Are some of these claims real?

[linuxlove]

Got some guy hopping through proxy servers on my IRC server telling me this stuff:

<linuxlove> now what's so special about windows 7 post-rtm builds?
<mib_cig8an> There's hardly anything special about post-RTM builds...except for the fact that if there are lots of them, they could potentially indicate continued development of Microsoft Windows 7, which could potentially lead to a Microsoft Windows 7 Second Edition.
<mib_cig8an> If that does happen, then Windows 7 SE would have the same kernel version number -- 6.1

<mib_cig8an> Shortly before Microsoft RTM'ed Windows XP, they announced that they were starting the development process of Microsoft Codename Blackcomb, which they assigned the version number 6.0. Microsoft later started the development of an interim release -- Longhorn, which caused the version number of Blackcomb to be bumped to 6.1. It would be logical at this point
<mib_cig8an> message continued
<mib_cig8an> to conclude that there are some preliminary builds of Blackcomb almost identical to Windows XP with version numbers in the 6.00.24xx and/or 25xx range as well as the 6.1 builds in the 24xx to 37xx range. Builds in the range listed in that thread that were compiled before 2006 when Microsoft changed the codename to Vienna identify themselves as Microsoft
<mib_cig8an> continued
<mib_cig8an> Codename Blackcomb if they exist.

<Random_User> As you may already know, around the time that Microsoft was developing Neptune (5.5) and Odyssey (6.0), they were also developing Vienna (6.5), and 3 versions with version numbers 7.0, 7.5, and 8.0, 2 of them being Pluto and Jupiter and the other one which I forget.
<Random_User> As a matter of fact, there is a connection between the 1999/2000 Vienna builds and the Vienna builds that were compiled after Microsoft changed the codename of Windows 7 from Blackcomb to Vienna.

<Random_User> As for Odyssey, there were some builds compiled but none of them were ever leaked. And I have actually seen the installation media in person. As for winver.exe and System Properties reporting that the version number of Neptune is 5.0, it says that in all builds of Neptune, Odyssey, Pluto, Jupiter and another codename which I don't remember. They also identify
<Random_User> continued
<Random_User> themselves as Windows 2000. However, the system files properties in all of these versions state the actual version number.

So, sorry about the wall of text, but I'm just wondering if the claims this guy is making are real?
EDIT: Yes, I know "Odyssey" and "Neptune" are in there... I'm not questioning legitimacy, I'm only asking if the claims above are real.

[Derf]

Why would you believe random things from random people on random IRC servers on proxies? Is there even a lesser trustworthy source? Everything written there is pure bull.

[betacollector101]

Why would you believe random things from random people on random IRC servers on proxies? Is there even a lesser trustworthy source? Everything written there is pure bull.

i agree with that.
some things this dude said kinda makes some sort of sense. when i heard that Blackcomb was supposed to be the successor of Windows XP, i had a feeling that there had to be at least 1 or 2 builds compiled before they started Longhorn. but who knows. the claims about 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, and 8.0 are totally fake though.

[QuiescentWonder]

Huh? Aside from the version numbers, from what I remember from about 8 years ago, that all seems right.

Blackcomb was supposed to be the successor and then it got pushed back and Longhorn was to be an interim release... at least that's what everyone thought in 2003.

At the very least Blackcomb and Vienna were code names. I KNOW that Microsoft employees used them publicly.

[Daniel]

@QuiescentWonder: that's right, Blackcomb and Vienna are real codenames. But I don't think Blackcomb was ever planned to become the successor of Windows XP, already in early 2001 Longhorn (back then codenamed Whistler+1, planned release date was 2003, 18-24 months post XP) was planned to become XPs successor (thus v6.0) and Blackcomb was supposed to become Longhorns successor from the very beginning (targeted release date in 2001 was 2004/2005, 18-24 months post Longhorn). In 2006 Blackcomb/Vienna was targeted for 2010 and it was supposed to become v7.0....... I am not sure when MS decided to make Windows 7 a minor release (6.1), but I think it could have been around early 2007...

Here is a document from May 2001 which mentions Whistler+1 and Blackcomb and their release dates: http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsume ... X06977.pdf

and here is a document from 2006 which mentions Blackcomb as v7.0:



To answer linuxloves question, all the information someone wrote in your IRC is fake. There are no Blackcomb/Odyssey compiles, there is no Windows 7 SE and Pluto, Codename Jupiter and Tokyo never existed and Vienna was never supposed to be v6.5...

[hakon]

I just wonder, how do you now that there was no compiled builds of Oddysey and Blackmomb compiled? I guess you have a good reason for it

[David Nucrdale]

I just wonder, how do you now that there was no compiled builds of Oddysey and Blackmomb compiled? I guess you have a good reason for it

Because it would have been absolutely stupid from MS to compile them at that time. And later, they had other codenames.

[hakon]

Why? A far as I now Neptune was built to be a consumer version of NT, and Odyssey a professional version of NT both as a successor of Windows 2000. Why shouldn't they start planning and compiling builds of them? Build 5111 was released only two month before Windows 2000 was released, so I think it wouldn't be that stupid.

I don't belive anything, i just wonder

[David Nucrdale]

Why? A far as I now Neptune was built to be a consumer version of NT, and Odyssey a professional version of NT both as a successor of Windows 2000. Why shouldn't they start planning and compiling builds of them? Build 5111 was released only two month before Windows 2000 was released, so I think it wouldn't be that stupid.

I don't belive anything, i just wonder

Nobody knows what odyssey was really going to be. And Neptune was just in very, very early alpha stage.

[Suumpmolk]

+ you'd heard something by to-day about it if it did exist

[Daniel]

I am pretty sure Odyssey isn't the codename for the Professional counterpart of Neptune. Why should Microsoft use two codenames for different versions of the same OS? Imo different codenames make only sense for a "spin-off", like XP Starter (Creekside) or FLP (Eiger), but it doesn't make any sense for a home/pro variant.

As I already posted here, Neptune was indeed a planned consumer version of Windows. It was also supposed to be a merge of the 9x and of the NT line. There are tons of legit documents mentioning Neptune as a successor to Windows 2000, if Odyssey would have been the Pro variant of the same OS, why isn't it mentioned as well....?

Fact is we don't know what Odyssey was supposed to be -- it could have been a business-orientated successor of 2000, or a successor of Neptune, who knows -- but I think it is definitely not the counterpart of Neptune...


Edit:

Here is a quote from Paul Thurotts winsupersite:

Q: What are "Odyssey" and "Asteroid"? Are these future versions of Windows 2000?
A: Yes. "Asteroid" is the code-name for the first Service Pack (SP1) to Windows 2000, which is due out in mid-2000. "Odyssey" is the code-name for the next major version of Windows 2000, which would have been called Windows NT 6.0 had Microsoft not messed with the naming in late 1998.

http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/2000_old.asp

Neptune was 5.50, not 6.0.....

[betacollector101]

so if i'm correct, if microsoft did what they had planned, it would've been Neptune, Oydssey, Whistler (XP), Longhorn (Vista), then Blackcomb/Vienna (7). If microsoft did these plans, Windows XP probably would've been released in around 2009/2010 and Longhorn would've been in development around now. kinda odd if you think of it.

[Daniel]

Nope, Neptune [& Odyssey] became Whistler....

[betacollector101]

Nope, Neptune [& Odyssey] became Whistler....

so, if Neptune & Odyssey actually happened, there would be no Whistler? i'm confused...

[Suumpmolk]

accept odyssey as "idea"

[hakon]

Thanks for clearing it up for me

[Daniel]

Nope, Neptune [& Odyssey] became Whistler....

so, if Neptune & Odyssey actually happened, there would be no Whistler? i'm confused...

Yes, Neptune was scrapped and its ideas were integrated into Whistler...

[Thlump]

Windows Blackcomb is real. KenOath originally posted this back at July 2009 at BA, I don't know where it's from.

[Daniel]

That screen has originally been posted on the old winhistory forum... its fake...

[linuxlove]

He came back. Here are his latest claims:

<binki> random_user: first, please explain your point in coming to this channel
<Random_User> I intend to refute some of the claims made by users that posted in that thread that contradict my claims about what we talked about yesterday.

<Random_User> I'll start with message #3, in which betacollector21 claimed that versions 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, and 8.0 are totally fake. I believe that it's too early at this point to conclude that they are fake.
<Random_User> Furthermore, betacollector stated that at least 1 or 2 builds of Blackcomb were compiled using the kernel version number 6.0. It was most likely a lot more. Longhorn wasn't announced until AFTER Windows XP was RTM'ed, while considering the fact that Microsoft usually starts the development of the next version months prior to the current version being RTM'ed,
<Random_User> message continued
<Random_User> And considering the fact that Microsoft usually uses slightly lower build numbers for the preliminary builds of the next version, as the RTM build of Windows XP was 2545 (Increased to 2600 when it was declared RTM), it would be logical to suspect that there could be preliminary builds of Microsoft Codename Blackcomb with version numbers in the 6.00.24xx and
<Random_User> message continued
<Random_User> 6.00.25xx range. Considering the amount of time between the most likely time when Microsoft started developing Blackcomb and when they announced the interim release Longhorn, it would be logical to suspect that there must be between 100 or more preliminary builds of Microsoft Codename Blackcomb that were compiled with the version number 6.0.

<Random_User> Now, in regards to message no. 5 posted by Site Moderator Daniel, at the end of the message, he stated that Blackcomb and Odyssey were never compiled, there is no Windows 7 SE, Pluto, Jupiter, and Tokyo, and that Microsoft never used the version number 6.5 for Vienna...
<Random_User> First of all, considering the fact that for 5 years Microsoft used Blackcomb as the codename for Windows 7, it would be logical to conclude that Microsoft Codename Blackcomb must have been compiled. Microsoft never spends such a long time developing any software WITHOUT COMPILING SO MUCH AS A PRELIMINARY BUILD.
<Random_User> Second of all, Odyssey WAS compiled. It is highly unlikely that it was never compiled. It is highly unlikely that there wasn't even a preliminary build (which closely resembled Microsoft Windows 2000). Now, while this doesn't prove anything, I've actually seen Microsoft Codename Odyssey in person. I saw installation media which in every way looked official.
<Random_User> message continued
<Random_User> The installation media for the various builds of Odyssey which I saw has all of the appropriate holograms that the installation media for pre-release versions of Microsoft Windows have. I even forensically analyzed the holograms and in general, they were pretty much what is found on installation media for versions that were sent to developers that signed
<Random_User> message continued
<Random_User> non-disclosure agreements. I even inserted the installation media into the optical drive on a computer and browsed through it. What I found in the contents of the installation media for Odyssey is nothing that could have easily been faked. I even tested multiple builds of Odyssey.
<Random_User> Third of all, I never claimed that Microsoft Windows 7 Second Edition is real. It's simply a logical explanation for the existence of post-RTM builds of Microsoft Windows 7. Microsoft compiles post-RTM builds after the RTM of every version of Microsoft Windows that was ever RTM'ed. There are multiple times when this lead to the full-scale development of minor
<Random_User> message continued
<Random_User> upgrades or versions. (Examples: Microsoft Windows 95 - OSR 2 (4.00.1111), OSR 2.1 (4.03.1212), USB Supplement to OSR 2.1 (4.03.1214), OSR 2.5 (4.03.1216), and Microsoft Windows 98 - Windows 98 Second Edition (4.10.2222A). These are times when post-RTM builds did lead to the full-scale development of a new version. There are other times when it didn't.
<Random_User> message continued
<Random_User> For example, there were post-RTM builds of Windows NT 3.51 (Up to build 1087*), Windows NT 4.0 (Up to 1733* due to continued development of Cairo [cancelled]), Windows 2000 (Up to 3700.6690 [SP4 Rollup 1 v2]), and there are many others which did not lead to the full-scale development of a new version
<Random_User> And fourth of all, as for Tokyo, Pluto, and Jupiter, they could potentially exist. It has never been proven that they exist. Nor was it ever proven that they don't exist. What I do know is that Battler as well as a few others were planning to leak it on EABG (Again, doesn't prove that it's real as Battler might have lied)...HOWEVER I'VE SEEN THESE BUILDS IN
<Random_User> PERSON AS WELL AS THEIR INSTALLATION MEDIA.
<Random_User> And as for Vienna, it originally had the version number 6.5 and that version number was also used on many builds of Vienna in 2006 prior to when Microsoft officially decided that they will use the version number 6.1.

[Daniel]

The installation media for the various builds of Odyssey which I saw has all of the appropriate holograms that the installation media for pre-release versions of Microsoft Windows have. I even forensically analyzed the holograms and in general, they were pretty much what is found on installation media for versions that were sent to developers that signed

Too bad that interim beta discs didn't have any holograms back then (and afaik they still dont have them)....
But well, I have the feeling that the more proofs I post against these claims, the more of this bs will appear, so I am not going to comment this any further...

[betaluva]

@Random_User,if you have TESTED MANY BUILDS then why would you examine the installation media so closely?

[QuiescentWonder]

Okay, I can see this thread getting locked.

Before it does:

1. This all just seems like a bunch of conjecture.
2. Who cares?
3. You're using the argument: you can't prove that these don't exist. You can't prove that aliens aren't controlling your mind right now either, but that doesn't mean that they are.

[Andy]

Locked before this turns into a flame war.

Unless you have proof of something, don't take anyone's word for it, no matter how high or low their reputation may be.