What was the first build of Longhorn/Blackcomb

[Windows2005]

What was the first build of Longhorn or Blackcomb
This will include:

Any build which has some proof of existing before 3683 (Not including 3663 or 3670)
Anything that could exist (EX: multiple file versions, srv2003/XP source code)
Anything not fake
Build Numbers ofc

Tell me anything you got!

Helpful links with Info on these codenames:
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsume ... X06977.pdf
https://www.betaarchive.com/imageupload ... .21232.png

(for you fake Blackcombers, Microsoft spent 5 years developing that system... Microsoft never spends such a long time developing any software WITHOUT COMPILING SO MUCH AS A PRELIMINARY BUILD)
-(as for longhorn, I mean pre-M3 confirmed)
P.S. nows your chance to leak what you got

[Random_User]

It's unknown if any Blackcomb builds were compiled, especially considering that its predecessor (pre-reset Longhorn) didn't even make it to the Beta phase.

When unleaked Longhorn builds (and Blackcomb builds, if they exist) will be leaked is completely unpredictable. While a product is under development, and sometimes shortly thereafter there are of course insiders actively leaking builds and internal information, but that becomes decreasingly likely with time.

P.S. nows your chance to leak what you got

Every moment in time is a chance for BetaArchive members to upload software they have that isn't already on the FTP Server. There is nothing special about this particular opportunity.

It's highly unlikely that asking anyone in possession of a copy of such builds that happens to read this post to leak them would prompt them to do so any more than this community already encouraging it to the extent that it does.

[dixieLH]

go ask Bill Gates

[sonicrush007]

As we know, no current builds of Blackcomb are known to exist, but it does seem that there were a lot of delays due to Longhorn and also many features intended for Blackcomb were added to Longhorn. It is also known that Blackcomb was eventually renamed to Vienna, then cancelled once it was realized that Blackcomb/Vienna was basically a huge wish list that could never be completed.

Given that builds of Longhorn and before have been leaked and that Blackcomb would have been newer than these older OSes, it's kind of strange that none of those builds have been leaked yet. It may suggest that they may have not done anything with Blackcomb at all (in terms of making builds). Not to discourage any hope of Blackcomb being available anytime soon, but who knows? It's entirely possible that I could be wrong and someone out there might have access to such builds that we do not know of.

[dixieLH]

problem was .net itself and to extend Longhorn
.net was in workings, it wasn't mature/finalized
you can see this especially while vista was in beta 2 stage, they still were using unfinished .net which
another dev branch was constantly updating and breaking

as for blackcomb... that is just a myth, just like oddysey... forget about it

[Windows2005]

(for you fake Blackcombers, Microsoft spent 5 years developing that system... Microsoft never spends such a long time developing any software WITHOUT COMPILING SO MUCH AS A PRELIMINARY BUILD)

[dixieLH]

basket case

[AlphaBeta]

(for you fake Blackcombers, Microsoft spent 5 years developing that system... Microsoft never spends such a long time developing any software WITHOUT COMPILING SO MUCH AS A PRELIMINARY BUILD)

except they didn't

the only blackcomb "development" going on was them moving too ambitious stuff from longhorn

[Windows2005]

(for you fake Blackcombers, Microsoft spent 5 years developing that system... Microsoft never spends such a long time developing any software WITHOUT COMPILING SO MUCH AS A PRELIMINARY BUILD)

except they didn't

the only Blackcomb "development" going on was them moving too ambitious stuff from longhorn

The thing is...
We don't know if a build was compiled.

Maybe some early post-XP lab_01 build with minor changes could have been compiled. But again your right there.

2698 was the only thing build-related to Blackcomb. I don't see how it's fake besides Lab01 including a new startmenu (Lab06 could have made an earlier compile though)

here's some stuff about 2698 that was complained
(key:
-- = from original post
:: = my reply)

--"It uses Vista-era shut down and lock icons"

::Remember, Blackcomb features were pushed into Longhorn even after the reset. Blackcomb (Vienna after a while) was even planned for a release in 2010.

--"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"

::first off, this could be unofficial.
second, Who cares if it was official? if it was official it would likely look more like being on a projector and this could have been pre-recorded by another company, another reason they might show the winver was for companies to view build information if needed (if this was unofficial)
third, above
fourth, Microsoft can mess things up, 5001 Longhorn text in winver was miscolored, but 5001 is real.

--"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."

::Blackcomb could have been worked on months before 2545 was released.

--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.

:: These could have been edited... Maybe someone pulled up this old presentation and decided to take a picture with a more recent camera (It could have been an email'd presentation that this user/someone has recently accessed and decided to post it)

--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

:: first, it's Blackcomb and isn't that how Microsoft would proof-make most of their presentations? I could be wrong too lmao
The theme is classic, it barely had a number change from 2545 to 2698
and a blank profile picture? do you think Lab01 out of all things even cared?
the kernel jump, please read a bit about Blackcomb
in 2001? Longhorn was planned to be 6.0 so Blackcomb would have been 7.0, It makes sense (people say max or Idaho could have been 6.5)

--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.

:: Again, do research on Blackcomb before...

--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.

::Windows 7 build 7652...
Basically after a RTM releases it would likely be just a modified Whistler...

--"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."

:: Microsoft doesn't need to waste time perfecting a demonstration, this was the original poster's words, this could have also been translated.

--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.

:: and how do we know you're not lying?

I could go on for another hour writing responses
My point is, that Blackcomb would exist in a limited fashion
Im talking 5-10 builds likely could exist, most being lost and me guessing some lucky people not knowing they have this software
Again, if it was added in longhorn, it probably pre-existed then in Blackcomb or Idaho

[Valerio]

@Windows2005 I appreciate your efforts, but really, the major release Blackcomb was supposed to be after the minor release Longhorn
The minor release Longhorn ended up becoming pretty bloated because Microsoft started to implement things planned for Blackcomb into it
In the end, after the development was reset, and after Longhorn/Vista had become pretty bulky, Microsoft changed their plans
Since Longhorn/Vista had become a major release now, the old scheduled Blackcomb didn't make sense anymore, so Microsoft went for a minor update codenamed Windows 7, end of the story

Back to that silly picture, think of how amateurish it is and how it doesn't even make sense:
1) "A new GUI (Including new Startmenu)": WOW new shutdown and logoff button images, awesome feature, revolutionary, futuristic! Pretty sure that changing these was Microsoft top #1 priority in making the new groundbreaking Start menu, this radical change surely deserved its own slide!
2) "New Internet Features". Vague and doesn't tell anything useful at all...
3) "Everything's .NET based. Yeah I guess The Task Manager, Paint, Wordpad, Notepad, Calculator, and even the kernel are now .NET based.
So yeah, totally stupid and useless slide, wouldn't have helped any Microsoft employee understand what was going on exactly.
Come on...

[AlphaBeta]

The thing is...
We don't know if a build was compiled.

Maybe some early post-XP lab_01 build with minor changes could have been compiled. But again your right there.

2698 was the only thing build-related to Blackcomb. I don't see how it's fake besides Lab01 including a new startmenu (Lab06 could have made an earlier compile though)

No. The "mainline" branches first jumped to track Windows Server 2003 development with build 3500 and then they jumped to track Longhorn development with build 4000. And no, there is no way the same lab could have worked on both Blackcomb and Server 2003 or Longhorn at the same time, that's not how source control works. And before you ask -- Longhorn was constrained to Lab06 before the jump to build 4000 because there was no real need for major UX work for a server release, so the previous sentence still applies.

The 2698 build number is ridiculous, why would Blackcomb use lower build numbers than Longhorn even though it was supposed to be its successor? It breaks the basic rule that newer builds have higher numbers.

[Random_User]

The 2500-3500 build range was skipped for Windows Server 2003. However, we do not know if Longhorn builds started to be compiled before or after the skip. It's plausible that some builds were compiled before the skip, and that approximately 1,000 build numbers were then skipped on the Longhorn branch independently of the skip for Windows Server 2003.

If that was what occurred, the existence of Blackcomb build 2698 would not be ridiculous for this particular reason (though it could still be ridiculous for other reasons).

[dixieLH]

nobody came to thought hes just provoking you all -_-

[Valerio]

nobody came to thought hes just provoking you all -_-

Offtopic Comment

I have suspected it since the beginning, but since I cannot be 100% sure...

[AlphaBeta]

The 2500-3500 build range was skipped for Windows Server 2003. However, we do not know if Longhorn builds started to be compiled before or after the skip. It's plausible that some builds were compiled before the skip, and that approximately 1,000 build numbers were then skipped on the Longhorn branch independently of the skip for Windows Server 2003.

Early Longhorn was literally just Lab06 builds of Windows Server 2003.

nobody came to thought hes just provoking you all -_-

This wouldn't be all that surprising given who the original poster is. Still, I think it's important to clear this up.

[WIL.MBR.HF8FT]

Blackcomb didn't leak any builds. So it's a mystery.
And Longhorn.....3683 is the first leaked build.I don't know any builds earlier than 3663.

[Windows2005]

The thing is...
We don't know if a build was compiled.

Maybe some early post-XP lab_01 build with minor changes could have been compiled. But again your right there.

2698 was the only thing build-related to Blackcomb. I don't see how it's fake besides Lab01 including a new start menu (Lab06 could have made an earlier compile though)

The 2698 build number is ridiculous, why would Blackcomb use lower build numbers than Longhorn even though it was supposed to be its successor? It breaks the basic rule that newer builds have higher numbers.

Longhorns jump from 37xx to 4xxx?
Blackcomb would have likely been in an early post-XP stage at the time until sometime in mid-2002 where as they would jump the numbers up before the release of Server 2003 and Longhorn 3683 soon in November

Again, Blackcomb wasn't the major at the time, that was Server 2003 and then Longhorn in late 2002.
Blackcomb would at least jump up to 48XX or higher during the time Longhorn jumped to 4XXX.
And my best estimate on an ending build would be 2730 based sometime in mid 2002, then Blackcomb would be put on hold for Longhorn to start to gain some of the features and then would be worked on in similar fashion besides Blackcomb having 1 build per 1-2 months.

Blackcomb was in preliminary stage around August 2001-March 2002 and would face many early changes during the time. Again, Blackcomb would be based off .NET features so you could say that Lab01 would have been one of the main creators of Blackcomb after Srv2003 moved into the Lab05 branch/RC.

Before you say it, Longhorn already followed in the Server 2003 35XX jump, Microsoft would have high confusion, especially that Blackcomb was planned to succeed XP at the time.

Another thing- Blackcomb would be referred to somewhere in the Server 2003 Source code as some sort of build

My best guess: 2 Versions of Blackcomb were being worked on, one would continue under the 26XX-3XXX codebase while another one which would include around 3 Hybrid builds would combine features from earlier compiles into a 49XX range which would be the planned base to upgrade from Longhorn. In mid-2002, Blackcomb removed their original codebase from 27XX and moved up to 49XX, 5XXX would have surfaced sometime to developers sometime in mid-2003 and when the reset happened. few builds compiled would be using 6XXX+ as their codebase, eventually Microsoft seen that they need more time so they postponed this to 7XXX-8XXX. It was renamed to Vienna and 7 also started later... Blackcomb was then postponed sometime into 2012 where Blackcomb was eventually called "Retired" after the 10 years Microsoft used that codename for the OS

I found this odd build number in the Windows XP source code (I only wrote down the number not the location)
2465.Lab01_N.010503

and that includes a very odd date for something XP, considering 2474 was compiled 5 days later
I suspect a Longhorn-Blackcomb build but again its likely some XP post-compile.
also has no date?

Blackcomb didn't leak any builds. So it's a mystery.
And Longhorn.....3683 is the first leaked build.I don't know any builds earlier than 3663.

Blackcomb was a likely highly-confidential version they planned to show off sometime in 2004. I would see why they needed time, I know few discs exist
Longhorn had 3657, 3648, and 3551 and many others from buildlists, source code references, file versions but could be some odd Srv03 builds...
Only one I can confirm for myself to exist would be 3657... from a disc image I found but it was deleted a while later...

The 2500-3500 build range was skipped for Windows Server 2003. However, we do not know if Longhorn builds started to be compiled before or after the skip. It's plausible that some builds were compiled before the skip, and that approximately 1,000 build numbers were then skipped on the Longhorn branch independently of the skip for Windows Server 2003.

Early Longhorn was literally just Lab06 builds of Windows Server 2003.

I would say early Longhorn from 35XX would have minor bug fixes and some small changes to some applications or something new.

[mrpijey]

Topic cleaned up.

Counter arguments in a respectful way with facts, not with personal attacks. If you have nothing proper to reply with then stay silent.

[Windows Thunderstruck]

Topic cleaned up.

Counter arguments in a respectful way with facts, not with personal attacks. If you have nothing proper to reply with then stay silent.

but this person (windows 2005) is literally making stuff up without evidence to speak of
alphabeta was right
shoulda locked this thread instead because they are just gonna go on and on forever just incoherently rambling

[dixieLH]

i don't think he gives a damn

[Windows2005]

Topic cleaned up.

Counter arguments in a respectful way with facts, not with personal attacks. If you have nothing proper to reply with then stay silent.

but this person (windows 2005) is literally making stuff up without evidence to speak of
alphabeta was right
shoulda locked this thread instead because they are just gonna go on and on forever just incoherently rambling

seems reasonable

you don't notice me referring to that answer as a "guess" or "likely"