50.5022 - Microsoft Neptune Operating System" i see it was proof that it was from neptune 5022, dont you?

Anyways, is there any proof for 5000? i dont think so...

Dion

Post by Dion »

Namronia wrote:well, again file version are the only things i can say there, but if a file says "5.50.5022 - Microsoft Neptune Operating System" i see it was proof that it was from neptune 5022, dont you?

Anyways, is there any proof for 5000? i dont think so...
What does build 5000, and it's questionable existence have to do with the question
I asked you ?
My question was, what proof do you have of there being 2 other, earlier builds of
neptune 5111, other than the fact that some files were found in other betas, whose
binaries reflected those from the neptune file versioning scheme.

A.Nonymous

Post by A.Nonymous »

Image

Image

Image


nuff said

Daniel1981
Donator
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:09 am

Post by Daniel1981 »

Those prictures change the situation... Please, A.Nonymous, if you has this build and any other build of Windows 7, please upload it.

squidward_
User avatar
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by squidward_ »

If you have any rare Longhorn builds, again, please leak em!
Image

fzajac
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:45 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by fzajac »

squidward_ wrote:If you have any rare Longhorn builds, again, please leak em!
errrm... i'm sorry to say it but this propably won't you get anywhere...
IF A.Nonymous has something it's his decision if he's going to leak it or not & i don't think that pushing him will change the decision

@ A.Nonymous: could you tell the compilation date and hour of build 5000?

Thlump
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:52 am
Location: United States

Post by Thlump »

Hey A.Nonymous, thanks for clarifying us, and we're all sorry if any of us doubted you.

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12815
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Andy »

Thlump wrote:Hey A.Nonymous, thanks for clarifying us, and we're all sorry if any of us doubted you.
I'd take that back, turns out A.Nonymous is the banned Obrasilo in disguise. Nice try, but you don't fool us that easily.

Topic is now pointless. Locked.

Locked