Comments on: Why all this fussing over builds is meaningless

By: Zeromus

Zeromus — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:04:51 +0000

Well, yes it doesn’t really matter what build is the RTM, but I feel we were misled again. I remember Sinofsky saying that there will be changes added to make it look unique and not so much like Vista’s default desktop icons, etc…..even my Grandma said it looked like Vista’s desktop, with a fat (phat?) taskbar.

The issue with a slightly updated theme kept coming up too….besides Paul Thurrott, where did that info come from? I realize that no one is entitled to these things per-se, but why even mention them to give false expectations? Overall I am very pleased with how 7 has turned out, but I was hoping for one last minute surprise, but fluctuating build numbers isn’t the surprise I had in mind.

Just my $.02.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:08:42 +0000

Who cares what the build number will be. as long as the product works thats all that matters.

Matter of fact, I’d rather have a higher build number. 7800 or even 8000 or something. I rather wait a bit and have them get it right, instead of rushing it.

but then if they rush it, people will complain that they rushed it, if they delayed it, people will complain. Its a loose-loose situation.

By: Maurice

Maurice — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:18:54 +0000

@Yert,
What exactly entails a “cool number”? Microsoft had its reasons to choose 7600 and it has little to do with the fact that it would be an evenly rounded number. First of all, 7777 would be very illogical because what would SP1 be, 7778? The newer build process requires room for a few service packs to tack on an extra build which is why it’s a requirement for it to end in “0″ or something similar. And why such a detail matters to the average person is beyond me. Are you going to start a campaign protesting that Server 2003 should’ve been 3800?

To quote Sinofsky, it’s simply “internal bookkeeping”.

By: Yert

Yert — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:23:29 +0000

I hope that 7600 isn’t the RTM because the build number sucks, 7500 or even 7777 would be a much cooler build number (but 7777 could be a service pack), I’m thinking that maybe (but very, very unlikely) Microsoft is actually falsely leaking this build to get people to talk, as they prepare a different numbered build. But since it is irrelevant, it only matters to the numbers now. Plus if my wishes of a cooler build number come true, Long Zheng will be wrong, which would suck for him.

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:40:27 +0000

Nobody expects big changes in these minor revisions on 7600.

People are expectedly waiting for the final RTM because they want to download (torrent etc.) and install it (i would’ve thought that was obvious).
But also, nobody wants to waste their time installing a version win7 which is not going to be the same as the boxed/GA release. In fear that something like a service pack, or an update or a installation will take issue with the build number not being that of the final GA release. Furthermore this is compounded by the fear and mystery, that is inherent of closed source software, especially such a large project of what minor changes have been made in these revisions.