might be fake but still

[G23M]

I found a site (https://mundonaweb.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... 01-a-2004/) that said alot about m1 and m2 from build even some build number might be fake.

[dixieLH]

those are driver build versions that came from server 2003

[G23M]

What about the others

[dixieLH]

year of article: 2009
at that time, the available info was mostly rumored, nothing proved
most sites took copy-paste info from other sites, and even on OSBA back then the M1-M2 info was faked

you wan't concrete info, try and contact Jim Allchin, ha aint working for MS anymore.

[G23M]

Ok at least it has some real buids

[anonymous74]

What dixie said basically - these old build lists are pretty unreliable. Seems people would just take any build number posted by anyone as fact and then add it to these lists. I've seen a bunch all over the place posted here throughout the years, and in just about all cases, we never see anything beyond the rumored build number of the build itself. There's always a chance that a "Longhorn Build 3551.Lab01_N(storbuild).010917-1031" exists/existed, but chances are someone just made it up. That happened pretty often.

I can especially prove that this list is unreliable based on the inclusion of build numbers like "3883" and "3940". It's well known now that LH build numbers skipped straight to 4000 when M4 began, never reaching past the 37xx range.

Where I'd always recommend checking for these sorts of things is the BA Wiki or betawiki.net. Both these places have their own build lists that unlike these old ones, are pretty thoroughly validated. Build numbers with no substance beyond "someone posted them somewhere" typically won't be listed there. I'd read their specific criteria, but to my knowledge, in order for a build to be listed there, it has to at least have some plausible evidence for its existence (ie: screenshots or references in microsoft documents).
Beyond that, it's just pure speculation.