BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 6d, 14h, 10m | CPU: % | MEM: 7747MB of 24567MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:37 am 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:07 am

Posts
22

Location
Sussex, UK

Favourite OS
OS X 10.6
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!


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 5:45 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed May 07, 2014 12:41 pm

Posts
98

Favourite OS
9888
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


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:03 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:05 am

Posts
153

Favourite OS
7601
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.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:55 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:19 pm

Posts
984

Favourite OS
NT 3.1-6.3
Pre reset? 4001 may be the most usable. Post reset? 5048 and 5270 are most usable IMO, most unusable are 4093 and 5259 IMO.

_________________
Join Betawiki IRC for discussion about betas and abandonware.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:14 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:04 pm

Posts
241
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.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:31 pm 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:07 am

Posts
22

Location
Sussex, UK

Favourite OS
OS X 10.6
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


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:53 pm 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:34 pm

Posts
48

Favourite OS
6.0.5212
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


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:01 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:19 pm

Posts
1731

Location
shell32.dll
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?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:24 pm 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:07 am

Posts
22

Location
Sussex, UK

Favourite OS
OS X 10.6
Thanks for the info guys.
I'll give all the ones you have mentioned a try if I can find them.

Appreciate it!


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 7:42 am 
Reply with quote
Online

Joined
Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:32 am

Posts
39

Favourite OS
NT 5 & 6
3718, 4029, 5259


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 6:24 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:27 am

Posts
380

Location
Croatia

Favourite OS
1057 & 2195
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.

_________________
My rig | ThinkPad T430 | i5-3320M | 8GB | HD 4000 + NVS 5400M | 256GB 850 Pro | W10 Pro, Fast ring


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 8:31 pm 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:07 am

Posts
22

Location
Sussex, UK

Favourite OS
OS X 10.6
I'll be installing them in VMWare / VirtualBox fortunately!

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


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:02 am 
Reply with quote
Offline

Joined
Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:58 am

Posts
1

Favourite OS
Windows 98 Windows 8.1 WindowsXP
Windows Longhorn Build 4008 , 4015 , 4074


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:31 pm 
Reply with quote
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:12 pm

Posts
11

Location
England

Favourite OS
Windows XP SP3
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.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Usable Longhorn Builds?        Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:08 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Mar 02, 2017 4:43 pm

Posts
12

Favourite OS
Windows Longhorn 4001
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.


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LuLu and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2017

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS