About WinVista Builds

Discuss Windows Vista, 7, 8.x, 10 and Windows Server 2008, 2008R2, 2012, 2016, 2019, Home Server, SBS 2008, SBS 2011.
Post Reply
Danielxv
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Brazil
Contact:

About WinVista Builds

Post by Danielxv »

A.A.BBBBB.CCCCC

A = Kernel Build
B = OS Build
C = SP Build

Example: 5.1.2600.2180


After seeing some versions of Windows Vista, I was with the following question.

WinXP With SP 2 is 5.1.2600.2180 and WinXP With SP 3 is 5.1.2600.5512
WinVista is 6.0.6000.16386 and WinVista With SP 1 is 6.0.6001.18000

Why in SP 1 of Vista, the OS build was modified?

Ty
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

grabberslasher
FTP Access
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:14 pm

Post by grabberslasher »

Integration of the Server08 code I presume?

Danielxv
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Post by Danielxv »

Windows Server 2008 use the same kernel, change the Build OS version is normal, but has also changed the Windows Vista SP 1 Build OS.
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Raiker
FTP Access
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:18 pm
Contact:

Post by Raiker »

Because the numeration is quite different for Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows Vista SP1. Let's me explain in details as probably somebody may not know or remember the full story.

Originally there were system version (e.g. 6.0), build (e.g. 5365) and compilation, that showed how many times this build was recompiled (e.g. "8" in 5365.8 ).

With late Windows Vista builds Microsoft changed it, replaced typical compilation numbers (0,1,2,3 etc) with new numeration, starting with 16384 (where 16384 = 0, 16385 = 1, 16386 = 2 etc). Vista RTM was released as 16386, which means that it was third compilation of build 6000.

Then became other changes. Microsoft declained to make the numeration of Vista SP1 in the same way it was realised in Windows XP. They reserved builds 6001 - 6014 for Windows Vista Service Packs (and) Windows Server 2008. So 6001 became the build of SP1, but there were no longer builds - since 6001 only compilation number changed in new builds (as well as in XP). That's why then appeared new system of Service Pack versions (6001.16549 was v.165, because"16549 (compilation number) - 16384 (which was the first compilation of every build, including 6001) = 165". It demonstrated the actual state of affairs.

With Windows 7 they returned to the old style.

So that's why they changed the build number - because it actually was no longer build number, but indication of SP1.

What they've done it for? I think it's simply more useful, when build tag shows what Service Pack is installed and emphasizes Windows Vista / Windows Server 2008 kernel synchronization.
Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi

Danielxv
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Post by Danielxv »

Let me see if I understand.

WinXP SP1/2/3:
A.A.BBBB.CCCC

A = Kernel Version
B = OS Build
C = SP Build

Example: 5.1.2600.2180

WinVista:
A.ABBBB.CCCCC

A = Kernel Version
B = OS Build
C = OS Build

Example: 6.0.6000.16386

WinVista SP 1:
A.ABBBB.CCCCC

A = Kernel Version
B = SP Build
C = SP Build/Version

Example: 6.0.6001.18000

Then the Vista SP 1 is 6001.18000?


You mentioned that last sequence is also the version of SP (6001.16549 was v.165) but in the case of Windows Server 2008, so that different

6.0.6001.16648, Service Pack 1 v.264
6.0.6001.16659, Service Pack 1 v.275
6.0.6001.17051, Service Pack 1 v.667
6.0.6001.17119, Service Pack 1 v.735
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

sevan
FTP Access
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:48 am
Location: York, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by sevan »

You have that right.

Raiker
FTP Access
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:18 pm
Contact:

Post by Raiker »

Danielxv, yes, I think you're right.

But do not forget, that 18000 in 6001.18000 is almost artificial.
Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi

Post Reply