Build Scheme?

Discussion of beta and abandonware topics not fit for the other forums goes here.
Post Reply
Overdoze
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1711
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Build Scheme?

Post by Overdoze »

Based on what we've seen so far, the build numbers have been largely successive for quite some time now, though they do tend to skip ahead sometimes, particularly when a new version starts and during the release candidate stage. Needless to say, Windows NT, Windows 9x and Windows 3.x each had their separate schemes. Windows 1.0 and 2.x don't appear to have build numbers as we know them today, instead using other designations to distinguish individual builds.

They were reset only for Windows 3.1 after 3.0, for Windows 95 which started a new line, and during the Longhorn development reset. At least as far as I know.
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks

AlphaBeta
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2144
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:33 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: Build Scheme?

Post by AlphaBeta »

victornguyen wrote:I'm very interested in the build numbering scheme for windows. Does Microsoft just treat each successive build of each successive os as just one more build number in one long line, or do they ever start the build numbering over for a given os?
To nitpick a little bit, it's not one long line - I think a tree would be a better description for this.

Here is a factually wrong and oversimplified visualization of the build number progression between Windows 2000 RC and Windows Vista RTM to give an example.
Image
(yes, this is literally the worst example one can think of.)
AlphaBeta, stop brainwashing me immediately!

Image

Post Reply