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

Apple Mac OS X Lion DP3 available

46 Comments

View more comments

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.

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!

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?

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...

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 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.

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'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.

kevpan815 said,
I prefer UBUNTU thank you very much!

no thank you very much for such a meaning full post for 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'

Commenting is disabled on this article.