Talk:Windows Neptune

Was this anything other than a mockup?

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 think WinSuperSite was the only place I'd read about it before. [1] AlistairMcMillan 22:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Here you can find more information (in German) and screenshots: [2]

The information on that site is hardly reliable. The owner of that site is a 14-years-old kid who tends to dismiss valuable information as fake, just because it comes from someone he doesn't like. Apart from that, yes, Neptune did exist, and so did Odyssey. And Neptune wasn't supposed to be the home edition of Windows 2000 - Neptune is version 5.5, and documents, available in the anti-trust case, prove, that it was planned as the successor to Windows 2000, with all the versions, that Windows 2000 already had, plus the consumer edition. It just so happens, that the only leaked build of Neptune is of the consumer edition. And Odyssey was the planned successor to Neptune, given by its 6.0 version number. - OBrasilo (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that site IS reliable. I mixed it up with OS-History.info, which is another German site on Windows history, owned by a 14-years-old kid, who tends to dismiss valuable information as fake, just because it comes from someone he has declared another of his childish wars on. Winhistory.de, on the other hand, is reliable, and is owned by mr. Dirk Makowski, who is a respectable German OS collector, and much more mature, than the owner of OS-History.info. Sorry again for all the confusion. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm its existence, Schmucky. I had installed Build 5111 of Neptune (the most common leaked copy) on one of my old spare computers a couple of years ago. All beta software is codenamed before it is officially named, so while Neptune never officially was released, if it had been, it's name could've been Windows 2001 or something similar... Clane86 08:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, but re-read what I said. "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". I was already working on Whistler when this Neptune thing was released to the public, yet I've never heard of Neptune except here. Code mockups are relatively common internally at msft. That doesn't mean they will ever be released. The number of dead-end R&D projects outnumbers released products by about 10 to 1. This thing seems like something leaked (or stuck on msdn as a technology sample) and then people outside of Microsoft have turned it into "this would have been Windows 2001!!1!eleven!!" which I really doubt is the case. SchmuckyTheCat 19:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

For the love of God, please stop using that "!!!!!11!eleven!" crap! It implies that you don't understand the joke or you think it's not obvious enough in its pure form. It hurts me more than seeing ownage spelled with a 'P', but not quite as much as hearing people say "pawnage" IRL.

Is there any Windows Neptune theme for Windows XP?

Yeah, it's called Windows Classic ViperSnake151 01:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Errors

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)

Build 5000

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"

Windows Neptune existence

Yes, it does exist. I have it on my computer. Same build too.

Build numbers

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

IE 5.5?

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)

There's nothing special about IE 5.5, if that's what you mean. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Windows Me came with IE 5.5. It's not unique to Windows Neptune. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 05:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Service Pack?

Is it possible to install Windows 2000 SP4 on neptune build 5111? 89.164.158.254 (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? And this isn't a how-to or guide site. It's an ancient experimental OS, so, experiment. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

wow

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)

Neptune 5111 came before the first XP builds. Check the timestamps on the files. - 142.47.132.6 (talk)

Merge

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)

Neptune 5.50.5111, was compiled after Windows 2000 was already released, so what you're claiming, can hardly be true. Also, if you care to join: http://www.betaarchive.co.uk/forum , you'll be able to find more ifnormation about it there. And yes, it was intended for release, as the successor to Windows 2000, I can easily give you the MSN addresses of a few contacts of mine, who were Microsoft Beta-Testers at the time, and tested both Neptune, as well, as its successor, Odyssey. ;) - 194.165.96.5 (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Welcome screen pic

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)

And this, the user manager activity center, looks familiar also. _wjemather^bigissue 12:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This login screenshot is probably a better choice since the site itself is under creative commons (although MS copyright still applies to the screenshots). Pcap ping 12:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't listen to this bullcrap about Odyssey being tested, it wasn't even close to being compiled! -soulman from BA.