[LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

New news and release discussion.
giantsteen
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:17 am
Location: Cologne, Germany

[LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by giantsteen »

I just noticed that Longhorn build 4084 was on the FTP!! I just downloaded it. Has anyone tried it yet? Is it as stable as Longhorn 4074? Does it have DWM and does it work well?
Image

tonynoname
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1206
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:31 am

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by tonynoname »

giantsteen wrote:I just noticed that Longhorn build 4084 was on the FTP!! I just downloaded it.
Was it leaked recently or a long time ago? I thought we had 4084 for a while.

Nightsteed
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Neptune

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by Nightsteed »

mrpijey added it to the FTP on sunday...

DeFacto

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by DeFacto »

The recently added one is the actual OS, the previously available one was just the PE...

ultrawindows
Donator
Posts: 1627
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:30 pm

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by ultrawindows »

It's not a very special build and it has a "format C: /u /fs:ntfs" problem, because VSSAPI.dll (Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Requestor/Writer Services API DLL) is missing.

XDude
Donator
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by XDude »

The build is so empty, just like 4083.

Andrew Tapferke
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1738
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by Andrew Tapferke »

A lot of people had it since long time. It was sure that i'd leak sometimes...

TheCollector1988
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 3543
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:11 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by TheCollector1988 »

still this build is worth it :)

giantsteen
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:17 am
Location: Cologne, Germany

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by giantsteen »

But is it stable, and does DWM run? A thin client would be nice :)
Image

Barabba
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 4:23 pm

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by Barabba »

anything after 4074 including 4074 is down the drain thing
Pat Bateman: I'm into murders and executions.
Les Grossman: Or you can grow a conscience in the next 5 minutes and see where that takes you.

MaSSaSLaYeR
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:15 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by MaSSaSLaYeR »

Maybe I'm a noob but what's so special about this Longhorn, Ain't it something old?
Image

Andrew Tapferke
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1738
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by Andrew Tapferke »

MaSSaSLaYeR wrote:Maybe I'm a noob but what's so special about this Longhorn, Ain't it something old?
Just for collection. {The community for beta collectors}

XDude
Donator
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by XDude »

This build is past 7 years old now. It boils down to the point that the collectors are interested in older windows projects like Chicago and Longhorn while technology geeks like to have the newest builds.

It is unfortunate that most people who says the like OS betas actually meant they would like to have the newest build of Windows 8. Maybe to show off to friends and to make themselves feel proud.

For the minority of the people here at BA who actually collects OS betas, they would like to test them and to search for goodies to unlock. For the longhorn project, most that could be found are already unlocked. Probably the only thing I would like to see are Lab06_N DCE effects.

This build, 4084 is quite similar to 4083. Although there is the default tree wallpaper and a simple shell, there is nothing else to find in this build. Just another build for the collectors. Probably anything after this build would look like 4088 and 4093.

Taylorover9000
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 608
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:48 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, North America, Earth, Universe
Contact:

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by Taylorover9000 »

XDude wrote:This build is past 7 years old now. It boils down to the point that the collectors are interested in older windows projects like Chicago and Longhorn while technology geeks like to have the newest builds.
I'm sorta like both; I like seeing the development of Windows 8, but I also do like early longhorn/vista builds (3863 - 4033). I would also like to see builds like 3551 or 3663 or 3670 (Mostly cause of the watermark (Windows XP *Version*) and how early they are). I would even like to see Windows Cougar/Chicago build 10 - 40. And what did beta versions of Windows 2.xx look like, and heck, what did beta versions of 3.0 look like?
6.1.7850 - September 22, 2010
6.2.7927 - Febuary 14, 2011
6.2.7955 - Febuary 28, 2011
6.2.7959 - March 7, 2011
6.2.7989 - April 21, 2011
6.2.8102 - August 30, 2011
Beta Escrow? 6.2.81xx - 12?/DD/2011
Beta 6.2.8xxx - MM/DD/2012?
RC 6.2.8xxx - MM/DD/2012
Final 6.2.8??? - MM/DD/201?

DeFacto

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by DeFacto »

@Taylorover9000 there's no proof of Cougar builds - infact, that was the codename for Windows 95's kernel (IIRC). There also isn't any proof of any 2.X/3.0 betas.

TheCollector1988
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 3543
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:11 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by TheCollector1988 »

there may be Windows 2.x and 3.0 betas, who knows.

Taylorover9000
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 608
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:48 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, North America, Earth, Universe
Contact:

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by Taylorover9000 »

TheCollector1988 wrote:there may be Windows 2.x and 3.0 betas, who knows.
There, likly are 3.0 betas, 2.x, IDK.
6.1.7850 - September 22, 2010
6.2.7927 - Febuary 14, 2011
6.2.7955 - Febuary 28, 2011
6.2.7959 - March 7, 2011
6.2.7989 - April 21, 2011
6.2.8102 - August 30, 2011
Beta Escrow? 6.2.81xx - 12?/DD/2011
Beta 6.2.8xxx - MM/DD/2012?
RC 6.2.8xxx - MM/DD/2012
Final 6.2.8??? - MM/DD/201?

The Distractor

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by The Distractor »

I guess win 2.x betas should exist :p
Also, I found something in the anti-trust docs saying that the win 3.0 beta NDA was very strict and that people who signed the NDA couldn't even say that a product called Windows 3.0 was in development.
And yes, I have found other references to the existance of Windows 3.0 betas in the antitrust docs.

WinPC

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by WinPC »

Offtopic I know, but since it was other people of whom went offtopic first before me, I'll state the following:

I know that there were Windows 3.0 betas, since I have not only confirmed the existence of several through many publications during my work on the original August 18th, 2011 release of the Official Microsoft OS Checklist for The Beta Group and AbandoNet (the successor, codenamed the "Christmas Holiday Release", of which has been in development since early September, is set for release on November 28th this year), but I have also found people online of whom beta tested them.

Sadly, I am NOT in contact with them, at least not at the moment, for personal reasons (I will not be disclosing such here, except that for at least two, it has to do with personal actions in these people's lives of which I do not approve of in any way, shape, or form, and since it might appear as if I somehow condone or even endorse and/or support these people's actions, and since it might seem as if to even invite them here would be to show sympathy, if not even support for such actions, I would rather not risk it, at least for the sake of my own reputation).

If anyone wants, I might be able to give out at least two of the people of whom I've found online, of whom beta tested the Windows 3.0 builds, provided that they don't give it out publically without my permission, and provided that they will also not try to guess (at least in the presence of other people, including myself) the reasons for which I would rather not have the above mentioned people disclosed here.

That being said, if I could name my sources without risking my online reputation, I would have gladly done so, but for the sake of my above mentioned reputation, all of my sources will remain private unless and until I find one of which will not cause trouble for me here.

If anyone wants to discuss my sources for the Windows 3.0 builds with me, I would prefer it if they kept it out of the forums, since I would rather not start a flame war regarding it, especially since this topic is specifically about Longhorn Build 4084, and not about Windows 3.x in any sense of the word.

But, all in all, not only do I know very well that the Windows 3.0 pre-release builds did indeed exist, but also, why would (and really, how could) Microsoft not only make an entire product release, but also a milestone one at that, without even compiling any pre-release builds at all?

Also to note is Wes Cherry, of whom even wrote Solitaire for the beta releases of Windows 3.0, while that product was still in beta testing, and also certain magazines (Infoworld might have been one of them, but I'll have to check back) of which also received the pre-release builds of Windows 3.0.

betascollector
Donator
Posts: 1070
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:06 am
Location: C:\WINDOWS\System32

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by betascollector »

WinPC wrote:Offtopic I know, but since it was other people of whom went offtopic first before me, I'll state the following:

I know that there were Windows 3.0 betas, since I have not only confirmed the existence of several through many publications during my work on the original August 18th, 2011 release of the Official Microsoft OS Checklist for The Beta Group and AbandoNet (the successor, codenamed the "Christmas Holiday Release", of which has been in development since early September, is set for release on November 28th this year), but I have also found people online of whom beta tested them.

Sadly, I am NOT in contact with them, at least not at the moment, for personal reasons (I will not be disclosing such here, except that for at least two, it has to do with personal actions in these people's lives of which I do not approve of in any way, shape, or form, and since it might appear as if I somehow condone or even endorse and/or support these people's actions, and since it might seem as if to even invite them here would be to show sympathy, if not even support for such actions, I would rather not risk it, at least for the sake of my own reputation).

If anyone wants, I might be able to give out at least two of the people of whom I've found online, of whom beta tested the Windows 3.0 builds, provided that they don't give it out publically without my permission, and provided that they will also not try to guess (at least in the presence of other people, including myself) the reasons for which I would rather not have the above mentioned people disclosed here.

That being said, if I could name my sources without risking my online reputation, I would have gladly done so, but for the sake of my above mentioned reputation, all of my sources will remain private unless and until I find one of which will not cause trouble for me here.

If anyone wants to discuss my sources for the Windows 3.0 builds with me, I would prefer it if they kept it out of the forums, since I would rather not start a flame war regarding it, especially since this topic is specifically about Longhorn Build 4084, and not about Windows 3.x in any sense of the word.

But, all in all, not only do I know very well that the Windows 3.0 pre-release builds did indeed exist, but also, why would (and really, how could) Microsoft not only make an entire product release, but also a milestone one at that, without even compiling any pre-release builds at all?

Also to note is Wes Cherry, of whom even wrote Solitaire for the beta releases of Windows 3.0, while that product was still in beta testing, and also certain magazines (Infoworld might have been one of them, but I'll have to check back) of which also received the pre-release builds of Windows 3.0.
Did Windows 3.0 based on Windows 2.03? If so, can you send me the screenshots of it?

DeFacto

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by DeFacto »

It would sound more logical if it was based on 2.11, since it was released after 2.03. But anyway, I suggest we get back on-topic... ;)

Taylorover9000
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 608
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:48 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, North America, Earth, Universe
Contact:

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by Taylorover9000 »

betascollector wrote: *Snip*
Did Windows 3.0 based on Windows 2.03? If so, can you send me the screenshots of it?
Offtopic Comment
Yes, that would be nice.
Last edited by Taylorover9000 on Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
6.1.7850 - September 22, 2010
6.2.7927 - Febuary 14, 2011
6.2.7955 - Febuary 28, 2011
6.2.7959 - March 7, 2011
6.2.7989 - April 21, 2011
6.2.8102 - August 30, 2011
Beta Escrow? 6.2.81xx - 12?/DD/2011
Beta 6.2.8xxx - MM/DD/2012?
RC 6.2.8xxx - MM/DD/2012
Final 6.2.8??? - MM/DD/201?

vizerous
Donator
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:27 am

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by vizerous »

Offtopic Comment
Windows 3.0 developing started by mid of '88 or even earlier (according "Unauthorized Windows 95" by Andrew Schulman), so it couldn't be based on 2.11. Also, its binary code has references to early builds. And it was in /286 and /386 builds on the early stages, like 2.xx was.

Taylorover9000
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 608
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:48 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, North America, Earth, Universe
Contact:

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by Taylorover9000 »

vizerous wrote:
Offtopic Comment
Windows 3.0 developing started by mid of '88 or even earlier (according "Unauthorized Windows 95" by Andrew Schulman), so it couldn't be based on 2.11. Also, its binary code has references to early builds. And it was in /286 and /386 builds on the early stages, like 2.xx was.
Offtopic Comment
Well, one way or another, I think we either need screenshots, and/or a LEAK! :) :) :) IDC (I don't care) if its early ('87 or '88), or late ('90), or mid ('88 or '89). I'd give him/you "points" for this. The more betas on :beta: archive, the better.
Edit: I made a *fake* concept image. How's this compare to the REAL betas?
Edit 2: I made a second one, EARLIER.
Image

Image
6.1.7850 - September 22, 2010
6.2.7927 - Febuary 14, 2011
6.2.7955 - Febuary 28, 2011
6.2.7959 - March 7, 2011
6.2.7989 - April 21, 2011
6.2.8102 - August 30, 2011
Beta Escrow? 6.2.81xx - 12?/DD/2011
Beta 6.2.8xxx - MM/DD/2012?
RC 6.2.8xxx - MM/DD/2012
Final 6.2.8??? - MM/DD/201?

betascollector
Donator
Posts: 1070
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:06 am
Location: C:\WINDOWS\System32

Re: [LEAK] Windows Longhorn 4084

Post by betascollector »

Taylorover9000 wrote:
vizerous wrote:
Offtopic Comment
Windows 3.0 developing started by mid of '88 or even earlier (according "Unauthorized Windows 95" by Andrew Schulman), so it couldn't be based on 2.11. Also, its binary code has references to early builds. And it was in /286 and /386 builds on the early stages, like 2.xx was.
Offtopic Comment
Well, one way or another, I think we either need screenshots, and/or a LEAK! :) :) :) IDC (I don't care) if its early ('87 or '88), or late ('90), or mid ('88 or '89). I'd give him/you "points" for this. The more betas on :beta: archive, the better.
Edit: I made a *fake* concept image. How's this compare to the REAL betas?
Edit 2: I made a second one, EARLIER.
Image

Image
Awesome, but this is not the fake screenshot contest.
Let's get on topic right now.

Post Reply