eval vs. registered version differences



hal korstead
07-09-2005, 10:26 PM
I have been using the eval version updated to SP2 for a long time and last
week I obtained my registered copy to which I also applied SP2. I have not
applied QFEs to either version however I noticed that some of the build
numbers for components were more recent in the registered version. This is
not what I would expect. The build number of a component should reflect the
original OS release modified by any SPs or QFEs applied so why am I seeing
different build numbers?

KM
07-09-2005, 10:26 PM
I assumed by the "build number" you meant revision number?

If so, are you sure you had SP2 eval before you moved to SP2 RTM?
Could you show us the revision numbers for a particular component with your
SP2 Eval and SP2 RTM ?

KM

>I have been using the eval version updated to SP2 for a long time and last
> week I obtained my registered copy to which I also applied SP2. I have
> not
> applied QFEs to either version however I noticed that some of the build
> numbers for components were more recent in the registered version. This
> is
> not what I would expect. The build number of a component should reflect
> the
> original OS release modified by any SPs or QFEs applied so why am I seeing
> different build numbers?

hal korstead
07-09-2005, 10:26 PM
I'll show both the different revision numbers and evidence that I was using
SP2 in both cases:

From dependency check using the eval edition
Windows XP Service Pack 1 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2171, R2117]
Windows XP Service Pack 2 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2171, R2117]

And from dependency check using the registered edition
Windows XP Service Pack 1 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2180, R2890]
Windows XP Service Pack 2 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2180, R2890]

There are many other components with different version numbers but these
make my point clear. My main concern is that I believe the two versions
behave differently. The registered version doesn't seem to have a bug that
cost me many days of analysis and sweat. I'm glad the bug may be fixed (I
still need to do more verification) but I'm annoyed that I couldn't get any
attention from MS previously and they may have fixed the bug without ever
bothering to acknowledging it.

"KM" wrote:

> I assumed by the "build number" you meant revision number?
>
> If so, are you sure you had SP2 eval before you moved to SP2 RTM?
> Could you show us the revision numbers for a particular component with your
> SP2 Eval and SP2 RTM ?
>
> KM
>
> >I have been using the eval version updated to SP2 for a long time and last
> > week I obtained my registered copy to which I also applied SP2. I have
> > not
> > applied QFEs to either version however I noticed that some of the build
> > numbers for components were more recent in the registered version. This
> > is
> > not what I would expect. The build number of a component should reflect
> > the
> > original OS release modified by any SPs or QFEs applied so why am I seeing
> > different build numbers?
>
>
>

KM
07-09-2005, 10:26 PM
> I'll show both the different revision numbers and evidence that I was using
> SP2 in both cases:
>
> From dependency check using the eval edition
> Windows XP Service Pack 1 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2171, R2117]
> Windows XP Service Pack 2 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2171, R2117]
>
> And from dependency check using the registered edition
> Windows XP Service Pack 1 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2180, R2890]
> Windows XP Service Pack 2 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2180, R2890]

These are the right numbers from SP2 RTM.

> There are many other components with different version numbers but these

That was perfectly clear :-)

> make my point clear. My main concern is that I believe the two versions behave differently.

Very possible.

> The registered version doesn't seem to have a bug that
> cost me many days of analysis and sweat. I'm glad the bug may be fixed (I
> still need to do more verification) but I'm annoyed that I couldn't get any
> attention from MS previously and they may have fixed the bug without ever
> bothering to acknowledging it.

Could that happen that it was not SP2 Eval you were using but rather SP2 Tech.Preview? Or even some SP2 Beta?
Then it would explain the differences in revision numbers. There were also some important fixes that only appeared in SP2 RTM (you
call it - registred version).


--
KM,
BSquare Corp.
www.bsquare.com


> "KM" wrote:
>
>> I assumed by the "build number" you meant revision number?
>>
>> If so, are you sure you had SP2 eval before you moved to SP2 RTM?
>> Could you show us the revision numbers for a particular component with your
>> SP2 Eval and SP2 RTM ?
>>
>> KM
>>
>> >I have been using the eval version updated to SP2 for a long time and last
>> > week I obtained my registered copy to which I also applied SP2. I have
>> > not
>> > applied QFEs to either version however I noticed that some of the build
>> > numbers for components were more recent in the registered version. This
>> > is
>> > not what I would expect. The build number of a component should reflect
>> > the
>> > original OS release modified by any SPs or QFEs applied so why am I seeing
>> > different build numbers?
>>
>>
>>

hal korstead
07-09-2005, 10:26 PM
If the version I think is eval/SP2 is actually TP or beta, then it would have
to be because files were mixed up on the web site. I never downloaded a TP
or beta version. An image created with my "eval" version generates a banner
screen that references version 2.00.0807.0 and it has the letters RTM. I
would have expected that a beta or TP would have a different identifier since
only an eval version is supposed to be identical to an RTM except for a time
bomb in the image.

Hal

"KM" wrote:

> > I'll show both the different revision numbers and evidence that I was using
> > SP2 in both cases:
> >
> > From dependency check using the eval edition
> > Windows XP Service Pack 1 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2171, R2117]
> > Windows XP Service Pack 2 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2171, R2117]
> >
> > And from dependency check using the registered edition
> > Windows XP Service Pack 1 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2180, R2890]
> > Windows XP Service Pack 2 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2180, R2890]
>
> These are the right numbers from SP2 RTM.
>
> > There are many other components with different version numbers but these
>
> That was perfectly clear :-)
>
> > make my point clear. My main concern is that I believe the two versions behave differently.
>
> Very possible.
>
> > The registered version doesn't seem to have a bug that
> > cost me many days of analysis and sweat. I'm glad the bug may be fixed (I
> > still need to do more verification) but I'm annoyed that I couldn't get any
> > attention from MS previously and they may have fixed the bug without ever
> > bothering to acknowledging it.
>
> Could that happen that it was not SP2 Eval you were using but rather SP2 Tech.Preview? Or even some SP2 Beta?
> Then it would explain the differences in revision numbers. There were also some important fixes that only appeared in SP2 RTM (you
> call it - registred version).
>
>
> --
> KM,

KM
07-09-2005, 10:26 PM
Hal,

Well.. Frankly, I do not recall the revision numbers in SP2 Eval or in TP (it's been a while).
If you have patience, you can try and install the SP2 Eval on a different machine to see what component revisions are there.
All the versions you can find here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/usewinemb/xp/tools/lang/default.aspx

--
KM,
BSquare Corp.
www.bsquare.com


> If the version I think is eval/SP2 is actually TP or beta, then it would have
> to be because files were mixed up on the web site. I never downloaded a TP
> or beta version. An image created with my "eval" version generates a banner
> screen that references version 2.00.0807.0 and it has the letters RTM. I
> would have expected that a beta or TP would have a different identifier since
> only an eval version is supposed to be identical to an RTM except for a time
> bomb in the image.
>
> Hal
>
> "KM" wrote:
>
>> > I'll show both the different revision numbers and evidence that I was using
>> > SP2 in both cases:
>> >
>> > From dependency check using the eval edition
>> > Windows XP Service Pack 1 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2171, R2117]
>> > Windows XP Service Pack 2 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2171, R2117]
>> >
>> > And from dependency check using the registered edition
>> > Windows XP Service Pack 1 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2180, R2890]
>> > Windows XP Service Pack 2 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2180, R2890]
>>
>> These are the right numbers from SP2 RTM.
>>
>> > There are many other components with different version numbers but these
>>
>> That was perfectly clear :-)
>>
>> > make my point clear. My main concern is that I believe the two versions behave differently.
>>
>> Very possible.
>>
>> > The registered version doesn't seem to have a bug that
>> > cost me many days of analysis and sweat. I'm glad the bug may be fixed (I
>> > still need to do more verification) but I'm annoyed that I couldn't get any
>> > attention from MS previously and they may have fixed the bug without ever
>> > bothering to acknowledging it.
>>
>> Could that happen that it was not SP2 Eval you were using but rather SP2 Tech.Preview? Or even some SP2 Beta?
>> Then it would explain the differences in revision numbers. There were also some important fixes that only appeared in SP2 RTM
>> (you
>> call it - registred version).
>>
>>
>> --
>> KM,
>

Matt Kellner \(MS\)
07-09-2005, 10:26 PM
I just investigated this, and the SP2 Eval version available on the Windows
Embedded download site is the most current SP2 release (rev. 2180). The
version that hal downloaded is most likely to have been a pre-release
version - it's possible that it wasn't labeled as such on the website when
he downloaded it, but in any event, the current download is up to date.

--
Matt Kellner (mattkell@online.microsoft.com)
STE, Windows Embedded Group

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
===============================

"KM" <konstmor@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eCX%23UfebFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hal,
>
> Well.. Frankly, I do not recall the revision numbers in SP2 Eval or in TP
> (it's been a while).
> If you have patience, you can try and install the SP2 Eval on a different
> machine to see what component revisions are there.
> All the versions you can find here:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/usewinemb/xp/tools/lang/default.aspx
>
> --
> KM,
> BSquare Corp.
> www.bsquare.com
>
>
>> If the version I think is eval/SP2 is actually TP or beta, then it would
>> have
>> to be because files were mixed up on the web site. I never downloaded a
>> TP
>> or beta version. An image created with my "eval" version generates a
>> banner
>> screen that references version 2.00.0807.0 and it has the letters RTM. I
>> would have expected that a beta or TP would have a different identifier
>> since
>> only an eval version is supposed to be identical to an RTM except for a
>> time
>> bomb in the image.
>>
>> Hal
>>
>> "KM" wrote:
>>
>>> > I'll show both the different revision numbers and evidence that I was
>>> > using
>>> > SP2 in both cases:
>>> >
>>> > From dependency check using the eval edition
>>> > Windows XP Service Pack 1 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2171, R2117]
>>> > Windows XP Service Pack 2 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2171, R2117]
>>> >
>>> > And from dependency check using the registered edition
>>> > Windows XP Service Pack 1 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2180, R2890]
>>> > Windows XP Service Pack 2 Resource DLL [Version 5.1.2600.2180, R2890]
>>>
>>> These are the right numbers from SP2 RTM.
>>>
>>> > There are many other components with different version numbers but
>>> > these
>>>
>>> That was perfectly clear :-)
>>>
>>> > make my point clear. My main concern is that I believe the two
>>> > versions behave differently.
>>>
>>> Very possible.
>>>
>>> > The registered version doesn't seem to have a bug that
>>> > cost me many days of analysis and sweat. I'm glad the bug may be
>>> > fixed (I
>>> > still need to do more verification) but I'm annoyed that I couldn't
>>> > get any
>>> > attention from MS previously and they may have fixed the bug without
>>> > ever
>>> > bothering to acknowledging it.
>>>
>>> Could that happen that it was not SP2 Eval you were using but rather SP2
>>> Tech.Preview? Or even some SP2 Beta?
>>> Then it would explain the differences in revision numbers. There were
>>> also some important fixes that only appeared in SP2 RTM (you
>>> call it - registred version).
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> KM,
>>
>
>


eval vs. registered version differences