Windows XP build 2202 is the earliest leaked build of Windows XP. This build identifies itself as SD Windows 2000 Professional on the desktop watermark, where SD refers to the Source Depot version control system that Microsoft was deploying at the time.
Contents
Ties to Neptune/Whistler projects [ edit | edit source ]
For some time there has been a debate on whether this is a post-RTM build of Windows 2000 or a very early build of Whistler. Many system files in this build contain strings beginning with s:\ntc2 , which indicates the source tree from which this build was compiled was initially located in the NTC2 folder. Considering it was compiled after the cancellation of the Neptune project, which had the source tree named NTC, it seems logical to assume that NTC2 refers to Whistler.
The Additional Drivers dialog in the Printers control panel also contains options for «Windows 2001» on AXP64 and IA64-based machines. [1] The Resource Manager component from Neptune is also present. All this rules out the possibility of this build being a post-RTM build of Windows 2000.
In addition, support for NDIS 3.0 was removed from this build. This has been verified by viewing the exports of NDIS.SYS . Other than this, it’s still largely the same as Windows 2000.
Enhancements and features [ edit | edit source ]
«Comments?» link [ edit | edit source ]
The «Comments?» link from Neptune and later builds of Whistler can be added via a registry modification. To enable it, go to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop and add the DWORD value LameButtonEnabled and set it to 1. The text of the link can be changed via a LameButtonText string key. After adding the registry entries, log off and back on and open any application to get the link. The link does nothing when clicked in this build.
Bugs and quirks [ edit | edit source ]
Installation [ edit | edit source ]
The unmodified version of this build can’t be installed via booting from the CD due to a BSOD error during setup. To install, the user must use a Windows boot disk, partition/format the drive, and then run setup from there. The modified version fixes this BSOD error, but replaces mentions of «Windows 2000» during the first stage of setup with «Whistler».
Drivers [ edit | edit source ]
VMware graphics drivers newer than version 7 cannot be installed on this build since they cause a BSOD at resolutions higher than 640×480.
Some USB devices will cause a bugcheck upon boot with the error code UNEXPECTED_KERNEL_MODE_TRAP . Removing the devices allow the machine to boot.
Stability [ edit | edit source ]
This build can randomly crash and doesn’t really have a very good graphics rendering engine as windows that are closed will still sometimes appear on the desktop.
Closing windows [ edit | edit source ]
Sometimes, the regular method of closing windows doesn’t work. Windows have to be closed by right clicking on their title bar or the taskbar and closing them.
File differences [ edit | edit source ]
The following files have been introduced or removed compared to build 2195.1 Professional:
BetaArchive
The community for beta and abandonware collectors.
Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by giantsteen » Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:59 pm
Most of you will be like «it’s a Whistler build, it’s a Whistler build» but to be completely honest, besides from the fact that there is a special «boot utility» with Whistler branded, what makes the rest of the build part of the «Whistler» family? The EULA does not state that it is Whistler. I have gone through photos and I see nothing that makes it look out of the ordinary, except for «SD Windows 2000 Professional.» In my opinion, I believe that it is a post-rtm build of Windows 2000.
It was proven in this topic: http://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12772 that there are no findings of anything «Whistler-like» objects in the operating system itself, so would it be brought to conclusion that 2202 is a Windows 2000 build, and not Whistler? As I said, there is no branding or anything stated in any other documents pertaining to the operating system, nor is there anything in the build itself.
According to Wikipedia:
. but in the topic I linked above, there are reports that this is untrue and that nothing can be found on the login screen. Obviously, because (even if it is a post-RTM build) it would be «for testing purposes only.»
Today I will install the build and report any other findings, in case I may be wrong.
Another build in this controversy with a similar issue, is «Longhorn» build 3790. All it has is a EULA with the branding of Longhorn, but on the FTP it is not labeled as such. It states that it is part of Longhorn, but is branded 100% that it is Windows XP (5.2, though) because it was the basis of the continuation of the Longhorn development process. It is labeled as «Windows .net Server 2003 build 3790.1232» on the FTP.
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by DeFacto » Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:22 pm
So what’s your point here? Yes, it is Windows 2000 post-RTM, made for testing the new Source Depot system which was later used in Whistler builds. I can’t understand what could we discuss here if everything’s clear.
Also, this build doesn’t have a login screen such as seen in Neptune or Whistler builds. So the info on wikipedia is obviously wrong.
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by giantsteen » Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:27 pm
DeFacto wrote: So what’s your point here? Yes, it is Windows 2000 post-RTM, made for testing the new Source Depot system which was later used in Whistler builds. I can’t understand what could we discuss here if everything’s clear.
Also, this build doesn’t have a login screen such as seen in Neptune or Whistler builds. So the info on wikipedia is obviously wrong.
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by DeFacto » Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:28 pm
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by giantsteen » Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:29 pm
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by vizerous » Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:42 pm
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by giantsteen » Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:49 pm
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by DeFacto » Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:01 pm
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by vizerous » Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:28 pm
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by giantsteen » Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:30 pm
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by vizerous » Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:32 pm
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by giantsteen » Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:38 pm
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by vizerous » Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:51 pm
You can’t prove build 2202 was not part of whistler either, referring only to the fact there is no hidden features and branding. I would agree if there some dev documents states 2202 is not a part of whistler would be available. But what i see now is A) build is not SP and made after 2k RTM’d, B) It’s revision number between 2k RTM and XP RTM, and it looks like it lead to XP.
You may have your own opinion, but i personally think we should keep present labeling on FTP and elsewhere. There can be more people disclaiming such a thing as post-RTM and prerelease differentiation, and we can’t renaming it back and forth.
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by giantsteen » Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:00 pm
You can’t prove build 2202 was not part of whistler either, referring only to the fact there is no hidden features and branding. I would agree if there some dev documents states 2202 is not a part of whistler would be available. But what i see now is A) build is not SP and made after 2k RTM’d, B) It’s revision number between 2k RTM and XP RTM, and it looks like it lead to XP.
You may have your own opinion, but i personally think we should keep present labeling on FTP and elsewhere. There can be more people disclaiming such a thing as post-RTM and prerelease differentiation, and we can’t renaming it back and forth.
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by DeFacto » Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:07 pm
Actually, the EULA is different from Windows 2000 RTM. It’s for pre-release software (so it’s technically an NDA), even though it doesn’t mention Whistler specifically.
The build was compiled on 2nd February, so a bit more than a week after Thurrott revealed that Neptune was canceled. So it’s quite possible that the whole Whistler thing was completely planned yet.
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by giantsteen » Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:09 pm
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by DeFacto » Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:37 pm
That’s funny, because the actual EULA doesn’t mention » for testing purposes only» anywhere. Sure, it says it’s meant for testing, but that’s what all betas are for, aren’t they? Either that, or I must be blind (but at this age of mine, I’d consider the first option to be more likely).
It’s basically the same as any other pre-release EULA (I’ve compared it to Neptune and 2K builds 1848 and 2031). They all say that the build is meant for testing, and yet, they’re not post-RTM builds. You can’t really complain about the EULA, except that it doesn’t mention Whistler directly.
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by 878625670 » Sun Jul 28, 2013 5:02 am
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by Rob Jansen » Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:15 pm
It is generally known and accepted that this is a Whistler build.
Just look at the Patches / Service Packs, they have the same build-number (NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 2000, XP, Server 2003) when there is a new patch or Service Pack, the minor build-number has changed, not the mayor one.
With Windows Vista, the Service Packs changed, then the SP carried 1 build-number higher (6001, 6002, 7601), but the patches for that service pack, only changed the minor build-number.
The Collection Book stay’s at this is Whistler and not Windows 2000.
As for the user above me, build-labs were introduced with Whistler and complete build strings, not just numbers.
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by cantasan99 » Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:17 pm
Turkish translator of Wine/Known as ctasan in ReactOS Forum ReactOS Community Changelogs — Don’t miss improvements!
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by vizerous » Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:27 am
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by hounsell » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:24 am
At the risk of encouraging members to make fanciful suggestions, simply because something is «generally accepted» does not make it true. There have been a number of generally-accepted falsehoods over the years.
As for suggesting build-labs are something introduced with Whistler, this is just illogical.
The «SD» in the 2202 build tag refers to «Source Depot», this is widely documented. This was a new source management system being trialled within Microsoft that would go on to be used for Whistler. It seems entirely possible that 2202 was simply a post-RTM build of 2202 for testing this new system. It was also this change that quite clearly introduced the build labs: a new source management system also means a revised build system. I’m not definitively saying it wasn’t Whistler — as has been said, the evidence could lean either way, it could just as easily be one of the first whistler builds before they’ve had chance to update the branding — it’s just rather foolish to dismiss it out of hand.
3790.1232 is an interesting parallel. It is also a build simply compiled to test a revised source management setup. Unlike 2202 though, there’s no ambiguity. This is a Server 2003 build completely unmodified. The modifications started in b5000.0.
Re: Questioning Windows 2000/Whistler build 2202
Post by giantsteen » Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:04 pm
At the risk of encouraging members to make fanciful suggestions, simply because something is «generally accepted» does not make it true. There have been a number of generally-accepted falsehoods over the years.
As for suggesting build-labs are something introduced with Whistler, this is just illogical.
The «SD» in the 2202 build tag refers to «Source Depot», this is widely documented. This was a new source management system being trialled within Microsoft that would go on to be used for Whistler. It seems entirely possible that 2202 was simply a post-RTM build of 2202 for testing this new system. It was also this change that quite clearly introduced the build labs: a new source management system also means a revised build system. I’m not definitively saying it wasn’t Whistler — as has been said, the evidence could lean either way, it could just as easily be one of the first whistler builds before they’ve had chance to update the branding — it’s just rather foolish to dismiss it out of hand.
3790.1232 is an interesting parallel. It is also a build simply compiled to test a revised source management setup. Unlike 2202 though, there’s no ambiguity. This is a Server 2003 build completely unmodified. The modifications started in b5000.0.
