Chicago/Windows 95 Build Number show a Date?

[LangsamSpieler]

I think, this knows not much of you: look at the Number 58s by Chicago, i see a Date there: 5.8.1993, or by some other builds Number with a secret math example, is this possible, that they show the release Date of the Number?

[Overdoze]

This has to be one of the more ridiculous theories I've seen on this forum.

[mrpijey]

So in build 405 they actually show it was released the 40th of May... And then there's one released on the 84th of February. Thanks, good to know!

And psst, don't tell anyone, but in the build numbers of Windows 10 are actually embedded the dates when the Bilderbergers and Stonecutters have their secret meetings... keep this info private please, I would get in very much trouble if it got out...

[TinaMeineKatze]

What LangsamSpieler does here is called Pareidolia. He's interested in beta-software and looks for patterns and meaning where, in reality, there's no meaning.

It's a normal phenomenon, something the brain just does in it's search for meaning.

@LangsamSpieler: this is nothing bad, as long as you yourself somehow let it be corrected by facts. Nobody at Microsoft cares for the build number (it's just a tool for showing different stages of development), let alone the date something is compiled. Sometimes, those coincidents happen, but they have no real meaning. The build number is nothing secret or magical or something, though, especially for younger people collecting betas, it may feel like that.

[DiskingRound]

73g was not made on July 3, 1993. 122 was not made on December 2 1993 nor February 12 of 1994.
Pareidolia is it. Apparently people like finding what they want to see.

[LarryTN7722]

73g was not made on July 3, 1993. 122 was not made on December 2 1993 nor February 12 of 1994.
Pareidolia is it. Apparently people like finding what they want to see.

Also, build 189 was not compiled on September 18, 1994.

[LangsamSpieler]

Nobody of you check my post: i mean this numbers: 81, 116, 189, 311, 462, 812-1216 and the rest no

[mrpijey]

We did check your post, and there's no correlation between the build numbers and the release dates.

[TinaMeineKatze]

We did check your post, and there's no correlation between the build numbers and the release dates.

Well, that's not quite true. There are several ways those two could be linked.

One of them is the obvious "fact game"-one, i. e. "build x was compiled on day y and therefore, know that we know that, there's a correlation between x and y, because (as a coincidence) those two were built on the same day". It's like a birthday. My birthday is technically nothing special, but I was haphazardly born on that day of my birth-year and therefore seeing a correlation between this (random) day and me is justified. This can only be done after builds are already built (or known to be built on that specific date).

And then, there's the "build numbers go up"-relation. Usually, once a software reached build n (including all data in the version string, e.g. 5.2.2600.5512, after which there won't be a 5.2.2600.1234 ever again, but there might be a hypothetical 5.3.1000.1234), it won't go back to n - 1. So we can safely assume that, after Chicago 58s, there was no Chicago 40 again.

These are, of course, not the "magical thinking" relationships that LangsamSpieler assumes, but simply saying there's no correlation is technically wrong.

[LangsamSpieler]

We did check your post, and there's no correlation between the build numbers and the release dates.

Ok, but i did find this thing really weird, when i was looking to the numbers.

[TinaMeineKatze]

We did check your post, and there's no correlation between the build numbers and the release dates.

Ok, but i did find this thing really weird, when i was looking to the numbers.

There are a lot of weird "correlating" datasets. Use your "Verstand" (there's no english word for that) and ask yourself questions:

Why should they do that? What would be their motivation? What does the MS team really want?

If you cannot answer these questions properly, you might have been mislead by your thoughts and your natural will to find meaning. Seeing correlations where they aren't can be fixed by using your "Verstand" most of the time.

They only want a final product with a little number of bugs, finally to be sold and used. Nobody in the "real world" cares about betas, and internally, in software-development, "beta" is usually just a word for something unfinished that nobody cares about when it's finished.

[LangsamSpieler]

I say, this topic can be deleted without problems.

[TinaMeineKatze]

I say, this topic can be deleted without problems.

You should not see this as harsh criticism (as you do now), but more as inspiration for making less mistakes in the future.
We all started similiar to this. There's no shame in it.

[LangsamSpieler]

Thanks for the Hint.

I say, this topic can be deleted without problems.

You should not see this as harsh criticism (as you do now), but more as inspiration for making less mistakes in the future.
We all started similiar to this. There's no shame in it.

But I have more than 100 Posts, then it can't happen more.

[TinaMeineKatze]

But I have more than 100 Posts, then it can't happen more.

The number of posts you have has no correlation to this. Everybody may do dumb things from time to time, even me (and probably everyone else too), but that's not what it's about. It's about not repeating the same error over and over again. And therefore, the error done has to be analyzed and understood properly. If that's done, you'll never get into that specific class of thought-errors ever again.

[TheDosProgrammer]

Don't get to far from the topic.

Admins are smart enough to realize that you are repeating the same error every time. For example, you install something and when it don't work you assume that it is fake build. And so on...

While compiling source code most compilers automaticly assumes build number (unless you change the parameters) and it means only which revision of the code is it. I don't know how MS manage this but I know that there should be a very simple reason for build numbers. Maybe they builded new version every day, but they didn't make giantic changes so the didn't sent them to beta testers (or they just overwrited files with new ones). This could be an another answer to the question in the title.

Offtopic Comment

By the way my english is very bad and I am trying to improve it so don't say that I repeat the same errors every time.