Windows 8 Build 8005 compiled?

Despite our earlier speculation that build 8000 would signify the beginning of Beta for Windows 8, we have unconfirmed reports that Build 8005 has been compiled.  Further adding to the mystery, we're unsure if this build is a continuation of the milestone three train, or possibly part of the pre-beta phase.

According to a tweet by user MSFTtm on May 13th,

[the] "Last Windows 8 build: 6.2.8005.winmain.110512-1726"

Given the date string within the build number, it would appear that this build was compiled on May 12th.  Microsoft's Worldwide Partner Conference is fast approaching (July 10th-14th), which would seem to indicate Microsoft may be stepping up to showcase a more polished build, according to windows8beta.com.  It's unlikely that we'll see a leaked build on torrents soon, following news that two MS employees where allegedly terminated for leaking Windows 8 Builds.  This would indicate that Microsoft is serious about keeping these builds under wrap until a nearly finished product is ready.

Other builds that have been leaked are 7850, and 7955.  Exercise care when downloading newer advertised builds, as they may not be authentic, and could contain malicious software.

For more information on our recent Windows 8 coverage click here.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Playstation Network and Sony Online services slowly being restored

Next Story

Stolen laptop recovered thanks to Prey and swarm of Twitter users

46 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Build numbers have no barring on development status of the OS.. Yeah they have a few times artificially inflated the build number for release but that only happened for a few releases and once for beta.

Infact the Windows Version it's self is becoming increasingly irrelevent due to a decision made during Windows 7 Development to only increment the minor version to prevent those who do major version checks from breaking compatibility on a product that would otherwise run properly on the newer version.

This was str8 from Mark Russinovich...

Matt A. Tobin said,
Build numbers have no barring on development status of the OS.. Yeah they have a few times artificially inflated the build number for release but that only happened for a few releases and once for beta.

Infact the Windows Version it's self is becoming increasingly irrelevent due to a decision made during Windows 7 Development to only increment the minor version to prevent those who do major version checks from breaking compatibility on a product that would otherwise run properly on the newer version.

This was str8 from Mark Russinovich...


Some build number inflation was not needed. Like 2600 to 3600 and 7200 to 7600 and the odd things they did with build numbers for NT/9x ... I'm still trying to comprehend where Neptune 5000 came from.

Matt A. Tobin said,
Build numbers have no barring on development status of the OS.. Yeah they have a few times artificially inflated the build number for release but that only happened for a few releases and once for beta.

Infact the Windows Version it's self is becoming increasingly irrelevent due to a decision made during Windows 7 Development to only increment the minor version to prevent those who do major version checks from breaking compatibility on a product that would otherwise run properly on the newer version.

This was str8 from Mark Russinovich...

The question is, what do you base the version number on? the kernel version? the file system version? the explorer version? it all becomes rather meaningless and pointless like you've said. Personally I'd love to see Microsoft return to the old school version numbers and just call the next version 'Windows 8' rather than trying to come up with a gee-wizz name like 'Vista' or 'Ultra super turbo deluxe edition'.

As for Windows 7, on the surface it was incremental but the big changes were underneath the hood in terms of features added which allowed drivers to crash and recover gracefully, improvements to driver API's, better power management, the changes made to the dispatch lock, GDI now got fine grain scaling to improve performance etc. So yes on the surface there were minor changes but under the hood there was a boat load of improvements that simmer their way up to the top which the user experiences in the way of improved reliability, security, and 'teh snappier'

kevpan815 said,
I prefer UBUNTU thank you very much!

no thank you very much for such a meaning full post for this article.

I'm sure it's already compiled (since for example 7971 was compiled in late March and I'm pretty sure they have gotten to around 8000 in build numbers). I personally can't wait till WDC in September for the official (private beta?) reveal.

In my opinion this is fake, the same user reported that build 8006 was also compiled, without any proof, I can say that today build 8007 was compiled, will you belive me? I hope no.

I don't see why you would think 8000 would be the beta. 6000 wasn't Vista's beta, only 7000 was 7's beta. There's no pattern. Look at the timeline for speculation, not numbers.

I would like to think that Windows 8 could be the beginning of not releasing crap after a really good OS release Ex: ME and Vista. I hope MS has learned some valuable lessons. These long beta test periods are the best thing ever, and it would be nice to be involved in some of the feature decisions instead of all the bug fixes. When I first got my hands on Windows 7 beta, as someone who lives his life "under the hood" I was blown away by to how much attention they paid to all the silly little crap that was in the previous OS. A SMALL example would be in Vista when you right click on the start button, it buried you balls deep into explorer folder land, where no one really belongs.

I hope to be riding on Windows 8 as my main OS as soon as anything becomes available. Beta or whatever, I'm psyched.

jimmyfal said,
I would like to think that Windows 8 could be the beginning of not releasing crap after a really good OS release Ex: ME and Vista. I hope MS has learned some valuable lessons. These long beta test periods are the best thing ever, and it would be nice to be involved in some of the feature decisions instead of all the bug fixes. When I first got my hands on Windows 7 beta, as someone who lives his life "under the hood" I was blown away by to how much attention they paid to all the silly little crap that was in the previous OS. A SMALL example would be in Vista when you right click on the start button, it buried you balls deep into explorer folder land, where no one really belongs.

I hope to be riding on Windows 8 as my main OS as soon as anything becomes available. Beta or whatever, I'm psyched.

Vista was far from crap. It wasn't as lightweight as XP, but it was far from crap. XP's five year hold on the Windows firmament (and user-created offshoots, such as vLite) was, if anything, part of the reason Vista had a tough row to hoe; the "XP shoes" had gotten very comfy, and there was a lot of resistance to leaving.

PGHammer said,
Vista was far from crap. It wasn't as lightweight as XP, but it was far from crap. XP's five year hold on the Windows firmament (and user-created offshoots, such as vLite) was, if anything, part of the reason Vista had a tough row to hoe; the "XP shoes" had gotten very comfy, and there was a lot of resistance to leaving.

The biggest problem was the software based GDI rendering where as in Windows 7 they bought back in hardware accelerated GDI rendering. There are still a huge number of Windows components and applications that use GDI meaning the performance hit was pretty big for a lot of people. If Windows Vista had GDI acceleration like Windows 7 you wouldn't have heard a single performance complaint (or at the very least, not many complaints).

Lets remember that third party vendors had five years to get ready and update their applications to work in a limited user configuration but most just sat on their backside and failed to update their code base - something you really can't blame Microsoft for.

I'm wondering... why did we pick 8000 as the build number? Chrome doesn't rely on making all of the digits in its version number being 0s or 9s before calling it a "beta" build...

And since this is supposed to be kept "secret" anyways, why would they bother worrying about what build number this is? Not like it'll make it easier to market to the public... which shouldn't know...

The thing that's going to sway opinions is the tablets that get pushed out with Windows 8. As if you think about it, the performance may have been up and down in terms of desktops but W8 will be Microsoft's first REAL attempt to make an OS totally tablet friendly.

Noting the up and down-ness of previous OS's you'd think that with an extra platform to appease, Windows 8 is more likely to not meet expectations as there are far more design considerations this time. But then again...if Microsoft get this right, well who knows?

paul0544 said,

7850
7955 and
7959 (64 bit)

i mean there is a typo in the article , it says 7950 which was never released , its 7850 instead...

bogas04 said,

i mean there is a typo in the article , it says 7950 which was never released , its 7850 instead...

Indeed it is 7850 -- corrected in article. Thanks for the feedback!

Yes it's compiled. Not sure why people thought the beta would start with build 8000. The beta won't arrive until September at the earliest.

Tom W said,
Yes it's compiled. Not sure why people thought the beta would start with build 8000. The beta won't arrive until September at the earliest.

I wonder the same thing, Steven himself said that they would be announcing Windows 8 at PDC so to assume the beta would be any earlier just doesn't make sense.

Anyways FWIW I'm hearing that the beta build is going to be 81xx.

SoyoS said,

I wonder the same thing, Steven himself said that they would be announcing Windows 8 at PDC so to assume the beta would be any earlier just doesn't make sense.

Anyways FWIW I'm hearing that the beta build is going to be 81xx.

I think based on Windows 7 beta being build 7000, a lot of persons are thinking it would be history repeating itself. Also, Microsoft has in the past, given the public a frozen build while they continue work on the OS towards another milestone. So for instance, the public could get 8000 as a snapshot of development on which the the team would receive feedback, while they are far ahead in development. I am sure when we received Windows 7 RC 7100, Microsoft was probably 300 builds ahead already.

Mr. Dee said,

I think based on Windows 7 beta being build 7000, a lot of persons are thinking it would be history repeating itself. Also, Microsoft has in the past, given the public a frozen build while they continue work on the OS towards another milestone. So for instance, the public could get 8000 as a snapshot of development on which the the team would receive feedback, while they are far ahead in development. I am sure when we received Windows 7 RC 7100, Microsoft was probably 300 builds ahead already.


Yeah no doubt that Microsoft never release the latest builds of their software but when they do it's often at a press/dev event and not just when the clock strikes 12. Steven plans to open the box on things in September so it's safe to say we won't get a beta until then at the earliest.

SoyoS said,

I wonder the same thing, Steven himself said that they would be announcing Windows 8 at PDC so to assume the beta would be any earlier just doesn't make sense.

Anyways FWIW I'm hearing that the beta build is going to be 81xx.

81xx for beta is a safe bet but they could jump up after adding some big changes, so in the end we don't really know. I do however expect a beta in Sept at the new WDC (aka, the new PDC).

Tom W said,
Yes it's compiled. Not sure why people thought the beta would start with build 8000. The beta won't arrive until September at the earliest.

+1

Tom W said,
Yes it's compiled. Not sure why people thought the beta would start with build 8000. The beta won't arrive until September at the earliest.

Completely agree. It is supposed the public Windows 7 Beta will be released at the PDC that will be in september, this year.
Can you confirm this Tom?

DaveGreen said,

Completely agree. It is supposed the public Windows 7 Beta will be released at the PDC that will be in september, this year.
Can you confirm this Tom?

I can't confirm whether it will be a public beta. Microsoft might follow the same path as Win7, a tech preview build. A full-on public beta in September wouldn't surprise me though either way.

techwhizard said,

Funny how this troll did not mention XP and Windows 7.


XP, probably because everyone always forgets what a mess XP was the first year.
As for Windows 7, why would he, 7 was success from the beta

I'll avoid dismissing that opinion as a troll since if you dig deeper there are some interesting aspects here, regarding Microsoft's cycle of bad vs good releases. Will Windows 8 be a dip, or a top? Windows 7 set the bar very high, that's what we know.

Traditionally, there are greater risks associated with more major releases.

Windows 7 wasn't an as big step forward in architecture as Windows Vista was, which had to deal with a ton of bad PR from HDCP, encrypted media channels, EAX failing in games, a new driver model etc not to mention MS building up hype with Longhorn and then scrapping many ideas. So in a sense, while Vista didn't fare too well, it was essential for Windows 7's success.

As for Me, it was a disaster for other reasons. Mostly because the hybrid kernel it was based on had passed its expiration date and couldn't hold up all the new features. That failure paved the road for XP, though. Enough mistakes learned by MS to build a successful business AND consumer-oriented NT OS.

As for Windows 8, yes, it too has many quite major changes, especially as for where they're going with the UI. I personally don't feel like Metro turns me on too much... :-p I never have found it very appealing. So I may be one of those guys that end up liking Windows 7 more. But we'll see. After all - MS haven't shown any official builds of Win 8 yet that have contained the bulk of its final feature set.

Edited by Northgrove, May 15 2011, 11:53am :

Strike X said,
I had a feeling Windows 8 will be disaster like Windows Me and Vista.

I agree to a certain extent! I've noticed this sort of pattern in Windows history:
Windows 95: Not that great
Windows 98: Huge improvements on 95, usable (for me at least)
Windows 2000: Not that great
Windows XP: They have 9000+ XP and have levelled up
Windows Vista: Too much new stuff, didn't refine it
Windows Seven: Able to really build on it, fix everything and make better
Windows 8: New concepts, features, new idea of computing, etc. needs to take experience from this release to improve in future

It seems to me that this pattern holds for Windows, plus a lot of other stuff out there.

Tangmeister said,

I agree to a certain extent! I've noticed this sort of pattern in Windows history:
Windows 95: Not that great
Windows 98: Huge improvements on 95, usable (for me at least)
Windows 2000: Not that great
Windows XP: They have 9000+ XP and have levelled up
Windows Vista: Too much new stuff, didn't refine it

It seems to me that this pattern holds for Windows, plus a lot of other stuff out there.

Windows 95 made computing easy and not to mention, way more reliable than its predecessor Windows 3.1. I am sure if you had a choice between 3.1 or 95 you would take Windows 95 in a heart beat. It help to define modern Windows and future iterations were based on the same design philosophy, not to mention, it was proven in the market place with its successful adoption. Features like being a true operating system not requiring the DOS layer like 3.1, Plug and Play support. To say Windows 95 wasn't great at the time, would have been ridiculous considering what came before it.

Windows 98, what do you mean huge improvement? All it added was Windows Update, USB and DVD support and hanged on Shutdown along with a more webified Windows Explorer. Windows 98 SE cleaned up a lot of the problems in 98 and help make it a great OS, but to say it was a huge improvement is pushing it a bit. I saw Windows 95 running machines in schools and libraries years after 98 was released, which proved that it was more than satisfactory and features like USB support came in the OSR2 release.

Windows 2000 not that great? OK, now you are pushing it, first of all, its built on the reliable NT Kernel, which is way more stable than Windows 9x releases ever were. It had the best of both worlds, built in support for USB which NT 4 lacked, ACPI power management features for laptops which NT 4 lacked, support for DirectX, built in encryption, journaling file system which made recovery 10 times better than Windows 98, 50 percent faster, had way better up time than Windows 98, I ran Windows 2000 Professional for 2 months without a reboot. Lets not forget that Windows 2000 defined the platform for todays modern Windows, since Windows XP was built on top of it although XP in itself is a defining release.

Windows Vista, too much stuff? Then what would be the selling point? Windows Vista made Windows look really elegant and professional, Aero really jazzed up windows interface with its rich, realistic graphics. The new driver model and moving certain things out of the kernel like the graphis stack help to improve Windows reliability. The key feature of Windows Vista though was its security, User Account Control, Standard Administrator, ASLR, Kernel Patch Guard, Driver Signing, Complete PC Backup. I also liked features such as Instant Search which we now take for granted.

techwhizard said,

Funny how this troll did not mention XP and Windows 7.

Maybe because he is not a troll?

While I personally never had any issue with ME a lot of people did.

Vista could have been a very good OS but it was released in a rush, therefore not completely tuned up. Furthermore while Vista introduced many innovations it remained a dwarf compared to what Longhorn was supposed to be.

Strike X said,
I had a feeling Windows 8 will be disaster like Windows Me and Vista.

Windows releases are like the old Star Trek movies in that they alternated between crap and great.

Fritzly said,

Maybe because he is not a troll?

While I personally never had any issue with ME a lot of people did.

Vista could have been a very good OS but it was released in a rush, therefore not completely tuned up. Furthermore while Vista introduced many innovations it remained a dwarf compared to what Longhorn was supposed to be.

The big issue with ME was security, which is why I refused to install OR recommend it; it was less secure than Windows 95 SR2, let alone 98 SE. I actually ran (and recommended) Windows 2000 Professional (I moved lock/stock/apps/games from 98 SE) instead of ME. Longhorn (except for the feature that was killed; namely, WinFS) was, at its core, still a reskinned XP; the IHVs had dug in their heels and didn't want to move from the XP driver model (this was, in fact, the same attitude that doomed Neptune, the planned NT-based "Home" version of Windows 2000); again, these were largely third-tier IHVs (and a lot of the same crop of IHVs that had issues with not only Neptune, but NT as a whole; they had to be dragged in by their ears). I had pretty much *left* XP and had started using Vista in "production" mode by the time the last RC went out, and I was still running a P4 Northwood-C at the time. 7 was a success because the IHVs that naysayed Vista realized they had stuffed up, and stuffed up badly; at its core, the only change between Vista and 7 was efficiency (the driver model didn't change at all, and the applications and applets included with the OS didn't change much, if any, either); further, the cost of hardware had continued to drop, while performance per currency went up (otherwise known as "bang for buck"), even compared to Vista, let alone XP.

Tangmeister said,

I agree to a certain extent! I've noticed this sort of pattern in Windows history:
Windows 95: Not that great
Windows 98: Huge improvements on 95, usable (for me at least)
Windows 2000: Not that great
Windows XP: They have 9000+ XP and have levelled up
Windows Vista: Too much new stuff, didn't refine it
Windows Seven: Able to really build on it, fix everything and make better
Windows 8: New concepts, features, new idea of computing, etc. needs to take experience from this release to improve in future

It seems to me that this pattern holds for Windows, plus a lot of other stuff out there.

Windows 95 and NT 4.0 together were the paradigm shift that changed everything in the industry. It introduced computing to average tech skilled people. Anyone and everyone was capable of installing and running Win95. Win2k basically was the first attempt at truly blending the Win9x and NT line.

Strike X said,
I had a feeling Windows 8 will be disaster like Windows Me and Vista.

Microsoft and Apple are the new IBM, though I am not sure what the makes IBM?

Strike X said,
I had a feeling Windows 8 will be disaster like Windows Me and Vista.

I'mm... with my reservations too, i don't know why but there is not much pointing to "solid" as with 7. Just a personal impression.

azure.sapphire said,
Windows 95 and NT 4.0 together were the paradigm shift that changed everything in the industry. It introduced computing to average tech skilled people. Anyone and everyone was capable of installing and running Win95. Win2k basically was the first attempt at truly blending the Win9x and NT line.

Windows 2000 was meant to be the combining but what held it back was the lack of third parties getting their software and drivers compatible. Windows XP was never meant to be but came as a result of third parties once again not getting their act together.

Mr Nom Nom's said,

Windows 2000 was meant to be the combining but what held it back was the lack of third parties getting their software and drivers compatible. Windows XP was never meant to be but came as a result of third parties once again not getting their act together.

My point stands, Win2k was their first attempt at moving the two lines together, and for many of us it was pretty successful. No, not everyone with every piece of hardware/software benefited but a lot of us did. Hell, it look pretty good back in the spring of 1999, though it was much delayed at that point and had dropped the NT 5.0 as a label. On the positive side, unlike say... Rhapsody, it actually shipped and was a workable product for consumers.