View topic - Do these screenshots look real? - Windows, Apple, Application, Abandonware and Game Beta Downloads/Repository

Nightsteed

Well, a while ago I downloaded the version of Microsft Cogar which was released here in the forum of New Beta / RTMs releases. Well, yesterday I found an old flash drive with the files in it ...

I proceeded to install it and decided to take some screenshots. I know everyone says that is really a fake or is a mixture of several builds, containing files from some versions of Microsoft Cougar... But ... Does it really seems to be a fake?, I played with him for a while and seemed to be authentic, and I'm not saying so.

Well, my question is, These screenshots look real or fake, comparing them with versions of Windows 3.1 or Chicago?

http://www.betaarchive.co.uk/imageuploa ... r.2924.png
http://www.betaarchive.co.uk/imageuploa ... .83774.png
http://www.betaarchive.co.uk/imageuploa ... .46888.png
http://www.betaarchive.co.uk/imageuploa ... .76725.png
http://www.betaarchive.co.uk/imageuploa ... .63682.png
http://www.betaarchive.co.uk/imageuploa ... .96641.png
http://www.betaarchive.co.uk/imageuploa ... .33524.png
http://www.betaarchive.co.uk/imageuploa ... .77942.png
http://www.betaarchive.co.uk/imageuploa ... r.8664.png
http://www.betaarchive.co.uk/imageuploa ... .61658.png

Please say what you think about those screenshots.

Derf

The "leaked" build of 28 is a fake.

Random_User

Although the leaked build 028 is fake, a real one actually exists. And they probably look similar to those screenshots.

Derf

Random_User wrote:

Although the leaked build 028 is fake, a real one actually exists. And they probably look similar to those screenshots.

Actually, Random_User is wrong here. There's never been any proof that Cougar Build 28 actually exists in any shape or form.

Random_User

There has been no publically leaked evidence of the existence of this specific build, but there is evidence of the existence of Cougar.

Derf

Random_User wrote:

There has been no publically leaked evidence of the existence of this specific build, but there is evidence of the existence of Cougar.

Yeah, that's true, but not of Build 28.

Pwned

Again, it must be Microsoft Windows Program Manager, and not Microsoft Windows Cougar to be real.

neonsonicboy

The wording in setup... they wouldn't 'recommend' you install it. And they would add a full stop and it would be in C:\WINDOWS most probably. But we know it's a fake anyway.

The Distractor

neonsonicboy wrote:

The wording in setup... they wouldn't 'recommend' you install it. And they would add a full stop and it would be in C:\WINDOWS most probably. But we know it's a fake anyway.

um... the "We recommend you upgrade this older version".. is used in win 3.1x setup anyway, when it detects an older version.
And early builds of Chicago install to C:\CHICAGO.

neonsonicboy

The Distractor wrote:

neonsonicboy wrote:

The wording in setup... they wouldn't 'recommend' you install it. And they would add a full stop and it would be in C:\WINDOWS most probably. But we know it's a fake anyway.

um... the "We recommend you upgrade this older version".. is used in win 3.1x setup anyway, when it detects an older version.
And early builds of Chicago install to C:\CHICAGO.

Seems a bit strange that MS worded it like that...? Oh well. And I did say 'probably' about the setup dir, it was just a guess. Even so, it still seems fake and we know the leaked build 28 is.

GuyWithTheDuelDisk

Yea, I believe it's fake too. (Not that I know that Chicago Build 28 exisits 8-)

)

Matth360

i think is fake.
never heard of cougar and chicago build 28.

betaluva

Matth360 wrote:

i think is fake.
never heard of cougar and chicago build 28.

read this: http://osbetaworld.bb2.org/index.php?showtopic=652

Nightsteed

neonsonicboy wrote:

Seems a bit strange that MS worded it like that...? Oh well. And I did say 'probably' about the setup dir, it was just a guess. Even so, it still seems fake and we know the leaked build 28 is.

Hehe, that was because I reinstalled It to take screenshots.

---
Here is the vhd if you want to try and play around with it:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/mizmmwzmqin/Cougar Build 28 VHD.rar

instructions to run it:
1. boot into mounted floppy (DOS 6.0)
2. type C:
3. type cd Cougar
4. type win
5. You are in!

I hope that if I post it here that's not against the rules. :wink:

Random_User

Nightseed wrote:

I hope that if I post it here that's not against the rules

It's not against the rules. Those instructions have already been posted and so was a download link.

ramasendal

build 28 = fake

Random_User

For those of you referring to build 028 as "Chicago Build 028", it's Cougar Build 028. The first build of Chicago was build 32 (I think).

Matth360

Random_User wrote:

For those of you referring to build 028 as "Chicago Build 028", it's Cougar Build 028. The first build of Chicago was build 32 (I think).

the first leaked build of chicago is build 58s.

RamonXick

yes it is fake! the"Cougar" codename..

never hear it.. :cry:

Random_User

The first leaked build of Chicago is Build 56 (Available on the BetaArchive FTP Server).

And the codename Cougar is real. It was originally used early in the development of Microsoft Windows 95, and had the version number 3.20. The codename was later changed to Chicago and the version number was changed to 4.00.

Daniel

Random_User wrote:

[...] And the codename Cougar is real. It was originally used early in the development of Microsoft Windows 95, and had the version number 3.20. [...]

Proof?

As you can see in this document, the next version after 3.1 was considered to be 4.0 from the very beginning....
And as you can see in this document, Cougar wasn't an earlier codename for Chicago.... on page 17 it says:

Quote:

Cougar is an enhanced mode kernel for Chicago, that maintains compatibility with existing DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.1 applications, TSRs and drivers. It provides a robust and high performance base for the next version of Windows. Cougar actually provides the user with an integrated Windows and DOS environment. Cougar has its origin in the Windows 3.1 enhanced mode kernel (WIN386).

Stop spreading false information if you don't know what you are talking about!

The Distractor

..so maybe the "Cougar" builds with the version 3.2 were just for testing and bugfixing the base before Chicago features were coded ?

Random_User

Daniel wrote:

Proof?

As you can see in this document, the next version after 3.1 was considered to be 4.0 from the very beginning....
And as you can see in this document, Cougar wasn't an earlier codename for Chicago.... on page 17 it says:

There actually is a system file in Microsoft Codename Chicago Build 58s with the version number 3.20 and the file discription "Microsoft Cougar".

Matth360

Random_User wrote:

Daniel wrote:

Proof?

As you can see in this document, the next version after 3.1 was considered to be 4.0 from the very beginning....
And as you can see in this document, Cougar wasn't an earlier codename for Chicago.... on page 17 it says:

There actually is a system file in Microsoft Codename Chicago Build 58s with the version number 3.20 and the file discription "Microsoft Cougar".

sure? so what's the name of this system file?

Random_User

w31ver with I don't know which extension (As I don't currently have Chicago Build 58s installed in a virtual machine).

Do these screenshots look real?

Who is online