In Forum: Microsoft Operating Systems
By User: WinPC
By version numbering scheme, I'm not talking about the actual version numbers used for their versions of Windows (those certainly have changed before as you pointed out), but rather the way of simply using a single version number to refer to an entire version of Windows, regardless of any revisions made to it. That's basically what I'm talking about.
Things change, and are changing right now. Deal with it.
Before Windows 8, Microsoft had never retained an "old" version number past Post-RTM builds. Yet they kept 6.1 right up to the end of Milestone 1 in Windows 8. Before Windows XP, the NT line had not rounded up build numbers to something aesthetic, nor had there been any build jumps of note. Windows Server 2003 is unique in that it's the only case of a server OS having an entirely different codebase to it's client counterpart.
Things happen, it's best to keep a flexible outlook and respond to new information. The past is a good indicator generally, but Microsoft can be a fickle bunch, and it's best not to be too rigid about these things.Well, it's interesting about the build tag for this particular version of Windows.
But what I was saying was not about the actual build numbers, nor was it about the version numbers used for Windows during development, but really, once they were released. But really, though, this build tag seems very interesting, and also very odd, since I have never seen this sort of thing happen before.
I know what I said earlier, but what I was simply saying was that the actual evidence needed to be provided in these cases, and not that it was wrong to actually make those post, as long as the people posting them actually made a good enough effort to prove that what they had was the real deal, without resorting to personal attacks. Obviously, although I don't think I posted it here, I was still willing to stand corrected if what these people agreed on was actually correct.
At least now, though, we're actually seeing real evidence of something, rather than just people's speculations being posted with no evidence to back them up, and personally, if you ask me, I would say that the screenshots are real.
Also, AlphaBeta, as for the "weird screen resolution" as you called it, most likely, the build was being run on a tablet, rather than a normal widescreen display (such as the one that I have at the moment) or even a smaller 1024x768 one (which I had before my current display). Remember that Windows 8 is very tablet oriented, and that includes whatever updates are released for it.
By User: WinPC
By version numbering scheme, I'm not talking about the actual version numbers used for their versions of Windows (those certainly have changed before as you pointed out), but rather the way of simply using a single version number to refer to an entire version of Windows, regardless of any revisions made to it. That's basically what I'm talking about.
Things change, and are changing right now. Deal with it.
Before Windows 8, Microsoft had never retained an "old" version number past Post-RTM builds. Yet they kept 6.1 right up to the end of Milestone 1 in Windows 8. Before Windows XP, the NT line had not rounded up build numbers to something aesthetic, nor had there been any build jumps of note. Windows Server 2003 is unique in that it's the only case of a server OS having an entirely different codebase to it's client counterpart.
Things happen, it's best to keep a flexible outlook and respond to new information. The past is a good indicator generally, but Microsoft can be a fickle bunch, and it's best not to be too rigid about these things.Well, it's interesting about the build tag for this particular version of Windows.
But what I was saying was not about the actual build numbers, nor was it about the version numbers used for Windows during development, but really, once they were released. But really, though, this build tag seems very interesting, and also very odd, since I have never seen this sort of thing happen before.
I know what I said earlier, but what I was simply saying was that the actual evidence needed to be provided in these cases, and not that it was wrong to actually make those post, as long as the people posting them actually made a good enough effort to prove that what they had was the real deal, without resorting to personal attacks. Obviously, although I don't think I posted it here, I was still willing to stand corrected if what these people agreed on was actually correct.
At least now, though, we're actually seeing real evidence of something, rather than just people's speculations being posted with no evidence to back them up, and personally, if you ask me, I would say that the screenshots are real.
Also, AlphaBeta, as for the "weird screen resolution" as you called it, most likely, the build was being run on a tablet, rather than a normal widescreen display (such as the one that I have at the moment) or even a smaller 1024x768 one (which I had before my current display). Remember that Windows 8 is very tablet oriented, and that includes whatever updates are released for it.