1st W7 RTM build 7600.16384: Did MS named it cause They like the nos?

[andy2006]

nice info thanks

[crazlunatic]

Basically what you're saying is that Windows 8 Builds could start from the 7 series or even 6. I doubt that MS puts such reliance on build numbers though. Doesn't make sense to have such limitations from build numbers

[Arkos Reed]

this :

http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archiv...ld-numbers.aspx

[code.kliu.org]

Doesn't make sense to have such limitations from build numbers

Well, they're mostly arbitrary anyway. NT build numbers, up to and including Win2K, were just the number of days since the first NT build (one build number per day). XP, being a consumer build, got a massaged build number (as that was common within the consumer division; e.g., Win98's build number was 1998). XP specifically shot for 2600, which is a number with huge significance within the hacker community (look up 2600 Hz). Since 2K3 was not a consumer OS, it had the same 2K-style just-use-where-we-happen-to-be build number.

Basically, prior to Vista, every single NT build number, with the exception of XP's, was just where they happened to be in the NT development history, with no round number massaging or other crazy stuff.

With Vista/2K8, the consumer and non-consumer lines were synchronized, and they went with the consumer division's obsession with cute numbers. And, in a major departure from NT history, service packs now incremented the build number (probably to make it easier for programs that depend on a particular service pack to detect it), and given that, it makes perfect sense to make it easy for programmers to extract a SP from a build number, but letting them just make out the upper bits (so the explanation in the first post sounds plausible).

As for the valid ranges, that's mostly a historical leftover. GetVersion() returns a 32-bit integer, with the lowest 8 bits devoted to the major version (6), the next 8 devoted to the minor version (1), the next 15 devoted to the build (0x4001 in the case of W7), and the uppermost bit reserved (NT has the upper bit set to 0, Win3/Win9x/WinMe sets the upper bit to 1).

[Arkaic]

Someone's been reading waaay too much in to the build numbers...

+1 and wow, go breath some *gasp* air from the outside, ya kno with that big shiny yellow/orange ball in the sky.

[yken]

after RTM does it mean MS cannot add any new icon or new wallpaper? Or does this mean the cannot add any code but can put maybe ne wicons, sounds, wallpapers.

[code.kliu.org]

after RTM does it mean MS cannot add any new icon or new wallpaper? Or does this mean the cannot add any code but can put maybe ne wicons, sounds, wallpapers.

Why are people so obsessed with the icons? What's wrong with the current icon set? The current Vista icons don't look out of place in W7.

1) If they do, it will either be through downloadable themes (wallpaper, sounds) or hotfixes (icons) (e.g., XP's remote desktop icon was changed to the Vista one by the hotfix that updated XP's remote desktop software).

2) MSFT does want feedback for its visual changes to make sure that people like them and to make sure that there are not any localization issues (a particular symbol may have a different meaning in various locales/cultures; whether or not an icon makes sense in a given culture can be determined only by feedback) or other issues (e.g., how visible is the icon if the user is using high-contrast mode?). Vista's relatively late icon drop was almost certainly something that MSFT (or any other developer) would've avoided if they could (I suspect that it was in part due to Vista's somewhat chaotic development that it happened that way), and given those constraints, the idea of W7 getting "new icons" was very unlikely once it had it RC.

[Phemo]

Yeah I'm really failing to understand why people are so obsessed about the icons. When a build is declared RTM and signed off, that is it. It will have no further changes. That means no new icons, no new wallpapers, no new sounds, no recompile just to change the build number; it is the final code and is going to be what is released in October. Nothing will change after it is signed off.

[Unknown_97784568745]

downloadable themes (wallpaper, sounds) or hotfixes (icons)

Themes can also have desktop icons.

[DerAusgewanderte]

FaiKee: 7600 could be a relative ratio : distance Earth to the Moon divided by 40 years calculated on the 20th July over the sum of the first 16 prime numbers...only through this tiny Window RTM will occur....

Eco must be ROTF on this one (Foucault's Pendulum)

+1, first I read this I thought about the same book. Great one btw.!

[FaiKee]

this :

http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archiv...ld-numbers.aspx

Yeah, my friend had also told me about this Exchange guy moving over to Windows and brought along the tradition of rounding up build numbers. ;)

[FaiKee]

Well, they're mostly arbitrary anyway. NT build numbers, up to and including Win2K, were just the number of days since the first NT build (one build number per day). XP, being a consumer build, got a massaged build number (as that was common within the consumer division; e.g., Win98's build number was 1998). XP specifically shot for 2600, which is a number with huge significance within the hacker community (look up 2600 Hz). Since 2K3 was not a consumer OS, it had the same 2K-style just-use-where-we-happen-to-be build number.

Basically, prior to Vista, every single NT build number, with the exception of XP's, was just where they happened to be in the NT development history, with no round number massaging or other crazy stuff.

With Vista/2K8, the consumer and non-consumer lines were synchronized, and they went with the consumer division's obsession with cute numbers. And, in a major departure from NT history, service packs now incremented the build number (probably to make it easier for programs that depend on a particular service pack to detect it), and given that, it makes perfect sense to make it easy for programmers to extract a SP from a build number, but letting them just make out the upper bits (so the explanation in the first post sounds plausible).

As for the valid ranges, that's mostly a historical leftover. GetVersion() returns a 32-bit integer, with the lowest 8 bits devoted to the major version (6), the next 8 devoted to the minor version (1), the next 15 devoted to the build (0x4001 in the case of W7), and the uppermost bit reserved (NT has the upper bit set to 0, Win3/Win9x/WinMe sets the upper bit to 1).

Agree, except for the RTM number, I heard of no restriction on how the other numbers should be chosed. In fact, if not for the rounded-to-100 tradition, there would be a whole lot more choices for the RTM number, like 7616,7632.......etc.

I guess they put up the 2^14 boundary so as to rule out the chance(although it is slim) of identical numbers appearing on a RTM number, i.e. the build number and the minor build number are the same.

[+kpo6969 Subscriber¹]

Agree, except for the RTM number, I heard of no restriction on how the other numbers should be chosed. In fact, if not for the rounded-to-100 tradition, there would be a whole lot more choices for the RTM number, like 7616,7632.......etc.

I guess they put up the 2^14 boundary so as to rule out the chance(although it is slim) of identical numbers appearing on a RTM number, i.e. the build number and the minor build number are the same.

To assume any boundries is illogical.

[FaiKee]

To assume any boundries is illogical.

I made a guess....

btw, about the RTM thing, the update is MS still have not, repeat have not, made their final decision on it, whether it's because it's a week-end or something else is anybodies' guess.

thevista.ru jump the sign-off news on Sat. and said MS would make a official statement within a few hours, this is BS.

[FaiKee]

Guys: Sometime ago I had promised to give the Ultimate Break Through, well, this is it.

I understand this is unbelievable that someone should know about uploadings to the MS sites, and I am not slightly surprised that the thread would be locked, i.e. until people can see the real deal for themselves, it takes time to upload.

For myself, finally I am getting my life back.

And please do enjoy the coming official releases.

[FaiKee]

You may say: "FaiKee, you live upto your name FaKe, if 16385 was uploaded, how come it's nowhere in sight??No wonder the mod killed your thread,haha!!"

The Win7 RTM is not a single file like what people just upload to TPB(or whatever), there's a lot of them, and MS dosen't want anything to go wrong, and also there's still all the internal procedures to confirm sign-off, making the link pages, etc, all these procedures, testings, etc, should take a few days, before MS is very sure that every thing is right for their product of pride, so, sit back and relax, if WZOR's report is correct, you are going to have everything in this week.

[sensurround]

:sleep:

[cropcircles]

Enjoyed the thread FaiKee. Check your window to see if anyone is in the street and lock your door. I keep seeing Jason Bourne in my head with crazy consipiracy music playing. Thanks for sharing.

[Raa]

There's a thread for general Windows 7 RTM discussion, use that instead.

I don't think this thread needs to be continued now?

[FaiKee]

Enjoyed the thread FaiKee. Check your window to see if anyone is in the street and lock your door. I keep seeing Jason Bourne in my head with crazy consipiracy music playing. Thanks for sharing.

lmao, I did and saw Matt Damon LOL. :o

[FaiKee]

There's a thread for general Windows 7 RTM discussion, use that instead.

I don't think this thread needs to be continued now?

Did you know how that thread had survived? I had started another thread reporting on 16385 two days before it with all the supports, and for some unknown reason Tom closed it.

Then this thread pop up, Tom closed it just the same, but I told him "No, Sir, It's on WZOR as of now!"....the rest is history.

...........what a story LOL. :laugh:

[ObiWanToby]

Did you know how that thread had survived? I had started another thread reporting on 16385 two days before it with all the supports, and for some unknown reason Tom closed it.

Then this thread pop up, Tom closed it just the same, but I told him "No, Sir, It's on WZOR as of now!"....the rest is history.

...........what a story LOL. :laugh:

No.

[BoDEAN]

Did you know how that thread had survived? I had started another thread reporting on 16385 two days before it with all the supports, and for some unknown reason Tom closed it.

Then this thread pop up, Tom closed it just the same, but I told him "No, Sir, It's on WZOR as of now!"....the rest is history.

...........what a story LOL. :laugh:

Sounds like the forum should pat you on the back :|

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Funny thing is, he's right about it having to be a multiple of 16 :)

[code.kliu.org]

Funny thing is, he's right about it having to be a multiple of 16 :)

Is it for the reason stated (using the bottommost nybble for SP) or for some other reason? And if it is used for the SP level, why is Microsoft doing this? It's just encouraging developers to use those bits from GetVersion for the SP level instead of getting the SP level from GetVersionEx, with the latter being more future-proof than the former and there's less potential for future compatibility bugs that might arise out of forcing people to use GetVersionEx (not to mention, some developers may even get this wrong and do "%=10" instead of "&=0xF").

In any case, with the 16 and round constraint established, I would venture an early guess at the RTM number for W8: 8800. ;)