Leak:Windows 8 6.2.8888.16384!

[ovctvct]

Since there's no topic about this, I think I should make one. This build AFAIK was meant to be RTM, but they jumped it to 9200 because the build number has to be divisible with 16. 8888 surely isn't.
EDIT: Screenshot:


Video(by me!):
[youtube2]http://youtu.be/b6o-yDh44x4[/youtube2]

[InsertGoodNameHere]

Someone else posted this but it had some offensive content in it.

[sagem]

check b 4 you post.
http://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewto ... 1&start=25

[ovctvct]

check b 4 you post.
http://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewto ... 1&start=25

That has nothing to do with 8888.It's not a leak of 8888

[JimOlive]

check b 4 you post.
http://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewto ... 1&start=25

That's for 9200, not 8888.

[betaluva]

why does the build number need to be diviable by 16?

[hounsell]

At some point, some clever guy inside Microsoft thought it'd be cool if people could work out the Service Pack version by simply looking at the lowest four bits of the build number. So for an RTM build, the lowest four bits have to be 0 - which in more recognisable terms, means it must be divisible by 16, because the remainder after dividing by 16 would be the Service Pack version. For example - 7600 / 16 = 475, remainder 0 (or programmatically, 7600 & 0xF = 0) - Service Pack 0 (RTM); 7601 / 16 = 475, remainder 1 (or programmatically, 7601 & 0xF = 1) - Service Pack 1.

Though MS don't do service packs any more, they still have to do the divisible by 16 for backwards compatibility tools that calculate the service pack revision this way. I'm sure that clever guy at MS got a clip round the ear for saddling Windows with more versioning crap.

[betaluva]

thanks, i had no idea.

[wasabilee]

so theres no real difference between 9200 and this
except trial period ?