BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 27d, 23h, 9m | CPU: 46% | MEM: 6141MB of 10719MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: What is win98 build 4.xx.2222?        Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:58 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:25 pm

Posts
321

Location
Eggmanland/Toronto

Favourite OS
Longhorn 4015.lab06
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!


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:59 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:56 pm

Posts
177

Location
Serbia

Favourite OS
Windows Lupus Project
Windows 98SE?

_________________
May our software be open-source, and our women closed-source.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:00 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
This is just the release 98SE :wink:

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:31 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm

Posts
5271

Location
The Collection Book

Favourite OS
Windows & Phone
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.

_________________
Image
http://www.thecollectionbook.info
Subscribe to our Image for updates and like us on Image.

Reading Mode only, PM's possible.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:42 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
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 :)

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:21 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Posts
1513
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)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:17 pm 
Reply with quote
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
1905

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
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. :p

_________________
Join #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

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


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:01 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:56 pm

Posts
177

Location
Serbia

Favourite OS
Windows Lupus Project
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.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:50 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:57 am

Posts
400
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?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:39 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri May 18, 2007 9:39 am

Posts
953

Location
My house
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


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:43 pm 
Reply with quote
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.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:10 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri May 18, 2007 9:39 am

Posts
953

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

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:20 am 
Reply with quote
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:11 pm

Posts
2607

Location
Germany, Earth

Favourite OS
Windows 10
When they use the xxxx.yyyyy (6001.16386) scheme, they would have a lot of numbers...

_________________
MS vNext: Windows 10 ESD Database - Windows 10 Build Labs - Windows 10 Update Archive - Office 2016 Version Tracker - Office Downloader


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:54 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Posts
1513
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.


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS