List of all post Windows 7 and Windows 8 builds

Microsoft has been hard at work on builds of Windows 7 (post RTM) and Windows 8. While it is impossible to actually list every build compiled, we do have a list, from a reliable source of information that lists nearly all of the builds to date.

The information posted below comes from MDL who has a solid history of not only providing leaked information but also being accurate with their leaks as well. The list is broken down into Post Win 7 builds and Windows 8 builds. Windows 8 is broken down further into its milestone builds.

The list of builds represents Microsoft's hard work towards completing the final product which has been rumored for both a January 2012 launch and a late 2012 launch. While there is more weight around a late 2012 launch some believe that the January 2012 launch may be with Windows 8 ARM based version for tablets. 

Winmain Branch Post-RTM:

6.1.7650.0.winmain.090917-1843  
6.1.7651.0.winmain.090924-1802  

6.1.7656.0.winmain.091015-0833  

6.1.7658.0.winmain.091019-1850  
6.1.7659.0.winmain.091020-1830  
6.1.7660.0.winmain.091021-1736  
6.1.7661.0.winmain.091022-1755  
6.1.7662.0.winmain.091023-1645  

6.1.7664.0.winmain.091027-1825  

6.1.7691.0.winmain.100106-1825  
6.1.7692.0.winmain.100107-1735  
6.1.7693.0.winmain.100111-1820  
6.1.7694.0.winmain.100113-1753  
6.1.7695.0.winmain.100114-1855  
6.1.7696.0.winmain.100115-1725  

6.1.7700.0.winmain.100122-1900  
6.1.7702.0.winmain.100126-1751  
6.1.7703.0.winmain.100127-1845  
6.1.7704.0.winmain.100128-1900  
6.1.7705.0.winmain.100129-1930  
6.1.7706.0.winmain.100201-1820  
6.1.7707.0.winmain.100202-1715  
6.1.7709.0.winmain.100204-1515  
6.1.7710.0.winmain.100205-2005  
6.1.7711.0.winmain.100208-1732  
6.1.7712.0.winmain.100211-1740  
6.1.7713.0.winmain.100212-1750  
6.1.7714.0.winmain.100215-1450  
6.1.7715.0.winmain.100217-1715  
6.1.7716.0.winmain.100218-1836  
6.1.7717.0.winmain.100219-1707  
6.1.7718.0.winmain.100223-1403  
6.1.7719.0.winmain.100224-1231  
6.1.7720.0.winmain.100225-1845  
6.1.7721.0.winmain.100226-1832  
6.1.7722.0.winmain.100301-1456  
6.1.7723.0.winmain.100302-1805  
6.1.7724.0.winmain.100303-1435  
6.1.7725.0.winmain.100304-1545  
6.1.7726.0.winmain.100311-1807  
6.1.7727.0.winmain.100315-1740  
6.1.7727.0.winmain.100315-1747  
6.1.7729.0.winmain.100318-1855  
6.1.7730.0.winmain.100319-1635  
6.1.7731.0.winmain.100323-1817  

6.1.7755.0.winmain.100525-1800

7764.0.100615-1748  

Milestone 1
6.2.7800.0.winmain_win8m1.100816-1855  
6.2.7804.0.winmain_win8m1.100820-1742  
6.2.7809.0.winmain_win8m1.100827-1740  
6.2.7811.0.winmain_win8m1.100831-1731  
6.2.7812.0.winmain_win8m1.100901-1810  
6.2.7814.0.winmain_win8m1.100903-1700  
6.2.7817.0.winmain_win8m1.100910-1622  
6.2.7818.0.winmain_win8m1.100913-1840  
6.2.7821.0.winmain_win8m1.100916-1940  
6.2.7821.0.winmain_win8m1.100916-1940  
6.2.7822.0.winmain_win8m1.100920-1625  
6.2.7853.0.winmain_win8m1.100928-1040  
6.2.7855.0.winmain_win8m1.101001-1815  
6.2.7857.0.winmain_win8m1.101006-1908  
6.2.7859.0.winmain_win8m1.101008-1300  
6.2.7866.0.winmain_win8m1.101019-1507  
6.2.7867.0.winmain_win8m1.101020-1800   [ CES 2011 ]
6.2.7870.0.winmain_win8m1.101025-1900  
6.2.7871.0.winmain_win8m1.101026-1800  
6.2.7874.0.winmain_win8m1.101029-1838  
6.2.7875.0.winmain_win8m1.101101-1832  
6.2.7878.0.winmain_win8m1.101104-1752  
6.2.7880.0.winmain_win8m1.101108-1530  
6.2.7881.0.winmain_win8m1.101109-1816  
6.2.7882.0.winmain_win8m1.101110-1650  
6.2.7883.0.winmain_win8m1.101111-1631  
6.2.7890.0.winmain_win8m1.101122-1810  
6.2.7891.0.winmain_win8m1.101123-1908  
6.2.7892.0.winmain_win8m1.101129-1902  
6.2.7895.0.winmain_win8m1.101202-1845  
6.2.7898.0.winmain_win8m1.101207-1620  
6.2.7899.0.winmain_win8m1.101208-1900  

Milestone 2
6.2.7900.0.winmain_win8m2.101209-1830  
6.2.7901.0.winmain_win8m2.101210-1755  
6.2.7902.0.winmain_win8m2.101213-1745  
6.2.7903.0.winmain_win8m2.101215-2325  
6.2.7904.0.winmain_win8m2.101216-1845  
6.2.7905.0.winmain_win8m2.110103-2100  
6.2.7906.0.winmain_win8m2.110105-1750  
6.2.7907.0.winmain_win8m2.110106-1823  
6.2.7907.0.fbl_x.110109-1800 (FBL)  
6.2.7909.0.winmain_win8m2.110110-1515  
6.2.7910.0.winmain_win8m2.110111-1804  
6.2.7911.0.winmain_win8m2.110112-1725  

6.2.7913.0.winmain_win8m2.110114-1745
6.2.7914.0.winmain_win8m2.110118-1605
6.2.7915.0.winmain_win8m2.110119-1806
6.2.7916.0.winmain_win8m2.110121-1715
7917.0.winmain_win8m2.110125-1757

6.2.7920.0.winmain_win8m2.110128-1740
6.2.7920.0.fbl_srv.110128-1823 (Notepad.exe)
6.2.7921.0.winmain_win8m2.110201-2005
6.2.7922.0.winmain_win8m2.110202-1840
6.2.7925.0.winmain_win8m2.110207-1736
6.2.7926.0.winmain_win8m2.110209-1755
6.2.7927.0.winmain_win8m2.110210-1740
6.2.7928.0.winmain_win8m2.110214-1825
7929.0.winmain_win8m2.110215-1802
6.2.7930.0.winmain_win8m2.110217-1825
6.2.7947.0.winmain_win8m2_escrow.110218-1608 latest build of Windows 8

Image Credit: clickonf5 (Flickr)

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

The funny and strange tech stories from around the world this week

Next Story

Huawei offers to bring mobile coverage to London Underground

67 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

lol They should just start naming them after animals if they are doing that...Follow Apples example of sticking with 10.x
(Yes, I am joking. Though I do wonder what Windows 8 will be called...)

ncc50446 said,
lol They should just start naming them after animals if they are doing that...Follow Apples example of sticking with 10.x
(Yes, I am joking. Though I do wonder what Windows 8 will be called...)

Probably after a mountain or some other piece of geography.

djdanster said,
What does FBL mean? I googled it and got Feedback Loop. Is that what it means?

It's a different development branch. Not everything is put into the winmain branch. The UI for example has probably been developed alongside the main branch for quite some time. The demo of the milestone 1 build at CES didn't show any significant UI changes, and that's because winmain only contains core architecture changes in early milestone builds.

floopy said,

It's a different development branch. Not everything is put into the winmain branch. The UI for example has probably been developed alongside the main branch for quite some time. The demo of the milestone 1 build at CES didn't show any significant UI changes, and that's because winmain only contains core architecture changes in early milestone builds.

Ahhh right, thanks for clearing that up

floopy said,
It's a different development branch. Not everything is put into the winmain branch. The UI for example has probably been developed alongside the main branch for quite some time. The demo of the milestone 1 build at CES didn't show any significant UI changes, and that's because winmain only contains core architecture changes in early milestone builds.

I wouldn't be surprised that with the modularisation of code it has allowed the UI team to work independently of the 'underlying engine' through the use of XAML or something similar.

"...January 2012 launch and a late 2012 launch..."

I'm hoping for January 2012, but I'll take the midpoint of that range too.

bj55555 said,
"...January 2012 launch and a late 2012 launch..."

I'm hoping for January 2012, but I'll take the midpoint of that range too.

Well the rumor is that the January 2012 release could be for the tablet version only and not the full desktop version that will come later. Only time will tell though.

So, Windows 8 will suck and ONLY windows 9 will be the best assuming it will be 7.xxx
Vista = ME
7 = ME ||
8 = ME |||
9 = Best (new features, 3D desktop, IE9 etc?)

JunkMail said,
So, Windows 8 will suck and ONLY windows 9 will be the best assuming it will be 7.xxx
Vista = ME
7 = ME ||
8 = ME |||
9 = Best (new features, 3D desktop, IE9 etc?)

Hahahahahahahahahahaha..... ohh God - thanks for the laughs.

JunkMail said,
So, Windows 8 will suck and ONLY windows 9 will be the best assuming it will be 7.xxx
Vista = ME
7 = ME ||
8 = ME |||
9 = Best (new features, 3D desktop, IE9 etc?)

Why not just switch to Linux and get it over with, then VM Windows XP, hoping that Microsoft will give it another lease on life, and when it doesn't come back and complain more about how Windows "sucks".

Frylock86 said,

Why not just switch to Linux and get it over with, then VM Windows XP, hoping that Microsoft will give it another lease on life, and when it doesn't come back and complain more about how Windows "sucks".

Only you would pull out a Windows XP-bashing reference out of a comment that didn't mention XP at all.

JunkMail said,
So, Windows 8 will suck and ONLY windows 9 will be the best assuming it will be 7.xxx
Vista = ME
7 = ME ||
8 = ME |||
9 = Best (new features, 3D desktop, IE9 etc?)

He is right at least about the UI. Microsoft went a bit backwards and threw out directsound and gdi hardware acceleration. Directsound was rectified by a workaround called ALchemy, but gdi is still very slow even though WDDM 1.1 drivers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay-gqx18UTM

I hope windows 8 uses direct2d for the entire ui but I don't know. windows 7 is slowing down my file browsing and applications.

SoCalRox said,
I'm surprised we've seen no leaks yet. (And to be clear, I am not seeking links.)
I too am shocked. I remember the Longhorn leaks and boy those were plenty.

This is great news. I would love to be able to get a new computer when Windows 8 comes out, unless this one breaks before.

Doesnt make sense to change the kernel version number unless it's a significant upgrade for each version number, unless they change their version scheming.

Are they ever gonna change the version number from 6.x to well, err... seeing as they missed out 7.x - version 8.x?

Bit silly having Windows 8, 9, 10 etc still running 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 etc!

Zoom7000 said,
Are they ever gonna change the version number from 6.x to well, err... seeing as they missed out 7.x - version 8.x?

Bit silly having Windows 8, 9, 10 etc still running 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 etc!

Who cares......seriously.

Zoom7000 said,
Are they ever gonna change the version number from 6.x to well, err... seeing as they missed out 7.x - version 8.x?

Bit silly having Windows 8, 9, 10 etc still running 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 etc!

To keep compatibility I wouldn't be surprised if it will remain 6.x

Zoom7000 said,
Are they ever gonna change the version number from 6.x to well, err... seeing as they missed out 7.x - version 8.x?

Bit silly having Windows 8, 9, 10 etc still running 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 etc!

Its more complicated that just changing from 6.0 to 7.0 for win7 and above. Do you not think that discussion was had at Microsoft or do you seriously think someone accidentally shipped Win7 as 6.1?

Zoom7000 said,
Are they ever gonna change the version number from 6.x to well, err... seeing as they missed out 7.x - version 8.x?

Bit silly having Windows 8, 9, 10 etc still running 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 etc!

These are Kernel numbers, Win2k=v5, XP=5.1, 2003=5.2 = everyone happy

Vista = 6.0 = big changes = QQ'ing, Unhappiness, Gnashing of teeth, etc.... i dont think microsoft are inclined to do that again... there will be more happiness without breaking changes.

Zoom7000 said,
Are they ever gonna change the version number from 6.x to well, err... seeing as they missed out 7.x - version 8.x?

Bit silly having Windows 8, 9, 10 etc still running 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 etc!

It's a bit silly to care what the internal kernel version number is. Because it is only just that, a number.

Zoom7000 said,
Are they ever gonna change the version number from 6.x to well, err... seeing as they missed out 7.x - version 8.x?

Bit silly having Windows 8, 9, 10 etc still running 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 etc!


This question has basically been answered already, but I'll try to explain it in layman's terms.

It all started (well, for the larger mainstream installation base) with NT4.0. This was, as the name implies, version 4.0 of the New Technology kernel. The kernel is the base on which the system runs, like the foundations of a house.

Then Microsoft released Windows 2000, which was a new/upgraded kernel, so it got the kernel number 5. It just had enough improvements to be called a new version. Also, the driver system changed significantly enough from NT4.0 to 5.0 to need a new version. After this, Microsoft released Windows XP and Server 2003. These were basically just enhanced versions of Windows 2000, hence the kernel number: NT5.1. The underlying driver structure of 2000 and XP/2003 was the same; Windows 2000 drivers could and can still be used by Windows XP/2003 systems (in most cases at least).

When Microsoft made Vista 5 years ago, they changed the driver system so much that they had to call it a new kernel version; version 6.0. Under the hood, Vista was just so significantly different from XP that it needed a new version number. As you might remember, this caused quite a bit of fuzz; many hardware companies just didn't have proper drivers ready, sometimes even until a year after the release date.

Because of these problems with Vista, I think Microsoft will now be a bit reluctant to go to a completely new NT7.0 kernel. We could see this with Windows 7, which just was an evolved version of Vista, so it got NT number 6.1. Now with Windows 8, it apparently isn't enough of a major change underneath to be called a new NT kernel. Probably this will also mean that current drivers will just need a bit of tweaking to run on Windows 8, instead of a complete rewrite like Vista required.

floopy said,
It's a bit silly to care what the internal kernel version number is. Because it is only just that, a number.

Agreed; Solaris 10's kernel is 5.10, Linux distros have a totally different version to the kernel, and Mac OS X has a different kernel version when compared to the version reported ot the end user. In the end, as you said, it doesn't matter to the end user.

RuuddieBoy said,

Because of these problems with Vista, I think Microsoft will now be a bit reluctant to go to a completely new NT7.0 kernel. We could see this with Windows 7, which just was an evolved version of Vista, so it got NT number 6.1.

In which case, there's no point in upgrading to Windows 8.
Winodws 7 was quite significant, so I'll stick with that for now

Mr Spoon said,

In which case, there's no point in upgrading to Windows 8.
Winodws 7 was quite significant, so I'll stick with that for now

You don't seem to understand. The internal version number will not be changed unless there is a major change in the driver model or the Win32 API.

We just had a overhaul of the driver model with Vista and some changes to the API (with UAC), so there is no need to revamp those in quite some time. Changing the version number will break compatibility with software and drivers, because they check for the major version number (the number before the point). So if there are no big changes to the drivers or API there's no need to bump the major version number. Breaking compatibility just for the sake of it is stupid, and that's why Microsoft isn't doing it.

This doesn't mean that there can't be big changes to the kernel, which there already has been in Windows 7 (much improved multi-threading for example). Stop thinking that the kernel version number has any relation to the actual code. It's pretty much only there to control driver and application compatibility.

Detection said,
Very surprised nothing is floating around for download yet

Patience young Padawan learner, a few more months yet it is to go.

Detection said,
Very surprised nothing is floating around for download yet

No one wants to run very buggy M1 and M2 builds. M3 which is close to a first beta maybe, but even then I expect MS will have another open beta like they did with Win7.

GP007 said,

No one wants to run very buggy M1 and M2 builds. M3 which is close to a first beta maybe, but even then I expect MS will have another open beta like they did with Win7.


You obviously lack some geekiness!
Can you compensate with kinkiness at least?

GS:win

rsvr85 said,
Stick that in yer pipe and smoke it Warren! Nice work Brad

Rofl yeah. In this day and age there is no need for another microsoft site. I laughed when I saw that he was leaving.


The list of builds represents Microsoft's hard work towards completing the final product which has been rumored for both a January 2012 launch and a "late 2012" launch.

Mr. Dee said,

The list of builds represents Microsoft's hard work towards completing the final product which has been rumored for both a January 2012 launch and a "late 2012" launch.

Maybe the January 2012 launch is the 'soft launch' for OEM's and enterprise customers with the 'hard launch' being the end of 2012 when hardware ships and appears in retail channels.

Mr. Dee said,

The list of builds represents Microsoft's hard work towards completing the final product which has been rumored for both a January 2012 launch and a "late 2012" launch.

Damn. January 2012 launch would mean we have to expect a beta very soon. I wonder why they chose not to release it before Christmas (one would think they'd learn after Vista and 7)

Mr Nom Nom's said,

Maybe the January 2012 launch is the 'soft launch' for OEM's and enterprise customers with the 'hard launch' being the end of 2012 when hardware ships and appears in retail channels.

Chances are this version of Windows may finally ship during the back to school season. Windows hasn't done that since Windows 98 (June release). XP (October), Vista (January), and Windows 7 (October) all missed that rush where the OS was still pretty fresh on people's minds.