What is win98 build 4.xx.2222?

Discuss Windows 95, 98 and ME.
Post Reply
Dr Eggman
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: Eggmanland/Toronto
Contact:

What is win98 build 4.xx.2222?

Post by Dr Eggman »

At our school we have a win98 computer (It's very slow, very old) and it says
4.xx.2222 when i went into command and did 'ver'. What is this?
I am The Eggman! -The Doctor
Like Pictures? Bored? Check out some Photography and "Like" it! Check it out here!

marxo
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:56 pm
Location: Serbia
Contact:

Post by marxo »

Windows 98SE?
May our software be open-source, and our women closed-source.

hounsell

Post by hounsell »

This is just the release 98SE

Rob Jansen
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 5271
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: The Collection Book
Contact:

Post by Rob Jansen »

Yep, its the official Windows 98 Second Edition.
First edition was build 1998 (funny).

And Windows seems to become ME at the x000 numbers.

Such as:
Windows ME --> 3000
Windows Vista --> 6000

All others with no x000 buildnumbers are fine.
Maybe a new unlucky number 13.

hounsell

Post by hounsell »

DjRob wrote:Yep, its the official Windows 98 Second Edition.
First edition was build 1998 (funny).

And Windows seems to become ME at the x000 numbers.

Such as:
Windows ME --> 3000
Windows Vista --> 6000

All others with no x000 buildnumbers are fine.
Maybe a new unlucky number 13.
Maybe this is why Vista SP1 has a different build number
It is much better

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

Post by XDude »

win 95 - 4.00.950 (its 95 with an extra zero)
win 95b - 4.00.1068
win 95c - 4.00.1111 (all ones)
win 98 - 4.10.1998 (year 1998)
win 98SE - 4.10.2222 (all twos for SE?)
win me - 3000 (its a new millenium)

win nt 4.0 - 1381 (a very random number)
win 2k - 2195 (another random number, build 2000 would be better but they're pass that build already)
win xp - 2600 (Just build the build up)
win 2k3 - 3790 (umm???)
win vista - 6000 (version 6)
win 2k8 - 6001 (just a build up)

Battler
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2035
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am
Location: Slovenia, Central Europe.
Contact:

Post by Battler »

What in this world is Windows 95 Build 1068? Windows 95 B is Build 1111, and 95 C is Build 1214-1216. So is Build 1068 a Beta of Windows 95 B? A Build of Nashville? Also, Windows 3.1 is Build 103, which is essentially an anagram of 310, which means 3.10, and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 is Build 412, which is 311 + 101, so it expresses 3.11 in away.
Join [url=irc://irc.ringoflightning.net/softhistory/]#softhistory @ RoL IRC[/url], a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: [url=irc://irc.ringoflightning.net/aniboshi/]#doki-doki @ RoL IRC[/url], Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.

marxo
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:56 pm
Location: Serbia
Contact:

Post by marxo »

These guys from Microsoft really don't know how to spend time...

So that is what they are doing for six years: Making up build number anagrams...
May our software be open-source, and our women closed-source.

ddrmaxromance
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:57 am

Post by ddrmaxromance »

XDude wrote:win 95 - 4.00.950 (its 95 with an extra zero)
win 95b - 4.00.1068
win 95c - 4.00.1111 (all ones)
win 98 - 4.10.1998 (year 1998)
win 98SE - 4.10.2222 (all twos for SE?)
win me - 3000 (its a new millenium)

win nt 4.0 - 1381 (a very random number)
win 2k - 2195 (another random number, build 2000 would be better but they're pass that build already)
win xp - 2600 (Just build the build up)
win 2k3 - 3790 (umm???)
win vista - 6000 (version 6)
win 2k8 - 6001 (just a build up)
It probably should be noted that NT versions weren't focused on a standard number (like 2000 or 4000) because it was the business oriented product. This is why 9x series had noticeable build numbers, but then Vista continued this process as it is the home product for Windows. XP was 2600 probably because at first they had that idea for Whistler to be the Home product but then things got all messed up around that era.

So the next version of Windows for the home should be 7000 or 7777 like Lucky number 7 perhaps?

mdogg
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 9:39 am
Location: My house

Post by mdogg »

troyoda1990 wrote:So the next version of Windows for the home should be 7000 or 7777 like Lucky number 7 perhaps?
But considering how many betas it takes for Microsoft to get their operating systems right, we might get up to 9000 or more...
Image

Unknown

Post by Unknown »

mdogg wrote:
troyoda1990 wrote:So the next version of Windows for the home should be 7000 or 7777 like Lucky number 7 perhaps?
But considering how many betas it takes for Microsoft to get their operating systems right, we might get up to 9000 or more...
If it's built on the vista codebase then it may not vary that much.
As Win2000 is build 2195, XP was built from Win2000 & only went to build 2600, not much of
a jump in numbers.

mdogg
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 9:39 am
Location: My house

Post by mdogg »

But it might not be based on the Vista codebase like Vista wasn't build on the XP codebase.
Image

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

Post by Daniel »

When they use the xxxx.yyyyy (6001.16386) scheme, they would have a lot of numbers...

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

Post by XDude »

only 36xx to ~3730,
4000 to 4095,
5000 to 5112,
5200 to 5384,
5400 (beta 2 test builds),
5420 to 5499,
for 55xx RC1 branch, only a build from every 16 number jump was compiled.
5600 was the only 56xx build compiled (RC1)
5700 to 5760
5808, 5824, 5840, 5920 (maybe 5904, we don't know, but if the follow the pattern of compiling only the 16th build, the 5904 should be compiled)
of course 6000 and 6001
In total, there were about 650 builds compiled with different build numbers, but ms used up nearly 2400 build numbers by jumping.
If no jumps were made, maybe Vista rtm build number is 4500.

Post Reply