Registrations are now open. Join us today!
There is still a lot of work to do on the wiki yet! More information about editing can be found here.
Already have an account?

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Windows 2000"

From BetaArchive Wiki
 
(unconfirmed)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
Many builds' pages say "This build was mentioned in a Google Groups discussion", but it's only suspected of their existence, and not proven at all. For example, there is 1942's supposed discussion where a guy asks for help with this build, and has no answers. Searching for his name gives nothing consistent. The date seems to prove it might be real, but other than that, there's not solid proof for this build. And this is the case for other builds as well.
 
Many builds' pages say "This build was mentioned in a Google Groups discussion", but it's only suspected of their existence, and not proven at all. For example, there is 1942's supposed discussion where a guy asks for help with this build, and has no answers. Searching for his name gives nothing consistent. The date seems to prove it might be real, but other than that, there's not solid proof for this build. And this is the case for other builds as well.
 +
:That's why it's under Unconfirmed. --[[User:LilShootDawg|LilShootDawg]] ([[User talk:LilShootDawg|talk]]) 20:23, 19 March 2019 (GMT)

Latest revision as of 20:23, 19 March 2019

Credibility for some builds

Many builds' pages say "This build was mentioned in a Google Groups discussion", but it's only suspected of their existence, and not proven at all. For example, there is 1942's supposed discussion where a guy asks for help with this build, and has no answers. Searching for his name gives nothing consistent. The date seems to prove it might be real, but other than that, there's not solid proof for this build. And this is the case for other builds as well.

That's why it's under Unconfirmed. --LilShootDawg (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2019 (GMT)