Title renames

Download requests and offers should be made in this forum.
Do not request a download if you have under 10 posts. You will be ignored.
Forum rules
Please read the following rules before posting a download request in this area:

1. Don't post a request if you have under 10 posts as stated in the rules. If you do anyway, it will be deleted without further notice.
2. Requests for anything against our rules will not be entertained and you will be warned.
3. Check that we don't already have the file on our FTP servers by using the database linked in the navigation.
Post Reply
mrpijey
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 8183
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

Title renames

Post by mrpijey »

From now on I will be renaming any badly named titles (frankly, a lot of you are awful at making proper titles, read the rules and guidelines people!) so it will be clearer at what's being offered or requested. This however is not an excuse for you to make lazy titles, if I notice that certain members are making too many bad titles I will simply delete the topics. So if you want your request or offer to stay then be sure to label them properly.

And remember people, before requesting releases be sure to check the FTP first, a lot of requests are done even with the files existing on the FTP.

Edit: I will not be locking down requests and offers since I realized that there may be situations where someone might have a question, or want to re-request it (outdated link etc) without opening up a new topic.
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Channels: Discord :: Twitter

Ahmed Jebara
Donator
Posts: 1559
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:34 pm

Re: Title renames and lockdowns

Post by Ahmed Jebara »

It's really hard work :( I don't know why people doesn't think about proper topic title before creating it.
%1

FoobyZeeky
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1798
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Title renames

Post by FoobyZeeky »

Not that it makes much difference to me if titles are changed or not. I read threads anyway.
sup

mrpijey
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 8183
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Title renames

Post by mrpijey »

It does for a lot of people since it's easier to read what's being offered or requested.
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Channels: Discord :: Twitter

DeFacto

Re: Title renames

Post by DeFacto »

mrpijey wrote:It does for a lot of people since it's easier to read what's being offered or requested.
Exactly. If I'm looking for something specific, it's easier to find it because I don't have to check every topic named "Windows Me" for example, but only the ones saying [OFFER].

CaptainPeanut
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1381
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:25 pm

Re: Title renames

Post by CaptainPeanut »

mrpijey, thank you. That will make checking easy.

Windows 8 Beta Fan
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:33 pm
Location: C:/Windows/System32/twinUI.dll
Contact:

Re: Title renames

Post by Windows 8 Beta Fan »

finally someones editing names there are some horrible names
Image

Image

mrpijey
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 8183
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Title renames

Post by mrpijey »

I have re-named a large portion of the \(Abandonware) Operating Systems\PC section. All english releases have been given an [English] tag (and if there are separate US and UK releases then these are given [English-UK] and [English-US]) and I have also moved around the OEM tags so all releases are sorted by language first.

The tag order the files are sorted in (filename is an example):

Code: Select all

Microsoft MS-DOS 2.11 (2.11.00) (1984-11-09) [English] (Update) [Tandy OEM] (5¼) [Tandy 1000].rar
Title > (Internal version) > (Date) > [Language] > (Update) > [OEM (OEM version)] > (Media format/size) > [Target machine or platform] > additional info

Any of these may be optional, if the info doesn't exist the tag will be omitted.
  • (Update) may be any variant, such as (Update), (Step-Up), (Upgrade), (Demo) etc that indicating a different version from the full retail.
  • [OEM] may be any of the following: [OEM], [OEM (OEM version)], [MSDN], [Select], [TechNet] or any variant of these indicating the manufacturer or release source.
  • (Media format/size) may or may not include media size. (3½) or (3½-1440kb) if needed.
  • additional info may consist of [Incomplete], (alt) or anything to indicate a release with a special status.
I will try to rename the files in the other sections in the same fashion, but I will make exceptions when needed to make it easier browsing and finding the files.
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Channels: Discord :: Twitter

Archenemy
User avatar
Permanently Banned
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:05 pm
Location: C:\Users\Archenemy

Re: Title renames

Post by Archenemy »

mrpijey wrote:I have re-named a large portion of the \(Abandonware) Operating Systems\PC section. All english releases have been given an [English] tag (and if there are separate US and UK releases then these are given [English-UK] and [English-US]) and I have also moved around the OEM tags so all releases are sorted by language first.

The tag order the files are sorted in (filename is an example):

Code: Select all

Microsoft MS-DOS 2.11 (2.11.00) (1984-11-09) [English] (Update) [Tandy OEM] (5¼) [Tandy 1000].rar
Title > (Internal version) > (Date) > [Language] > (Update) > [OEM (OEM version)] > (Media format/size) > [Target machine or platform] > additional info

Any of these may be optional, if the info doesn't exist the tag will be omitted.
  • (Update) may be any variant, such as (Update), (Step-Up), (Upgrade), (Demo) etc that indicating a different version from the full retail.
  • [OEM] may be any of the following: [OEM], [OEM (OEM version)], [MSDN], [Select], [TechNet] or any variant of these indicating the manufacturer or release source.
  • (Media format/size) may or may not include media size. (3½) or (3½-1440kb) if needed.
  • additional info may consist of [Incomplete], (alt) or anything to indicate a release with a special status.
I will try to rename the files in the other sections in the same fashion, but I will make exceptions when needed to make it easier browsing and finding the files.
May you please rename windows server 2003 .net server build 3790.1232 to a windows longhorn related title because it can be a bit confusing when someone tries to look for windows longhorn 3790 not windows server 2003 build 3790 or you can ask the uploader to rename the title.
@Archenemy betaarchive member

Last edited by Archenemy on Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:00 am, edited 6634564737338 times in total.

mrpijey
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 8183
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Title renames

Post by mrpijey »

But then I will have to do that with all the builds then, i.e:

Code: Select all

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1069) (x64 Professional beta chk)
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1069) (x64 Professional beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1232) (Professional beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1289) (x64 Ent. Server beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1421) (x64 Ent. Server beta)
to

Code: Select all

Microsoft Windows Vista (''Longhorn'' 5.2.3790.1069) (x64 beta chk)
Microsoft Windows Vista (''Longhorn'' 5.2.3790.1069) (x64 beta)
Microsoft Windows Vista (''Longhorn'' 5.2.3790.1232) (beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (''Longhorn Server'' 5.2.3790.1289) (x64 Ent. Server beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (''Longhorn Server'' 5.2.3790.1421) (x64 Ent. Server beta)
Right?
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Channels: Discord :: Twitter

AlphaBeta
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2137
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:33 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: Title renames

Post by AlphaBeta »

I'd keep it the current label. Just maybe add a label that the build is related to the Longhorn project.
AlphaBeta, stop brainwashing me immediately!

Image

Archenemy
User avatar
Permanently Banned
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:05 pm
Location: C:\Users\Archenemy

Re: Title renames

Post by Archenemy »

mrpijey wrote:But then I will have to do that with all the builds then, i.e:

Code: Select all

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1069) (x64 Professional beta chk)
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1069) (x64 Professional beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1232) (Professional beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1289) (x64 Ent. Server beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1421) (x64 Ent. Server beta)
to

Code: Select all

Microsoft Windows Vista (''Longhorn'' 5.2.3790.1069) (x64 beta chk)
Microsoft Windows Vista (''Longhorn'' 5.2.3790.1069) (x64 beta)
Microsoft Windows Vista (''Longhorn'' 5.2.3790.1232) (beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (''Longhorn Server'' 5.2.3790.1289) (x64 Ent. Server beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (''Longhorn Server'' 5.2.3790.1421) (x64 Ent. Server beta)
Right?
Offtopic Comment
Is Server 2003 3790.1069 windows longhorn 3790 x64 edition.
@Archenemy betaarchive member

Last edited by Archenemy on Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:00 am, edited 6634564737338 times in total.

DiskingRound
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1515
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:26 pm
Location: Inside the space between . and I

Re: Title renames

Post by DiskingRound »

Archenemy wrote:
mrpijey wrote:But then I will have to do that with all the builds then, i.e:

Code: Select all

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1069) (x64 Professional beta chk)
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1069) (x64 Professional beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1232) (Professional beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1289) (x64 Ent. Server beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (''.NET Server'' 5.2.3790.1421) (x64 Ent. Server beta)
to

Code: Select all

Microsoft Windows Vista (''Longhorn'' 5.2.3790.1069) (x64 beta chk)
Microsoft Windows Vista (''Longhorn'' 5.2.3790.1069) (x64 beta)
Microsoft Windows Vista (''Longhorn'' 5.2.3790.1232) (beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (''Longhorn Server'' 5.2.3790.1289) (x64 Ent. Server beta)
Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (''Longhorn Server'' 5.2.3790.1421) (x64 Ent. Server beta)
Right?
Offtopic Comment
Is Server 2003 3790.1069 windows longhorn 3790 x64 edition.
It's obviously not. 3790.1069 was compiled on September 5, 2003, 3790.1232 was compiled on August 19, 2004 after the Longhorn reset. 4093 was compiled on the same day. Also, the license agreement of 3790.1232 says Longhorn, 3790.1069's license agreement says Windows Server 2003. It is AMD64 however.
Last edited by DiskingRound on Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Archenemy
User avatar
Permanently Banned
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:05 pm
Location: C:\Users\Archenemy

Re: Title renames

Post by Archenemy »

DiskingRound wrote: It's obviously not. 3790.1069 was compiled on September 5, 2003, 3790.1232 was compiled on August 19, 2004 after the Longhorn reset. 4093 was compiled on the same day. Also, the license agreement of 3790.1232 says Longhorn, 3790.1069's license agreement says Windows Server 2003. Neither is it x64, it's only leaked in x86.
It is a full server 2003 but yes it was x64 because if you look at the winver banner in windows server 2003 3790.1069 it says "Windows .NET Server 2003" with "amd 64" painted in to the banner.
Last edited by Archenemy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
@Archenemy betaarchive member

Last edited by Archenemy on Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:00 am, edited 6634564737338 times in total.

DiskingRound
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1515
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:26 pm
Location: Inside the space between . and I

Re: Title renames

Post by DiskingRound »

Archenemy wrote:
DiskingRound wrote: It's obviously not. 3790.1069 was compiled on September 5, 2003, 3790.1232 was compiled on August 19, 2004 after the Longhorn reset. 4093 was compiled on the same day. Also, the license agreement of 3790.1232 says Longhorn, 3790.1069's license agreement says Windows Server 2003. Neither is it x64, it's only leaked in x86.
It is a full server 2003 but yes it was x64 because if you look at the winver banner in windows server 2003 3790.1069 it says "Windows .NET Server 2003" with "amd 64" painted in to the banner.
I just edited my post to fix that error.

Post Reply