This article was nominated for deletion on 5 January 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've never heard of this Neptune outside of Wikipedia. I'm not doubting it's existence, since it plainly did, but I'm unaware that it was an early code name or anything other than a mockup of some shell code on top of Win2000 - rather than a full release. Can someone actually fact check this article? It's become the basis for "Neptune" appearing in all sorts of Windows history articles which is clearly overblown. SchmuckyTheCat 21:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I've fixed a few errors in this article. Windows Neptune did exist, but several of the facts in the article are incorrect. Timbatron 05:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Can it be verified that build 5000 does in fact exist? From my understanding its simply hearsay and rumors. Far from being "known to exist"
Build 5000 is dosen't exist! But the Omega-13 (Windows Vista/Longhorn Build Pre-Reset) Build 500x is in the following builds:
Longhorn Build 5000.winmain.040908-2000
Longhorn Build 5000.vbl_core.040803-2000
Longhorn Build 5000.vbl_core.040806-2000
Longhorn Build 5000.vbl_core.040808-2000
Longhorn Build 5000.vbl_core.040809-2000
Longhorn Build 5000.vbl_core.040818-2000
Longhorn Build 5000.vbl_core.040826-2000
Longhorn Build 5000.vbl_core.040902-2000
Longhorn Build 5000.vbl_core_build(ntbuild).040915-0831
Longhorn Build 5001.winmain.040927-1610
Longhorn Build 5002.winmain.041006-2000
Longhorn Build 5003.winmain.041014-1440
Longhorn Build 5004.winmain.041016-2000
Longhorn Build 5005.winmain.041018-1620
Longhorn Build 5006.winmain.041020-1640
Longhorn Build 5007.winmain.041021-1035
Longhorn Build 5008.winmain.041021-2200
Longhorn Build 5009.winmain.041022-1945
110.164.115.224 (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does exist. I have it on my computer. Same build too.
This section makes no sense. Build 3000 (much lower than 5111) is the last in the 9x line and came after 5111. Josh 01:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The 9x and NT lines use entirely different numbers.
Windows 2000 is NT 5.0 and XP is 5.1 Windows vista is NT 6/6.1 and build numbers are all 6thousand something Windows 7 (nt 6.1 still) uses 7thousand and something build numbers
I'm posting from my Neptune virtual PC (Which i had to go to quite some lengths to get), and i noticed it had a IE Version i haven't seen before: I.E Version 5.5 . Is this worth mentioning in the article? Maiq the liar (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to install Windows 2000 SP4 on neptune build 5111? 89.164.158.254 (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I always wondered why microsoft doesn't have a recent menu, eg with recent programs and documents, rather than just documents. Family Guy Guy (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
They do. Its on XP and above..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed merging this to Development of Windows XP. In several years, nothing has ever shown this was ever just mockup code for early R&D. (Because I was there, and that's what it was.) It is incorrect to call this a "canceled release" because it was never intended for release. Once Windows 2000 was out the door, this early dev work was wrapped up into Whistler and that was that. This is typical development practice and any notable information belongs in a development article, not standalone. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Talk:Development_of_Windows_XP#Centralized_discussion:_Merged_content_of_Neptune.2FOdyssey SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
OK,Why on earth was this merged like it was? If you really feel the need to merge this article, at least add some content into the merged article. - 142.47.132.6 (talk)
Don't listen to this bullcrap about Odyssey being tested, it wasn't even close to being compiled!
-soulman from BetaArchive.
I think this could be uploaded as fair use, because there's commentary about it Thurrott's article, which we could add here, i.e. that the login screen looks simlar to that addopted by Windows XP. Pcap ping 11:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
All that discussion about whether it existed ... I once saw it!
"It [...] was scheduled to be the first consumer version of Windows built on Windows NT code and to replace the Windows 9x series (like XP was)."
Like XP was? Are you judging here what OS really made 9x consumers switch/change to a newer one?
To my Opinion, 2000 was replacing 9x or is 2k still a 9x one? No, it wasn't. 9x was based on MS-DOS.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Neptune. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Neptune. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)