Windows build 6.3.9740.0 shows up in app logs

Click for larger image.

The world is eagerly waiting for Microsoft to ship the next update to Windows, whether it will be another update to Windows 8.1 or will be called 8.2, is still not known, but we do know that it will include the Start menu.

It’s not a big surprise that Microsoft is hard at work on the next iteration of Windows but what is unknown is if this build is the 8.2 update or if it is actually Windows 9. With the 8.1 update 1 builds, only the sub digits were changed but here we see the front end of the build number being updated which indicates that it’s a larger update to the OS.

We should also point out that build 9729 has also recently been spotted too, in the same app logs, which goes to show that Microsoft has been compiling builds at a fairly decent rate.

We expect that the next update for Windows will arrive sometime around August and we would expect that Microsoft will include the Start menu with that build considering they already showed it off at BUILD.

While build strings are not the most juicy bits of Windows news to make their way to the Internet, for enthusiasts, it’s a version of ‘people watching’ to see how quickly (or slowly) unreleased builds of Windows get compiled inside the walls of Redmond. 

Source: AngelWZR

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

LG G3 leaked with front and back pictures

Next Story

Microsoft: Fake tech support call scam "shows no signs of slowing down"

71 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

6.3 is windows 8.1
6.2 is windows 8
6.1 is windows 7
6.0 is vista

So this is still 8.1.

"Windows 8.2" or 9 would have to change the major version to 6.4 or higher.

I'm more excited about having Modern apps on the desktop than the actual Start Menu. The Mail and People app are great examples of apps that can be used in the desktop. I don't use them as much on my desktop PC because of the full screen mode that is needed for Modern apps right now.

I hope the next update arrives sooner than expected.

Steven P. said,
"Windows 8.1 Update 2 (Autumn roll up) Start menu edition" catchy name :p

Really does feel like a perpetual Beta now.

Mugwump00 said,

... and Google inc. is worth how much?

Sorry, the context of your comment just soared over my head

People are very open to progressive software that is constantly revised and improved - they see it as a virtue. Not that bloody cryptic, surely?

Mugwump00 said,
People are very open to progressive software that is constantly revised and improved - they see it as a virtue. Not that bloody cryptic, surely?

Software is fair enough but not a production operating system for both consumer and enterprise deployments.

(And yes, that was very cryptic)

This will probably be another minor UI/feature update - something I'd expect a big company like Microsoft to release within two weeks.

How microsoft has learned over a decade of releasing the most successful operating system.

First, remove the most frequently used features and messed up the overall UI a little bit here and there.

Second, introduce some intricate features and redundant application such as widget and dreamscene like during the vista era.

Third, ignored fiasco for minimum two years

Fourth, aggregate the overall user feedback and restore back the feature that user can't leave without such as start button/menu

Fifth, Release it as beta and everyone prepare to label it as this is the version what predecessor should have become since day one

Sixth, myriad of journalism begin to praise as cliche as possible across the website and newspaper

Finally, it's the most successful operating system in the history of microsoft and generate enormous of revenue again

Master of Earth said,

Second, introduce some intricate features and redundant application such as widget and dreamscene like during the vista era.

I'm not sure why you'd think that the Windows Sidebar was redundant. It was a great idea (particularly during the "Longhorn" timeframe) that was designed to display dynamic information on the user's desktop. With the Sidebar, users would no longer need to open separate webpages or applications for information about individual topics such as RSS news feeds, weather updates, currency updates, stock market information, et cetera, as the Sidebar consolidates all of that information into a single location: the Windows desktop.

When one considers the "content consumption" services provided by mobile applications and operating systems, it becomes apparent that the Windows Sidebar is just another example of Microsoft being ahead of its time.

+1. One of MS's genuinely cynical moves, pulling Desktop Gadgets. A good, highly functional feature, reasonably well executed - I found it required "7 Sidebar" to support staying visible when other apps are full-screen, after Vista.

Luckily easily re-instated in Win8x.

Master of Earth said,
How microsoft has learned over a decade of releasing the most successful operating system.

First, remove the most frequently used features and messed up the overall UI a little bit here and there.

Second, introduce some intricate features and redundant application such as widget and dreamscene like during the vista era.

Third, ignored fiasco for minimum two years

Fourth, aggregate the overall user feedback and restore back the feature that user can't leave without such as start button/menu

Fifth, Release it as beta and everyone prepare to label it as this is the version what predecessor should have become since day one

Sixth, myriad of journalism begin to praise as cliche as possible across the website and newspaper

Finally, it's the most successful operating system in the history of microsoft and generate enormous of revenue again

And this is why WIndows XP just WONT die. LOL

After Vista people become weary of upgrading and viewed it as the sake of upgrading after that point. Then people on sites like slashdot.org wrote

Win 7 == VISTA SP 2!!

This scared users feeling well Windows 7 must be a POS then if it is just Vista with a different theme?! I will stick with XP just a little bit more etc. Then the cell phone oriented 8 showed up! Now these users are holding onto XP tight with clunched fists afraid to let go.

As much as I love Windows 7 it is inferior to XP in many ways on top of the hood. Run as user removed. Ok it is there but very hidden for mere mortals who do not know the secret key combo. Show desktop hidden without an obvious icon. Cut and paste in explorer very intuitive and looks it is disabled. Task bar too big and takes up pixels. Windows explorer missing soo many options that XP had. Modern versions of IE are missing menu's and things like the bottom info bar is gone after IE 8. The icons are missing words on the task and are ugly square which make it hard to see compared to rectangle square buttons in XP. Usefull for older people with limited eye site who need to read.

So what is the excuse to not to change? There it is. Most important excuse of all time is it works

Consumer upgrades per se were never the major Windows revenue streams compared to the OEM & enterprise businesses, however... market saturation with more adequate kit that lasts for years, the hype and the compelling cases for tablet over 'old-fashioned' PCs, the losing of hearts-n-minds to its rivals ... the numerous reasons why enterprises are no-longer simply refreshing large estates of PC workstations every few years etc. - do you really think Slashdot.org articles and taskbar pixels are the significant reasons why Windows sales have slowed so?

Yes people ask their geek friends. If they say I heard win 7 is horrible and just like your vista you replaced with XP?! This causes a resistance to upgrade from a perfectly working computer

Master of Earth said,

First, remove the most frequently used features and messed up the overall UI a little bit here and there.

If you're pointing to the start menu: it's NOT the most frequently used feature. Not even close. The vast majority only uses it once: to shut down their PC, nothing else.

Any 'geeks' want to speak up for this guy and tell me Windows 7 was horrible 'just like' Vista (Vista's issue were somewhat more hype than substance IMO) and to stick with XP? As general sentiments go, I've no memory of that one.

sinetheo said,
Yes people ask their geek friends. If they say I heard win 7 is horrible and just like your vista you replaced with XP?! This causes a resistance to upgrade from a perfectly working computer

Any 'geeks' want to speak up for this guy and tell me Windows 7 was horrible 'just like' Vista (Vista's issue were somewhat more hype than substance IMO) and to stick with XP? As general sentiments go, I've no memory of that one.

sinetheo said,

And this is why WIndows XP just WONT die. LOL

After Vista people become weary of upgrading and viewed it as the sake of upgrading after that point. Then people on sites like slashdot.org wrote

Win 7 == VISTA SP 2!!

This scared users feeling well Windows 7 must be a POS then if it is just Vista with a different theme?! I will stick with XP just a little bit more etc. Then the cell phone oriented 8 showed up! Now these users are holding onto XP tight with clunched fists afraid to let go.

As much as I love Windows 7 it is inferior to XP in many ways on top of the hood. Run as user removed. Ok it is there but very hidden for mere mortals who do not know the secret key combo. Show desktop hidden without an obvious icon. Cut and paste in explorer very intuitive and looks it is disabled. Task bar too big and takes up pixels. Windows explorer missing soo many options that XP had. Modern versions of IE are missing menu's and things like the bottom info bar is gone after IE 8. The icons are missing words on the task and are ugly square which make it hard to see compared to rectangle square buttons in XP. Usefull for older people with limited eye site who need to read.

So what is the excuse to not to change? There it is. Most important excuse of all time is it works

This post gave me cancer.

Windows 7 in many ways is WORSE than XP? You're out of your mind.

@sinetheo:

You're right. Vista, W7, W8.x editions based Windows NT 6.x core. Of course Win7 more good than Vista. Because NT 6.1 and 6.2 and NT 6.3 more optimized as against NT 6.0/Vista.

But I don't like NT 6.x core & interface against contain many and very useful features, improvements. NT 6.x cores using too much CPU & RAM & Disk (WinSxS!).

Simple a test: Windows PE editions contain only the main core of Windows NT. Please compare WinPE 1.x and 2.x(or next versions). Definitely WinPE 1.x (in other words NT 5.x) is more speed and slight than next version (NT 6.x). NT 5.x builds more slight use RAM, CPU, Disk. That is why many people are still using XP. Other reason is classic GUI.

Win. NT 6.x editions' setup bulk size: 2~3 GB (after setup takes up 10~16 GB in disk)
Win. NT 5.x editions' setup bulk size: 500~600 MB (after setup takes up 1~3 GB in disk)

Mobile OSs incredibly fast spreading. In this case, how much longer survive Windows while built over heavy the cores (NT 6.x)? Windows NT 7.0 shouldn't become more clumsy, more over bulky, more RAM-CPU-Disk usage. If Microsoft inability to creating a new core of Windows NT, at least NT 5.x core can be re-updating, re-modernizing. All XP users will be satisfied why it's real classic shell (95/98/2000) contain as well as minimalize-lightweight NT 5.x core.

P.S.: I still use Windows NT 5.2.3790 (it's better than XP/5.1.2600).

pureocean said,
@sinetheo:

You're right. Vista, W7, W8.x editions based Windows NT 6.x core. Of course Win7 more good than Vista. Because NT 6.1 and 6.2 and NT 6.3 more optimized as against NT 6.0/Vista.

But I don't like NT 6.x core & interface against contain many and very useful features, improvements. NT 6.x cores using too much CPU & RAM & Disk (WinSxS!).

Simple a test: Windows PE editions contain only the main core of Windows NT. Please compare WinPE 1.x and 2.x(or next versions). Definitely WinPE 1.x (in other words NT 5.x) is more speed and slight than next version (NT 6.x). NT 5.x builds more slight use RAM, CPU, Disk. That is why many people are still using XP. Other reason is classic GUI.

Win. NT 6.x editions' setup bulk size: 2~3 GB (after setup takes up 10~16 GB in disk)
Win. NT 5.x editions' setup bulk size: 500~600 MB (after setup takes up 1~3 GB in disk)

Mobile OSs incredibly fast spreading. In this case, how much longer survive Windows while built over heavy the cores (NT 6.x)? Windows NT 7.0 shouldn't become more clumsy, more over bulky, more RAM-CPU-Disk usage. If Microsoft inability to creating a new core of Windows NT, at least NT 5.x core can be re-updating, re-modernizing. All XP users will be satisfied why it's real classic shell (95/98/2000) contain as well as minimalize-lightweight NT 5.x core.

P.S.: I still use Windows NT 5.2.3790 (it's better than XP/5.1.2600).

Stop running it on 10 year old hardware and it's not a problem. The cheapest computer you can find in the store can run Windows 8.1 just fine.

Kaze23 said,

This post gave me cancer.

Windows 7 in many ways is WORSE than XP? You're out of your mind.

I just gave several reasons why XP users are sticking. XP has a better GUI non crippled and 1/3 of internet users agree. Hence they never bothered to upgrade even with the deadline. Kernel stuff =to technical. Wikipedia has a section on removed features. Lack of outlook express is a big reason too to stick with XP

Ian William said,

I'm not sure why you'd think that the Windows Sidebar was redundant. It was a great idea (particularly during the "Longhorn" timeframe) that was designed to display dynamic information on the user's desktop. With the Sidebar, users would no longer need to open separate webpages or applications for information about individual topics such as RSS news feeds, weather updates, currency updates, stock market information, et cetera, as the Sidebar consolidates all of that information into a single location: the Windows desktop.

When one considers the "content consumption" services provided by mobile applications and operating systems, it becomes apparent that the Windows Sidebar is just another example of Microsoft being ahead of its time.

I think most people replace widget by using rainmeter that provided more customization and versatile in many ways. At that time, it might be useful for some people and there are few warning that it actually more easier infected with virus which i believe was one of the few reason it never continue to support.

sinetheo said,

I just gave several reasons why XP users are sticking. XP has a better GUI non crippled and 1/3 of internet users agree. Hence they never bothered to upgrade even with the deadline. Kernel stuff =to technical. Wikipedia has a section on removed features. Lack of outlook express is a big reason too to stick with XP

This post gave me even more cancer. Outlook Express is now Live Mail. Outlook 2013 is also a great successor.

XP's GUI stunk to high heaven. It was completely unstreamlined, messy, and gaudy. The Start Menu was a mess. The flyouts on the menu were even worse. Messy toolbars, and File menus everywhere. No Search. Low resolution icons, text antialiasing off by default, manual window management, etc... And this is all I remember off the top of my head.

Kaze23 said,

This post gave me cancer.

Windows 7 in many ways is WORSE than XP? You're out of your mind.

Actually, there are quite a few things that Windows XP can do that WIndows 7 can't.

Just today I had a coworker frustrated that he couldn't create a shortcut to put in a redirect for a locked desktop. The program didn't need to be installed to do this with XP.

sinetheo said,
Just today I had a coworker frustrated that he couldn't create a shortcut to put in a redirect for a locked desktop. The program didn't need to be installed to do this with XP.

So, you're blaming IT policies on Microsoft?

Creating shortcuts is one thing XP can do that 7 can not unless app is installed. You can't copy all files to a thumb drive either if they're bigger in size. XP will copy all it can rather than forcing you to copy one at a time. File access in 7 is so slow you need taracopy. XP was faster and didn't need this. More costs for the employer. Do not even get me started with the crippled explorer!

Yes 7 is not better in all areas. Shall I go on?

sinetheo said,
Creating shortcuts is one thing XP can do that 7 can not unless app is installed. You can't copy all files to a thumb drive either if they're bigger in size. XP will copy all it can rather than forcing you to copy one at a time. File access in 7 is so slow you need taracopy. XP was faster and didn't need this. More costs for the employer. Do not even get me started with the crippled explorer!

Yes 7 is not better in all areas. Shall I go on?

Of course. You do realize that Windows 7 file system is more restricted by design? What do you mean you cannot create shortcuts? I can create them all day, whether the app is installed or not. And what are you doing that file access is slow, again, I've never had this issue. We have not had these issues in supporting Win7 *at all* where I work. And what's wrong with explorer? It's the same as XP! All the same controls are there

@mrp04:

Thanks for reply. My system is not 10 year old hardware.
AMD Phenom II X3 710, AMD Radeon HD 3200, 4 GB DDR2 CL5, 1.4 TB HDD...

Besides I've tried NT6.x editions another configurations. You're right, NT6 editions not designed old systems. My objection to that (and heavy architecture, core and interface). I don't denied many useful features of NT 6.x editions. I don't think that NT 7.0 will be slight. there is NT editions obligation to backward compatibility.

sinetheo said,

Wikipedia has a section on removed features. Lack of outlook express is a big reason too to stick with XP

Yeah, and it was created and maintained by some moron who used to comment on this site and continuously preached XP over 7.

Lack of Outlook Express is not a reason for doing anything (I bet you don't even use it and just cherry-picked an item off that Wikipedia list to use for your argument) because its still available under a different name.

Not just cherry picking.

Yes it is time to move on. I have not used XP at home since 2009 but still used it at work until very recently.

There are reasons people whine when I switch to 7 and yes explorer in XP it is nicer to sort, shortcuts, app compatibility, lower sys requirements, less pixels being wasted on screen, menus make IE 8 and Firefox 3.6 easier for users who think their bookmarks are gone, less dropped shared drives, run as user, etc. My MOM wanted to strangle me after I showed her how to get her bookmarks she thought vanished 2 years ago when FF 3.6 was updated. She now has to click on the recently added. It worked just fine the way it was before and was all non cluttered. Just go to the menu bookmarks and select bookmark!

The kernel is improved and I do love instant search and aero in 7. :-) But for many they will use XP forever if you got sites like zdnet.com and get hostile when you tell them to upgrade. Sigh.

The gui was dumbed down in many ways too including the easier ability to go to a new wifi network without clicking around. IN 7 you need to manually use the mouse which is annoying in an airport to use the touch pad to select a different wifi .. that is another one a salesperson complained about after I upgraded him.

sinetheo said,

There are reasons people whine when I switch to 7 and yes explorer in XP it is nicer to sort, shortcuts, app compatibility, lower sys requirements, less pixels being wasted on screen, menus make IE 8 and Firefox 3.6 easier for users who think their bookmarks are gone, less dropped shared drives, run as user, etc. My MOM wanted to strangle me after I showed her how to get her bookmarks she thought vanished 2 years ago when FF 3.6 was updated. She now has to click on the recently added. It worked just fine the way it was before and was all non cluttered. Just go to the menu bookmarks and select bookmark!

The kernel is improved and I do love instant search and aero in 7. :-) But for many they will use XP forever if you got sites like zdnet.com and get hostile when you tell them to upgrade. Sigh.

The gui was dumbed down in many ways too including the easier ability to go to a new wifi network without clicking around. IN 7 you need to manually use the mouse which is annoying in an airport to use the touch pad to select a different wifi .. that is another one a salesperson complained about after I upgraded him.

I disagree. Explorer in XP was very much a mess - toolbars and drop downs everywhere. Nothing was streamlined. Lower system requirements are a fallacy - XP was built for different hardware. It was never meant to take full advantage of multi processor systems, and could only support just under 4 GB's of RAM. Drop Down menus are a relic of the past, today, it's all about iconography, which users should be used to at this point - it's been around since forever. Not sure what you mean with the bookmarks, but bookmarking in Firefox is unchanged since 3.6. All you have to do is look for the star.

We can only hope that, if this is Windows-9, users will have a choice in the UI that is best suited for their hardware. Microsoft should have learned their lesson with Windows-8. One size fits all? Really! We'll see.

Tsar: Windows 8.1 Update already boots to the desktop, on PC's without a touch screen, when being updated from Windows 8 using the App Store's 3.6-GB download. That feature is going to stay in place.

TsarNikky said,
We can only hope that, if this is Windows-9, users will have a choice in the UI that is best suited for their hardware. Microsoft should have learned their lesson with Windows-8. One size fits all? Really! We'll see.

Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the most righteous of them all? ;-)

TsarNikky said,
We can only hope that, if this is Windows-9, users will have a choice in the UI that is best suited for their hardware. Microsoft should have learned their lesson with Windows-8. One size fits all? Really! We'll see.

What's a day on Neowin without your recycled garbage comments about Windows 8? Same old story. Go away.

TsarNikky said,
We can only hope that, if this is Windows-9, users will have a choice in the UI that is best suited for their hardware. Microsoft should have learned their lesson with Windows-8. One size fits all? Really! We'll see.

What part of Windows 8 doesn't fit all?

Microsoft is moving rapidly on this. It's like they switched over from classic waterfall project management processes to something like Agile Scrum. It's much more effective means, especially when it comes to software development lifecycles. I think it's a great idea!

There's going to be another version of Windows after 8.1 Update 1? I thought that would be it. /s

68k said,
There's going to be another version of Windows after 8.1 Update 1? I thought that would be it. /s

Sarcasm aside, it's good to see that they've gotten a good deal into the next version so soon after finishing Update 1 not that long ago.

It's always fun to speculate... but all credible signs so far point to the fall release being 8.1 Update 2 (maybe, less likely, 8.2), certainly not Windows 9, that should happen in Spring. Of course everything is an unknown and up in the air right now, but it's just logical that 9xxx builds are floating around as MS is working on win9. We shouldn't interpret that as a faster than predicted release though: the update 2/8.2 will bring the start menu back, maybe even floating metro windows if MS has time to get it ready. Otherwise, win9 will bring said floating metro windowed apps and Metro 2.0 = that MS research concept of interactive live tiles, which is a pretty big differentiator for a full Windows release numbering increase.

From what I've read, windowed metro apps won't be in Update 2, only the start menu. If there is an Update 3 (or Win 8.2) then we might see windowed metro apps before Windows 9. Only time will tell though.

coth said,
Microsoft has very inconsistent versioning policy in latest years, so it could be anything.
What's in consistent about Microsofts versioning?

Waiting for Tom commenting here or tweeting saying it doesn't match with what his sources say or some other crap.

The "sub digits" is called "Delta" or "QFE code", guess most people know by now (from the IE11 update), latest known is 17105. :)

Good bit of info, I called it sub digits as that's a bit easier to digest if you didn't know the Delta name scheme.