BetaArchive is a non-profit site and your donations help to keep us online and thriving. If you can, please consider donating a small amount to help keep us online. Donate and find out more here. Thank you! - Andy & mrpijey
Back in December 2015, a (fake) copy of Neptune 5056 was posted here on BetaArchive. viewtopic.php?t=35257&start=50#top
It was a VERY badly made fake.
But there are a few posts mentioning a photo of the Neptune 5056 CD. Indeed, I saw it, and it looked very real. It said May 1999, but the scan was only online for a few minutes before being deleted and lost to history.
So, does anyone have this scan?
Offtopic Comment
BetaWiki says the Neptune 5000 screenshots are fake; is there any proof? Indeed, I recall seeing higher quality screenshots from this build in an IRC group a VERY long time ago
I dont think theres any real build 5056's CD photo, the photos would already been in betawiki website if they were real and build would have 2 sides of confrimed and fake legend, and original post of build 5056 in in ReleaseArchive that looks strange
But there are a few posts mentioning a photo of the Neptune 5056 CD. Indeed, I saw it, and it looked very real. It said May 1999, but the scan was only online for a few minutes before being deleted and lost to history.
Pretty sure that photo was just a photoshopped burnlab disc scan which was posted in the thread as a prank, it wasn't real
BetaWiki says the Neptune 5000 screenshots are fake; is there any proof? Indeed, I recall seeing higher quality screenshots from this build in an IRC group a VERY long time ago
No, there is no definitive proof, though considering the screenshots' dubious origin it's a pretty reasonable assumption. IMHO the real 5000 would also certainly not include new branding that's different from both contemporary Windows 2000 builds and build 5111
Considering that 5111.1 is a Milestone 2 build, that seems highly unlikely.
And also 5111 would be too specific to be the only build compiled.
5111 was the only ever build compiled but in some ME beta builds, you can see different build numbers which are not actual official ever-seen builds by the public that go under the 5.5 NT kernel that means they are Neptune builds.
Possibly milestones that never ever got be seen but honestly in my opinion if even Microsoft continued Neptune and its other counter parts (Odyssey and Triton) they still would have gotten scrapped.
Offtopic Comment
I still wonder why XP is 5.1 and Neptune is 5.5? XP released 1 and 1/2 year after Neptune.
A young man once said “I owe someone a hand when they needed me in the world of Software all about Microsoft and Windows.”
And also 5111 would be too specific to be the only build compiled.
5111 was the only ever build compiled but in some ME beta builds, you can see different build numbers which are not actual official ever-seen builds by the public that go under the 5.5 NT kernel that means they are Neptune builds.
Possibly milestones that never ever got be seen but honestly in my opinion if even Microsoft continued Neptune and its other counter parts (Odyssey and Triton) they still would have gotten scrapped.
Offtopic Comment
I still wonder why XP is 5.1 and Neptune is 5.5? XP released 1 and 1/2 year after Neptune.
I think it's quite likely that 5111 was the only build ever compiled. There were possibly multiple revisions of 5111, the first being 5111.1 and the official one being 5111.6.
I think it's quite likely that 5111 was the only build ever compiled. There were possibly multiple revisions of 5111, the first being 5111.1 and the official one being 5111.6.
That's actually quite unlikely considering the number of changes 5111 has over 2128 (the base build). Plus as mentioned before, the number 5111 is way too specific for it to be the only build compiled. It makes more sense that they jumped to build 5000 a few months before that and simply made their way to 5111. Explains all these Neptune file versions in Millennium builds, too.
The accepted consensus regarding revisions is that the 6 in 5111.6 from all these disc labels actually refers to a registry hive variant, rather than the revision. There is some stuff commented out in our copy that could possibly be included in other variants (likely intended for internal circulation rather than the semi-public release we have) of the same build and revision.
Last edited by AlphaBeta on Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I still wonder why XP is 5.1 and Neptune is 5.5? XP released 1 and 1/2 year after Neptune.
From my understanding, there may have been a convention back then that minor releases of Windows NT would have version number n.5 (e.g. Windows NT 3.5) signifying that they are in some sense halfway between major releases, that may have changed starting with Whistler.
I think it's quite likely that 5111 was the only build ever compiled. There were possibly multiple revisions of 5111, the first being 5111.1 and the official one being 5111.6.
That's actually quite unlikely considering the number of changes 5111 has over 2128 (the base build). Plus as mentioned before, the number 5111 is way too specific for it to be the only build compiled. It makes more sense that they jumped to build 5000 a few months before that and simply made their way to 5111. Explains all these Neptune file versions in Millennium builds, too.
The accepted consensus regarding revisions is that the 6 in 5111.6 from all these disc labels actually refers to a registry hive variant, rather than the revision. There is some stuff commented out in our copy that could possibly be included in other variants (likely intended for internal circulation rather than the semi-public release we have) of the same build and revision.
I agree with you AlphaBeta, Millennium builds were probably sharing the same kernel with Neptune, fact that December was the last month of it being in development makes that build 5XXX started from spring or maybe summer.
A young man once said “I owe someone a hand when they needed me in the world of Software all about Microsoft and Windows.”
I still wonder why XP is 5.1 and Neptune is 5.5? XP released 1 and 1/2 year after Neptune.
From my understanding, there may have been a convention back then that minor releases of Windows NT would have version number n.5 (e.g. Windows NT 3.5) signifying that they are in some sense halfway between major releases, that may have changed starting with Whistler.
I’m sure they did, if so then it’s probably to save something with their ‘number revision?’ or ‘major releases confusing people from the version and nt kernel?’ I’m not sure at all, because now Microsoft currently uses the same NT Kernel number which is stupid.
A young man once said “I owe someone a hand when they needed me in the world of Software all about Microsoft and Windows.”
5111 was the only ever build compiled but in some ME beta builds, you can see different build numbers which are not actual official ever-seen builds by the public that go under the 5.5 NT kernel that means they are Neptune builds.
Possibly milestones that never ever got be seen but honestly in my opinion if even Microsoft continued Neptune and its other counter parts (Odyssey and Triton) they still would have gotten scrapped.
Offtopic Comment
I still wonder why XP is 5.1 and Neptune is 5.5? XP released 1 and 1/2 year after Neptune.
I think it's quite likely that 5111 was the only build ever compiled. There were possibly multiple revisions of 5111, the first being 5111.1 and the official one being 5111.6.
They do of course, always make revisions of builds and different variants. Ugh when will Microsoft learn to stop skipping numbers and stop the revisions?
A young man once said “I owe someone a hand when they needed me in the world of Software all about Microsoft and Windows.”
