Windows Neptune Build 5056

Discuss Windows 2000, NT, XP and Windows Server 2000, 2003, SBS 2003.
Post Reply
DiskingRound
User avatar
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:26 pm
Location: Inside the space between . and I

Windows Neptune Build 5056

Post by DiskingRound »

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

HowAbout8.1?
User avatar
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2023 8:29 am

Re: Windows Neptune Build 5056

Post by HowAbout8.1? »

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

dixieLH
User avatar
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:59 pm

Re: Windows Neptune Build 5056

Post by dixieLH »

with internal stuff you can never know
maybe there was cd but just for ms employees

AlphaBeta
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:33 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: Windows Neptune Build 5056

Post by AlphaBeta »

DiskingRound wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2024 5:16 am
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
DiskingRound wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2024 5:16 am
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
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
AlphaBeta, stop brainwashing me immediately!

Image

DeveloperPudu
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2022 5:58 pm

Re: Windows Neptune Build 5056

Post by DeveloperPudu »

If HRH George J Rickle IV on Quora is correct, The other Windows Neptune builds were probably never given to any testers to begin with.

https://www.quora.com/If-Windows-Neptun ... re-testers
https://www.quora.com/Did-Microsoft-rea ... r-archives

DiskingRound
User avatar
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:26 pm
Location: Inside the space between . and I

Re: Windows Neptune Build 5056

Post by DiskingRound »

DeveloperPudu wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:54 pm
If HRH George J Rickle IV on Quora is correct, The other Windows Neptune builds were probably never given to any testers to begin with.

https://www.quora.com/If-Windows-Neptun ... re-testers
https://www.quora.com/Did-Microsoft-rea ... r-archives
There is a photo of a 5111.6 CD, but apparently, it is just a 5111.1 mislabeled by M$. Or maybe vice-versa.

Anyway, they're the same build: Neptune 5111.

The only 100% confirmed Neptune build.

And possibly, the only one ever compiled. Who knows.

Random_User
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1222
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:48 am

Re: Windows Neptune Build 5056

Post by Random_User »

DiskingRound wrote:And possibly, the only one ever compiled. Who knows.
Considering that 5111.1 is a Milestone 2 build, that seems highly unlikely.

neptune5111
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2024 10:24 pm

Re: Windows Neptune Build 5056

Post by neptune5111 »

Random_User wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2024 1:42 am
DiskingRound wrote:And possibly, the only one ever compiled. Who knows.
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.

HIYAWINDOWS
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2024 5:27 pm

Re: Windows Neptune Build 5056

Post by HIYAWINDOWS »

neptune5111 wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2024 5:49 pm
Random_User wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2024 1:42 am


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.

dixieLH
User avatar
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:59 pm

Re: Windows Neptune Build 5056

Post by dixieLH »

actually xp was 5.01 in begining
also take in mind xp wasn't even in mind to be made when they gave neptune higher number
so it makes sense

DiskingRound
User avatar
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:26 pm
Location: Inside the space between . and I

Re: Windows Neptune Build 5056

Post by DiskingRound »

HIYAWINDOWS wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2024 9:16 pm
neptune5111 wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2024 5:49 pm


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.

AlphaBeta
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:33 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: Windows Neptune Build 5056

Post by AlphaBeta »

dixieLH wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2024 10:21 pm
actually xp was 5.01 in begining
And it remained that internally, they just changed the formatting of the version to remove the padding zeros.
DiskingRound wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2024 5:21 pm
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.
AlphaBeta, stop brainwashing me immediately!

Image

Random_User
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1222
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:48 am

Re: Windows Neptune Build 5056

Post by Random_User »

HIYAWINDOWS wrote:
Offtopic Comment
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.

Post Reply