Usable Longhorn Builds?

Discuss Windows Vista/Server 2008 to Windows 10.
Post Reply
Keir
User avatar
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:07 am
Location: Sussex, UK
Contact:

Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by Keir »

Does anybody know of a list of Longhorn builds that can be run in a usable state in a Virtualised environment? (VirtualBox/VMWare/qEmu).

Thanks!

ReztaNZ
User avatar
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 12:41 pm

Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by ReztaNZ »

Can you define "usable"?

Most are usable in the sense they can be installed and boot okay. Just a matter of setting the BIOS date back. If you are wanting stability... You're not going to find it with pre-reset and early post-reset builds. But that is the neat thing about betas. It's honestly down to personal preference, what build you like the best. Why not just play around with a few and see what works for you best. For me, I personally like 4074.
Image

lopper
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:05 am

Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by lopper »

IMO, the king of Longhorn stability is 3790.1232.

It's literally Server 2003 SP1 RC. You can slipstream SP2 into it and it will function as windows server 2003 with an XP skn.

ovctvct
Posts: 1058
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:19 pm

Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by ovctvct »

Pre reset? 4001 may be the most usable. Post reset? 5048 and 5270 are most usable IMO, most unusable are 4093 and 5259 IMO.

Valerio
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:04 pm

Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by Valerio »

Based on my experience:

Before reset: 3718 and 4001 are good. Builds between 4008 and 4039 features lots of bugs that compromise stability, probably because of many features being added at the time. 4042 was the best for me, worked very well and was fast too in VMware. 4051 had a huge memory leak that was fixed in 4053, which is almost as good as 4042. 4074 is the best mix probably, as it includes lots of features and a decent stabilty, but I still think that 4042 and 4053 are the best.

After reset: Builds such as 5048, 5112, 5219, 5231 up to 5259 were not so fast and stable, and I also remember a weak compatibility with software. From 5270 and above they are quite usable and a lot faster.

Keir
User avatar
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:07 am
Location: Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by Keir »

Valerio wrote:Based on my experience:

Before reset: 3718 and 4001 are good. Builds between 4008 and 4039 features lots of bugs that compromise stability, probably because of many features being added at the time. 4042 was the best for me, worked very well and was fast too in VMware. 4051 had a huge memory leak that was fixed in 4053, which is almost as good as 4042. 4074 is the best mix probably, as it includes lots of features and a decent stabilty, but I still think that 4042 and 4053 are the best.

After reset: Builds such as 5048, 5112, 5219, 5231 up to 5259 were not so fast and stable, and I also remember a weak compatibility with software. From 5270 and above they are quite usable and a lot faster.
Fantastic, very helpful thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jackdopp
User avatar
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:34 pm

Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by Jackdopp »

Most useable in my experience is 3683, the least usable is 4039. In post reset 5048 is pretty stable and the least usable is probably the RTM :)
Image

Wheatley
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1839
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:19 pm
Location: shell32.dll

Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by Wheatley »

6002 is by far the most usable build, but that's probably not the answer you're looking for. Check out 3683, 4053, and maybe 5048. 5456, and the RC1, 5600 should also be decent, but I haven't extensively used anything older than 6000/6001/6002.
Windows Defender for great justice! Bugs are an international trading company. I need to defeat the anti-debugging and obfuscation methods. It wasn't for Intel's absurd ability to load in ie6. Why even waste time with people in an envelope?

Keir
User avatar
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:07 am
Location: Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by Keir »

Thanks for the info guys.
I'll give all the ones you have mentioned a try if I can find them.

Appreciate it!

LuLu
Permanently Banned
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:32 am

Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by LuLu »

3718, 4029, 5259

Zv45Beta
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:27 am
Location: North-eastern Croatia
Contact:

Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by Zv45Beta »

I did try some Longhorn builds on real hardware, and I'd say the most stable one out of all of them is 4074.

Indeed, there was a memory leak in Explorer.exe, but sure, it was a lot better than a build like 4093 is.
Main computer: HP EliteBook 820 G4 | i5-7500U | 16GB DDR4 | 256GB M.2 SATA SSD & 2TB 2.5" HDD | Linux Mint 21.3 Cinnamon
XP PC: Asus P5QPL-AM | Xeon L5408 | 4GB DDR2-800 | 250GB 870 EVO SSD | ATi HD 4550 | WinXP SP4
9x PC: MSI MS-6368 v5 | Pentium III-S 1266 | 640MB PC133 | ATi 7000 PCI | 10GB HDD | WinMe
Other PCs: EeePC 701 (WinCE 6.0), EeePC 701 (WinXP SP3), HP 800 G2 DM (Win10)
I collect Windows CE devices.

Keir
User avatar
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:07 am
Location: Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by Keir »

I'll be installing them in VMWare / VirtualBox fortunately!

I'll give all the ones listed here a try though so thanks everyone!

WindowsReviewer201EN
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:58 am

Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by WindowsReviewer201EN »

Windows Longhorn Build 4008 , 4015 , 4074

roseywhite01
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:12 pm
Location: England

Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by roseywhite01 »

4074 is the one with the best support and knowledge about so I'd recommend that one, it was also the first one I tried and it worked fairly okay.

alexcbrookes
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 4:43 pm

Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?

Post by alexcbrookes »

For the most part, most builds of Longhorn are "usable". There are some strange bugs in the later builds (We all know about the Longhorn development trouble) & the earlier builds lack in features that were later cut or changed, but in terms of usability I've found them all to be pretty solid.

Post Reply