Does Blackcomb build 2698 exist?

[YueLing11]

There's one screenshot of Windows Blackcomb build 2698.lab01.010911-2359 (zoom to see) likely taken by Microsoft due to having the same font as their Longhorn videos, does this build ever exist?

[Longesthorn]

Pretty sure this is fake. It uses Vista-era shutdown and lock icons.

[mibrab]

1) The text there doesn't look anything like what would be in an official presentation. ("Startmenu", "Everything's", "New Internet Features")
2) Why would an official presentation have a screenshot of winver out of all things.
3) As far as I can tell, this isn't even projected by a projector, it's just a photo of someone's LCD screen (you can even see the frame a little bit)
4) The start menu in the 1st screenshot isn't even aligned properly

As far as we know, no builds of "Windows Blackcomb" have ever been compiled, all references to this codename just talked about future plans for "after Longhorn" (or "after Whistler" before Longhorn was conceived)

What is the source of this image? Reverse image search yielded exactly 0 relevant results.

[AlphaBeta]

Why would a 2001 Blackcomb build have a Start menu design that wouldn't appear in Vista until 2005?

I am also not quite sure how would a new Start menu end up out of all labs in Lab01, the kernel lab, not even a month after 2600. Considering the problems they had during Longhorn development with syncing code among labs, this seems quite weird. Not to mention Lab01 was working on Server 2003 at the time.

[qazmko1029]

KenOath originally posted this screenshot back at July 2009 here and it was confirmed fake.

[ATeamInc]

Hmmmm... Reminds me of the Longhorn 4057 private build, which turned out to be fake in the end (thanks for ReflectiaX for clearing it up), which was made by Utaks IIRC. Since it has the same weird angle, and being displayed on an LCD screen, I think this is also the same case, as tbh only a small image is visible.
And to make it clear, MS never used confidential screenshots, only mockups and sometimes real "known" builds in their presentation. Also, it looks like a newb-ish presentation, "For Microsoft Internal use Only"? Just looks like XP with a vista-style startmenu and icons.
No need to mention what others had already...

Offtopic Comment

I live finally! 1st post in ages

[yourepicfailure]

The jpeg artifacts are not correct for a picture that would've been taken during the time period. In addition there is a lack of low-light noise (a substantial amount of noise should be present in the black areas. there isn't, only jpeg artifacts are present and not much of those either. this indicates a more modern noise suppression technique) and a lack of noise in general, which should be nasty for a digital camera from early 2000 taking picture of fairly dark projected image and that noise would be further exaggerated by the jpeg compression. These phenomena is not there at all.

Meaning the artifacts are too perfect and clean to have originated from a time-period camera, the degradation was purposeully introduced via poor post-processing to a modern camera image. Even my massive d2x pro camera from 2006 would still struggle to capture an image in this scene and a consumer point and shoot 5 years earlier (the most likely instrument to have been used here) would've fared much much worse. Compare this image to many other presentation shots, eg longhorn ones which are considerably noisier yet posess comparable amounts of compression artifacts.

So as many others have clearly stated, fake.

EDIT: Cleaned the grammer in my original poor google translate post.

[gtgamer468]

Not to mention the build number. It's only 98 builds away from Windows XP RTM. The earliest post- XP build is 3683, the earliest Longhorn build known or at least, the earliest build available in the FTP server. Microsoft is known for to jump quite a bit when starting out a new Windows project.

[OSTOURS]

I would think it's someone computer screen with some modified images on it and a power point
to look like Microsoft Windows Longhorn presentation I could be wrong but that's my thoughts on it

Plus the theme Is from Windows XP and The start menu Is From Vista so It's surprises me that Microsoft If so they made those images plus the user picture frame is blank wouldn't it have a picture on it? also the winver says Windows XP Professional.

Also when did the kernal jump from 5.1 to 7.0
in 2001 that just makes no sense

so in my opinion, it's fake.

[AlphaBeta]

Not to mention the build number. It's only 98 builds away from Windows XP RTM. The earliest post- XP build is 3683, the earliest Longhorn build known or at least, the earliest build available in the FTP server. Microsoft is known for to jump quite a bit when starting out a new Windows project.

Technically the earliest leaked post-XP build is 3505, since Windows Server 2003 was a Windows version on its own.

[daemonspudguy]

That image is so badly photoshopped it should be used in a “social experiment” video by Jake Paul!

[gtgamer468]

Also, why would Microsoft jump two kernel versions from NT 5.0 to 7.0? It was one thing that they jumped from 6.4 to 10.0 in Windows 10 to match the Windows NT version number to the released number. Like how Windows 7 is actually NT 6.1, 8 is NT 6.2 and 8.1 is NT 6.3.

[DiskingRound]

This was almost certainly a fake screenshot, likely made in PowerPoint by somebody. I could just as easily make this with the following steps:
-Take two screenshots of Windows Server 2003, one of the winver and another of the start menu
-Edit both placing fake build tags with un-anti-aliased Tohama
-Do the same thing with the winver
-Remove start menu icons by taking a square out of the gray and dragging over (and also removing the profile pic)
-Open PowerPoint, make a slideshow and place text with these screenshots.
Also, two spaces between Including and new.

[jimmsta]

Not to mention that the build tag isn't right at all. Even during whistler, the desktop build tag would display the entire build string. Fake as fake can get.

Blackcomb was a name they had on paper. I highly doubt any builds were ever done with that codename - not even Vienna was used, aside from on paper. Microsoft made a point to use codenames for future projects - many of which never became actual builds or products.

[YueLing11]

I would think it's someone computer screen with some modified images on it and a power point
to look like Microsoft Windows Longhorn presentation I could be wrong but that's my thoughts on it

Plus the theme Is from Windows XP and The start menu Is From Vista so It's surprises me that Microsoft If so they made those images plus the user picture frame is blank wouldn't it have a picture on it? also the winver says Windows XP Professional.

so in my opinion, it's fake.

The theme is Classic not Luna.

[Lucas Brooks]

Doesn't change the fact it is fake.

Edit: How did you know the full build string? Hummm... From the photo I can only see 2xxx and the last 3 digits were too blurry to see. Not suspicious at all.

[YueLing11]

Doesn't change the fact it is fake.

Edit: How did you know the full build string? Hummm... From the photo I can only see 2xxx and the last 3 digits were too blurry to see. Not suspicious at all.

Use a glasses. Click on the picture in topic and zoom to see. I can see very closely in a phone. If you still can't see full build string, see I zoomed.

[xyz]

I would love to see the kiddy which made this screenshot...

[yourepicfailure]

yeah if you see here https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12509, this same image was public even before kenoath's post in 2009.
As early as 2008 here: https://www.winhistory-forum.net/showth ... =blackcomb
AKA the origin. In German though. So the unprofessional text is starting to add up (poor understanding of English).

Some guy "Hans Van" is the culprit.

Here's a translation of the first post:
"I recently got this image of Blackcomb build 2698 from a certain 'Hans Van.' He is a Microsoft betatester and it seems he has ties with Microsoft Internal. This picture came from an internal Microsoft demonstration for programmers. I've attached the image."

Coming from an internal MS demonstration for programmers my ###.

[DiskingRound]

Also, have you noticed the compile date? September 11, 2001. I don't think this is a coincidence...
This date is also before any known Longhorn build.

[TinaMeineKatze]

I know the person who did this, though they asked me nicely not to reveal the name, so I am not going to do this.

But yes, this screenshot is fake.

[YueLing11]

yeah if you see here https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12509, this same image was public even before kenoath's post in 2009.
As early as 2008 here: https://www.winhistory-forum.net/showth ... =blackcomb
AKA the origin. In German though. So the unprofessional text is starting to add up (poor understanding of English).

Some guy "Hans Van" is the culprit.

Here's a translation of the first post:
"I recently got this image of Blackcomb build 2698 from a certain 'Hans Van.' He is a Microsoft betatester and it seems he has ties with Microsoft Internal. This picture came from an internal Microsoft demonstration for programmers. I've attached the image."

Coming from an internal MS demonstration for programmers my ###.

It's fake. The Start menu is aligned improperly.

[yourepicfailure]

Yeah, but I already put up my evidence for it being fake. It was there to sort of answer

I would love to see the kiddy which made this screenshot...

As well as prove kenoath was not behind it.

[gtgamer468]

I'm pretty sure that everyone is convinced by now that this build is definitely fake. Is there really other reasons why, I'm not sure as I don't see them.

[YueLing11]

Not to mention the build number. It's only 98 builds away from Windows XP RTM. The earliest post- XP build is 3683, the earliest Longhorn build known or at least, the earliest build available in the FTP server. Microsoft is known for to jump quite a bit when starting out a new Windows project.

Technically the earliest leaked post-XP build is 3505, since Windows Server 2003 was a Windows version on its own.

Build 3505 is a Server 2003 build not XP.