BetaArchive is a non-profit site and your donations help to keep us online and thriving. If you can, please consider donating a small amount to help keep us online. Donate and find out more here. Thank you! - Andy & mrpijey
Yes, just like most other build numbers. Now, whether it will ever surface or not is another question.
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?
The TASKMAN.EXE file in all 9x builds (even ME) has the file version 4.00.47.
How did a file from a prototype version of Windows 95 manage to stay through as late as ME?!
Windows Thunderstruck wrote:The TASKMAN.EXE file in all 9x builds (even ME) has the file version 4.00.47.
How did a file from a prototype version of Windows 95 manage to stay through as late as ME?!
Why not? No code changed in it apparently, so there was no need to rebuild, therefore the build number was not bumped. Taskman is rather pointless after completing the implementation of Taskbar, so I guess somebody just forgot to remove it from the makefile ;)
I am sure the legitimate build 40 did not magically include a file from the future. Nor did the legitimate copy of build 34 that you mentioned in your BetaWiki article that completely ignored the guidelines, not to mention you were banned from there months ago.
It was 58s, I didn't know that
I think I might be a bit dumb even though I have been doing builds for almost two years
All because of my intense hatred for Windows 10
Last edited by Windows Thunderstruck on Sun Aug 20, 2017 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe you get it when you doubleclick an empty desktop (without Explorer running) in RTM as well.
rthdribl wrote:
Windows Thunderstruck wrote:The TASKMAN.EXE file in all 9x builds (even ME) has the file version 4.00.47.
How did a file from a prototype version of Windows 95 manage to stay through as late as ME?!
Why not? No code changed in it apparently, so there was no need to rebuild, therefore the build number was not bumped. Taskman is rather pointless after completing the implementation of Taskbar, so I guess somebody just forgot to remove it from the makefile
It's not a file from a Windows 95 pre-release. In early public builds of Chicago the application was 16-bit, when the 32-bit kernel got more stable they pulled the switch and started including its 32-bit compile in public builds - remember that during early Chicago development the developers were compiling both 16-bit and 32-bit versions of the same applications, so they didn't have to wait for the kernel guys to complete their job before beginning shell work. It also had the "Programs" and "Help" menus removed since early Chicago. My guess is that for some reason the build number simply stopped getting incremented, most likely because the application was simply deprecated and these were pretty minor changes.
Note: There's also Memphis leftovers which managed to survive into ME as well
Such as HTMLHLP.HTM (is that the exact name? Forgive my shitty memory)
When you click on that file, a IE window opens up, saying Loading Help...
Also in Windows XP, if you have Resource Hacker, you don't even have to go far to see prototype leftovers (as in Whistler leftovers). Even better if you have an XP disk.
IIRC there are a few b40 files in b58 dated May '93. The build however was almost certainly compiled earlier.
Seriously though, there are files from build 47, 56, 57... even in 73g there was 73e and one file of build 74, meaning b74 was likely compiled before 73g.
4.0.0.74 is merely the file version of the multimedia components, which clearly followed a different versioning scheme and is thus not even related to the Chicago build numbers. Product version and product name don't match the other system files.
So while Wheatley is correct in saying that most build numbers were probably used (except for the ranges we know were skipped), you can also clearly see how file versions can be misleading. Therefore, they should not be considered a reliable source. This has been stated on the forum several times.
ME jumped to 3000 from 2535
So this might explain why Whistler skipped 23xx, instead jumping from 2296 to 2410
Also Longhorn jumped build numbers four times, (eg 3718 to 4001, 4093 to 5048, 5112 to 5212, 5840 to 6000)
Last edited by Windows Thunderstruck on Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is a question long wondered by myself: Where are the 6x Chicago builds? I have never found any evidence for them, and because it seems the last 5x builds were compiled in August and the earliest 7x builds were compiled in October or November, it appears there should be space for them, but I have never found such a build number in any files or version numbers.
Build 61 is mentioned in EPSFILES.DOC from build 116 DDK:
EPSFILES.DOC wrote:This file contains several Encapsulated Postscript files. They were created in Paintbrush in build 61 of Chicago. The EPS file created with version 3.55 of the old driver was done in Windows for Workgroups 3.11. Page 3 contains EPS files that were created using a level 2 PostScript printer.