How do you determine the build number of an installed DDK?
I don’t know if this is the “official” way, but VER_PRODUCTBUILD in that
DDK’s ntverp.h seems like a good place to start.
Also, I’m not sure how far back this goes, but the default install path
for the DDK has included the version number for quite some time.
BobF wrote:
How do you determine the build number of an installed DDK?
–
…/ray..
Please remove “.spamblock” from my email address if you need to contact
me outside the newsgroup.
When you install, it will append the build number to the directory path. the
last I installed is \Winddk\3790.1218.
–
The personal opinion of
Gary G. Little
“BobF” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> How do you determine the build number of an installed DDK?
>
>
Mine installed in \WINDDK\3790\ No build number appended.
“Gary G. Little” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> When you install, it will append the build number to the directory path.
> the last I installed is \Winddk\3790.1218.
>
> –
> The personal opinion of
> Gary G. Little
>
> “BobF” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> How do you determine the build number of an installed DDK?
>>
>>
>
>
>
When I install the WIN2003 DDK, the default is \WINDDK\3790\
When I install WINXPSP1 DDK, the default is \WINDDK\2600.1106\
This is when installing from the Dec2004 MSDN DVD (disc 2426.11)
“Gary G. Little” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> When you install, it will append the build number to the directory path.
> the last I installed is \Winddk\3790.1218.
>
> –
> The personal opinion of
> Gary G. Little
>
> “BobF” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> How do you determine the build number of an installed DDK?
>>
>>
>
>
>
The lack of the second number (e.g. after the ‘.’) is because it is the
W2K3 RTM DDK. For RTM DDKs, the default directory is “”.
For SP DDKs, the default directory is “.”.
–Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of BobF
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 11:18 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] DDK build number
>
> When I install the WIN2003 DDK, the default is \WINDDK\3790<br>>
> When I install WINXPSP1 DDK, the default is \WINDDK\2600.1106<br>>
> This is when installing from the Dec2004 MSDN DVD (disc 2426.11)
>
>
> “Gary G. Little” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> > When you install, it will append the build number to the
> directory path.
> > the last I installed is \Winddk\3790.1218.
> >
> > –
> > The personal opinion of
> > Gary G. Little
> >
> > “BobF” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >> How do you determine the build number of an installed DDK?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> xxxxx@coffee-and-cigarettes.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
Then I would say you installed the base build for 3790. Subsequent releases
have been 3790.1184, 3790.1218, etc, whatever it is up to now. (Yes I know,
I have to update mine Calvin. :))
–
The personal opinion of
Gary G. Little
“BobF” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Mine installed in \WINDDK\3790\ No build number appended.
>
>
> “Gary G. Little” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> When you install, it will append the build number to the directory path.
>> the last I installed is \Winddk\3790.1218.
>>
>> –
>> The personal opinion of
>> Gary G. Little
>>
>> “BobF” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>>> How do you determine the build number of an installed DDK?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Gary G. Little wrote:
Then I would say you installed the base build for 3790. Subsequent releases
have been 3790.1184, 3790.1218, etc, whatever it is up to now. (Yes I know,
I have to update mine Calvin. :))
I don’t think that is correct. As far as I know, 3790.1184 and
3790.1218 were betas or release candidates leading up to the RTM final,
which is simply 3790.
I’m sure someone will be happy to jump in and correct me if this is wrong.
–
- Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
“Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Gary G. Little wrote:
>
>>Then I would say you installed the base build for 3790. Subsequent
>>releases have been 3790.1184, 3790.1218, etc, whatever it is up to now.
>>(Yes I know, I have to update mine Calvin. :))
>>
>
> I don’t think that is correct. As far as I know, 3790.1184 and 3790.1218
> were betas or release candidates leading up to the RTM final, which is
> simply 3790.
>
Thanks for the replies, guys. I’m glad at least I wasn’t asking a question
that the answer to was staring me right in the eyes all along! 
Tim Roberts wrote:
Gary G. Little wrote:
> Then I would say you installed the base build for 3790. Subsequent
> releases have been 3790.1184, 3790.1218, etc, whatever it is up to
> now. (Yes I know, I have to update mine Calvin. :))
>I don’t think that is correct. As far as I know, 3790.1184 and
3790.1218 were betas or release candidates leading up to the RTM
final, which is simply 3790.I’m sure someone will be happy to jump in and correct me if this is
wrong.
It pains me to admit it, but I am wrong. 3790 was the original W2K3
DDK. The RTM of the W2K3 SP1 DDK installs in 3790.1830.
–
- Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Tim,
I installed 3790 2 years ago (almost 3) now. That install created
\WinDDK\3790. Every other version of the DDK I have installed has created a
3790.x directory under 3790. So … given that the base is 3790, I do indeed
hope that after the dust of the betas settle we do NOT have another 3790 …
seems like it should increment to 3800 or maybe even 3791 … but then no
one has consulted me on the issue, so my ancient wisdom is for naught …
–
The personal opinion of
Gary G. Little
“Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Gary G. Little wrote:
>
>>Then I would say you installed the base build for 3790. Subsequent
>>releases have been 3790.1184, 3790.1218, etc, whatever it is up to now.
>>(Yes I know, I have to update mine Calvin. :))
>>
>
> I don’t think that is correct. As far as I know, 3790.1184 and 3790.1218
> were betas or release candidates leading up to the RTM final, which is
> simply 3790.
>
> I’m sure someone will be happy to jump in and correct me if this is wrong.
>
> –
> - Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>
I’m a little miffed now that my MSDN media was providing me with 2-year old
DDK versions as recently as Dec’04.
Oh well, maybe when SP1 comes off of BO I’ll be up-to-date.
“Gary G. Little” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Tim,
>
> I installed 3790 2 years ago (almost 3) now. That install created
> \WinDDK\3790. Every other version of the DDK I have installed has created
> a 3790.x directory under 3790. So … given that the base is 3790, I do
> indeed hope that after the dust of the betas settle we do NOT have another
> 3790 … seems like it should increment to 3800 or maybe even 3791 … but
> then no one has consulted me on the issue, so my ancient wisdom is for
> naught …
>
> –
> The personal opinion of
> Gary G. Little
>
Why would you be miffed?
The 3790 DDK was the latest one available, unless you were on a beta
program. The DDK shipped separate from MSDN was not any newer than that
shipped in MSDN.
If you still think you should have something newer, you can get on a beta.
Phil
xxxxx@lists.osr.com wrote on 04/12/2005 04:58:58 PM:
I’m a little miffed now that my MSDN media was providing me with 2-year
old
DDK versions as recently as Dec’04.Oh well, maybe when SP1 comes off of BO I’ll be up-to-date.
OK, now I’m confused then. I’ve seen replies with later versions and
replies with none.
I’ll just stay confused instead of miffed then. Hopefully the SP1 version
will start shipping soon.
Thanks
“Philip D Barila” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Why would you be miffed?
>
> The 3790 DDK was the latest one available, unless you were on a beta
> program. The DDK shipped separate from MSDN was not any newer than that
> shipped in MSDN.
>
> If you still think you should have something newer, you can get on a beta.
>
> Phil
>
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com wrote on 04/12/2005 04:58:58 PM:
>
>> I’m a little miffed now that my MSDN media was providing me with 2-year
> old
>> DDK versions as recently as Dec’04.
>>
>> Oh well, maybe when SP1 comes off of BO I’ll be up-to-date.
>
The build number for a DDK is the number identified after the
\WINDDK<build number>
Regards,
Tony
________________________________
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Philip D Barila
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 4:11 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] DDK build number
Why would you be miffed?
The 3790 DDK was the latest one available, unless you were on a beta
program. The DDK shipped separate from MSDN was not any newer than that
shipped in MSDN.
If you still think you should have something newer, you can get on a
beta.
Phil
xxxxx@lists.osr.com wrote on 04/12/2005 04:58:58 PM:
> I’m a little miffed now that my MSDN media was providing me with
2-year old
> DDK versions as recently as Dec’04.
>
> Oh well, maybe when SP1 comes off of BO I’ll be up-to-date.
— Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256 You are currently subscribed
to ntdev as: xxxxx@microsoft.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
xxxxx@lists.osr.com
3790 -> original, but notworking
3790.1218 -> beta, notworking
3790.1289 -> beta, OK
3790.1433 -> beta, notworking
thats my experience,
Uwe
Tony Mangefeste wrote:
The build number for a DDK is the number identified after the
\WINDDK<build number>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] *On Behalf Of *Philip D Barila
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 4:11 PM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] DDK build number
>
>
>
>
> Why would you be miffed?
>
> The 3790 DDK was the latest one available, unless you were on a beta
> program. The DDK shipped separate from MSDN was not any newer than
> that shipped in MSDN.
>
> If you still think you should have something newer, you can get on a
> beta.
>
> Phil
>
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com wrote on 04/12/2005 04:58:58 PM:
>
>> I’m a little miffed now that my MSDN media was providing me with
> 2-year old
>> DDK versions as recently as Dec’04.
>>
>> Oh well, maybe when SP1 comes off of BO I’ll be up-to-date.
> — Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256 You are currently
> subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@microsoft.com To unsubscribe send a
> blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: unknown lmsubst tag
> argument: ‘’
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
BobF wrote:
OK, now I’m confused then. I’ve seen replies with later versions and
replies with none.I’ll just stay confused instead of miffed then. Hopefully the SP1 version
will start shipping soon.
It IS shipping. Well, it is downloadable from the normal (non-beta)
MSDN subscriber download area. It installs as 3790.1830
–
- Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
And is on the MSDN Professional discs … assuming BobF has such a
subscription.
–
The personal opinion of
Gary G. Little
“Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> BobF wrote:
>
>>OK, now I’m confused then. I’ve seen replies with later versions and
>>replies with none.
>>
>>I’ll just stay confused instead of miffed then. Hopefully the SP1 version
>>will start shipping soon.
>>
>
> It IS shipping. Well, it is downloadable from the normal (non-beta) MSDN
> subscriber download area. It installs as 3790.1830
>
> –
> - Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>
I let MSDN lapse at the end of '04. I ordered the NETDDK SP1 online. My
order status is showing “Back Ordered”. Apparently the CD’s are being
downloaded by current subscribers faster than they can dup them
“Gary G. Little” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> And is on the MSDN Professional discs … assuming BobF has such a
> subscription.
>
> –
> The personal opinion of
> Gary G. Little
>
> “Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> BobF wrote:
>>
>>>OK, now I’m confused then. I’ve seen replies with later versions and
>>>replies with none.
>>>
>>>I’ll just stay confused instead of miffed then. Hopefully the SP1
>>>version will start shipping soon.
>>>
>>
>> It IS shipping. Well, it is downloadable from the normal (non-beta) MSDN
>> subscriber download area. It installs as 3790.1830
>>
>> –
>> - Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
>> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>>
>>
>
>
>