blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/03/18/398550.aspx
German Confusion over whether you have Windows XP SP1 or SP2 Some support people have asked me why the "About" dialog seems to be kind of schizophrenic as to whether a machine has Windows XP SP1 or SP2. It's running Service Pack 1 The build number string is a red herring. Why does the build number string say "xpsp2" when the computer is running SP1? Because Windows XP Service Pack 2 was a victim of changing circumstances. After Service Pack 1 shipped, there was no indication that Service Pack 2 was going to be anything other than "just another service pack": A cumu lative update of the fixes that had been issued since the release of Ser vice Pack 1 Therefore, the release team created a new project, called i t "xpsp2" and when a fix needed to be made to Service Pack 1, they made it there. It was called "xpsp2" because the assumption was that when the time came to release Service Pack 2, they would just take all the fixes they had been making to Service Pack 1 and call that Service Pack 2 In other words, "fixes to Service Pack 1" and "working on Service Pack 2" were the same thing. Of course, things changed, and a "new" Service Pack 2 project was created for the "real" Service Pack 2 changes, leaving the old "xpsp2" project to be merely the place where Service Pack 1 fixes were developed. We're kind of embarrassed by the whole project namin g fiasco. That's what happens when plans take a radical change after wor k has already started. Anyway, there you have it, the long and boring story of why fixes for Ser vice Pack 1 have "xpsp2" in their build string.
There's a third category you didn't point out, "qfe" for Quick Fix Engine ering. These are post-RTM hotfixes which have not gone through the addit ional test pass necessary to qualify them to be posted for public downlo ad. These fixes may be obtained on an "as needed" basis by calling Micro soft support.
Mike Dunn The OS build numbers are often special: Win 95 was build 950 (IIRC the number jumped from the mid-500s to 950 in June or July of 1995 when MS started making release candiate builds). Th e build you bought in stores was "950r6" - build 950 release candidate 6 .
but that's because I did a shutdown every night and a st artup the next day. It's definitely not worth MS's time to make it customizable--they have more important things to worry about. However, NT's always seemed to be "true", non-fu dged build numbers. However, there was a sudden jump for Windows Server 2003 into the mid 300 0's--probably at the time they decided to make it NT 52 (it was origina lly 51 just like XP). However, people are now saying that it's been jumped to the 5000s.
org I've actually delivered software version 12 before 11 That's because 11 and 12 were defined by the PHBs early as a certain fe ature sets. Then, at the last minute they shuffled the feature sets due to whatever reasons PHBs have.
but that just raises the question of why do Microsoft lock the boot logo? If they are worried about OEMs changing it on new systems they could easily make a standard boot logo part of the OEM agreement.
I have a Compaq with Windows ME installed, and they have a custom logo with the Compaq logo at the top above the Windows logo. Any way, Windows 95 through ME and Windows NT 4 used a bitmap file for chang ing the boot screen. Likewise, I'm sure Apple did as much as they possibly could to prev ent people from doing just that.
By using "schizophrenic" in this fashion, you are perpetuating this harmful myth . It is generally a good idea to refrain from using serious medical conditi ons as metaphors.
Mrs Krabapple: "Funny, I'd never heard the word 'embiggen' used before I came to Springfield." Second Teacher: "Don't be ridiculous - it's a perfectly cromulent word."
|
http://csua.com/feed/