From: Nikolay Sivov Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use Windows 10 as default prefix version. Message-Id: <23015792-b431-d34e-19f8-f96025882718@codeweavers.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:07:41 +0300 In-Reply-To: References: <20220121142705.273101-1-nsivov@codeweavers.com> <7035e98f-ce83-b85c-a6c1-4a52db79e079@codeweavers.com> On 1/21/22 18:44, Paul Gofman wrote: > On 1/21/22 18:32, Nikolay Sivov wrote: >> >> >> On 1/21/22 18:11, Paul Gofman wrote: >>> There is also version number in kernel32/version.rc which some games >>> expect to have in sync IIRC. >> >> Do you mean a build number? Is it matching now? > > No, it doesn't. It is currently from Windows 10 1909 (18362). Maybe I > am messing up that something known was depending on the match (maybe > only on that version being recent enough). But maybe it still makes > sense to make it consistent? Yes, I think so. I'd like to have this done step by step so if something breaks we can track why. >> >>> >>> Then, there is a version number hardcoded in >>> kernelbase/version.c:version_data[] which is currently 17134, that >>> should probably be bumped as well? (fwiw there is also the number in >>> ntdll/version.c: VersionData[] but this is 17763 now. >> >> That means it's already doesn't match if I switch to Win10 manually. >> We should probably use some header to make sure all of this is >> updated properly. > > Yes, it probably doesn't match now as well. We probably can't make > manually switched Win version fully consistent. But still I guess it > would be more straightforward if we default to recent enough Win10 > with all the known version queries matching for the default case. > > >> >>> >>> Probably not exactly related but maybe once the default is upgraded >>> to Win10 it makes sense to add ReleaseId and DisplayVersion registry >>> values? I recall at least one game depending in ReleaseId presence. >> >> Sure. Are those values new to Windows 10? > > Yes, I think that was introduced in Win10. And DisplayVersion is in > fact probably even newer, not sure it actually exists on 1809 (that > is, 17763). But also, maybe it would make sense to bump to something > newer at once? 17763 is more than 3 years old already and there are > apps which refuse to work or at least complain about outdated version > (the most fresh requirement I saw so far was 19041, 2004 from May 2020). > > I don't see a problem with bumping it up to 21H1 version too. That's definitely a separate change.