BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Database Screenshots Gallery Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 9d, 14h, 50m | CPU: 30% | MEM: 6698MB of 12287MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Why Microsoft don't make any build of some codenames?        Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:08 am 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:45 am

Posts
42

Location
Vietnam

Favourite OS
Windows 7
Why Microsoft don't make any single build of Windows Odyseey or Windows 7 during Blackcomb/Vienna codenames?

_________________
MeWe


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Why Microsoft don't make any build of some codenames?        Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:12 am 
Reply with quote
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:57 pm

Posts
16

Location
France
I think they didn't take the time to make build. It is possible also Microsoft made builds but they didn't leak them.

TheCharizard31


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Why Microsoft don't make any build of some codenames?        Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:20 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:27 am

Posts
421

Location
Croatia

Favourite OS
6.4.9841
Only they know why exactly Odyssey didn't make it into any beta builds :) they started with Odyssey as a replacement for Win2k and Neptune as a replacement for Win9x, but in the end merged those two into Whistler (Windows XP).

_________________
Main PC | Q6600 | GTX 570 | 8GB DDR2 | 120GB SSD | W10 LTSC
XP PC | Athlon II X2 4400e | 8600GT | 2GB DDR2 | 500GB HDD | WinFLP
DOS PC | P3 500MHz | Voodoo4 | 64MB RAM | 4.3+8.4GB HDD | Win95C


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Why Microsoft don't make any build of some codenames?        Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:20 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:33 pm

Posts
1861

Location
Czechia
Why would they? Developing two versions at the same time is not common practice at all. Most of the time Microsoft tried to do that, they ended up scrapping one of them because the other one has sucked the entire feature set.

Neptune and Longhorn were at such early stages that already coding Odyssey and Blackcomb at the same time would most likely be inefficient, especially if we consider the major changes that were planned for the former two. Not to mention that Longhorn eventually became what was supposed to be Blackcomb to the point where the codename was just another "vNext" moniker referring to a future Windows version with no exactly defined feature set.

Zv45Beta wrote:
they started with Odyssey as a replacement for Win2k and Neptune as a replacement for Win9x, but in the end merged those two into Whistler (Windows XP).

That's not actually true, Neptune was supposed to succeed both Windows 2000 and Windows 98 (and then Windows ME) which would itself be succeeded by Odyssey.

_________________
Image

AlphaBeta, stop brainwashing me immediately!


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Why Microsoft don't make any build of some codenames?        Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:58 pm 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:53 am

Posts
40

Location
England, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Windows XP RTM, SP3 XP
Not to mention that no builds of a large majority of cancelled codenames. Think about it, the only codename with a large majority of builds even found is Longhorn.
To this day it's unknown whether:
A. Microsoft did not get past planning for Odyssey, Triton, and Blackcomb.
A. A. Odyssey was first mentioned in documents from 1997, and was last mentioned in 2000.
A. B. Triton was planned quite a bit, even having month and year releases and even planned post-release updates.
A. C. Longhorn.
or
B. Microsoft did compile builds, but haven't been known.
B. A. Odyssey's fate still remains unknown whether builds were compiled or not. Most likely not.
B. B. Triton could have had a demo preview or something along the lines of that to show business executives in terms of progress. I doubt it though.
B. C. THis theory flat out would not work with Blackcomb because it's impossible to have builds compiled prior to the reset. It's just not possible that a Blackcomb build was ever compiled until 2006/2007.

_________________
Longhorn sounds wrong.

Bill Gates was on some stuff when he thought of the codename.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Why Microsoft don't make any build of some codenames?        Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:15 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
7627
Simply put: Because MS assigns a codename to something doesn't mean it ends up as a compiled build. Or that the compiled build ever reaches outside the internal dev team. And projects change, merge and gets renamed.

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable)
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Why Microsoft don't make any build of some codenames?        Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:32 pm 
Reply with quote
Offline

Joined
Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:40 pm

Posts
64

Favourite OS
WinNT 3.x, Win95, 3.00.14, Linux
I read some old news articles that said they did start compiling Blackcomb builds, but almost reset to Longhorn pretty quick.

Odyssey might have started too, considering that some early Whistler planning documents say "what we've learned from Neptune, Odyssey, Millennium, and other projects".

Then again, I've also read articles somewhere that said that the codename "Longhorn" was first thought up on a ski trip in 1999.

The timeline goes like this:


1991-1996: Cairo (cancelled)
1992-1995: Chicago/Windows 95
1995-1996: Nashville (cancelled)
1996-1998: Memphis/Windows 98
1996/1997-late 1999 (released early 2000): Windows NT 5.0/ 2000
1997 (planning)/roughly July 11, 1999, but maybe a bit earlier (beginning of development)-late January 2000 (cancellation/merge with Odyssey): Neptune
1997/199? (beginning of development)-late January 2000: Odyssey
1998?-1999: Windows 98 SE
1999-2000: Millennium/Windows ME
1999?/2001/2004 (reset)/2006/07: Longhorn/eventually Windows Vista
2000-2001: Whistler/Windows XP
At least early 2000, potentially even earlier/2006 (project rename)/2007 (beginning of development as a refined Vista)/2009 (release): Blackcomb, later Vienna or Windows 7
2001: "Idaho" - was on some blog post from 2006.
2001-2003: Windows XP Advanced Server/Windows Advanced Server "Limited Edition"/Windows .NET Server/Windows .NET Server 2003/Windows Server 2003 (yes it had that many names)
2003-2004: Windows XP SP2 (it was really that big, one of the project leads said it could have easily been released as a new version of Windows)


The 90s was really a mess at Microsoft.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Why Microsoft don't make any build of some codenames?        Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:40 am 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:45 am

Posts
42

Location
Vietnam

Favourite OS
Windows 7
winnt32 wrote:
I read some old news articles that said they did start compiling Blackcomb builds, but almost reset to Longhorn pretty quick.

Odyssey might have started too, considering that some early Whistler planning documents say "what we've learned from Neptune, Odyssey, Millennium, and other projects".

Then again, I've also read articles somewhere that said that the codename "Longhorn" was first thought up on a ski trip in 1999.

The timeline goes like this:


1991-1996: Cairo (cancelled)
1992-1995: Chicago/Windows 95
1995-1996: Nashville (cancelled)
1996-1998: Memphis/Windows 98
1996/1997-late 1999 (released early 2000): Windows NT 5.0/ 2000
1997 (planning)/roughly July 11, 1999, but maybe a bit earlier (beginning of development)-late January 2000 (cancellation/merge with Odyssey): Neptune
1997/199? (beginning of development)-late January 2000: Odyssey
1998?-1999: Windows 98 SE
1999-2000: Millennium/Windows ME
1999?/2001/2004 (reset)/2006/07: Longhorn/eventually Windows Vista
2000-2001: Whistler/Windows XP
At least early 2000, potentially even earlier/2006 (project rename)/2007 (beginning of development as a refined Vista)/2009 (release): Blackcomb, later Vienna or Windows 7
2001: "Idaho" - was on some blog post from 2006.
2001-2003: Windows XP Advanced Server/Windows Advanced Server "Limited Edition"/Windows .NET Server/Windows .NET Server 2003/Windows Server 2003 (yes it had that many names)
2003-2004: Windows XP SP2 (it was really that big, one of the project leads said it could have easily been released as a new version of Windows)


The 90s was really a mess at Microsoft.

Maybe Blackcomb/Vienna builds is completely private and no information leaked.

_________________
MeWe


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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 © 2006-2019

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS