Thanks to some people, I've managed to get some screenshots of this build. I'm not sure what build it is yet since UAC loves hiding files Bochs creates, namely the hard drive images >.>


Yep, it's October 1991. I don't have the SDK installed.


A familiar sight to those of you who have played with NT 1.0.239.


Same version dialog too. "Version VERSION"


The command prompt is slightly different than that of 239.


Winver.


The multi-threaded demo...


...and everyone's favorite, Win Bez! Sadly the rogue NetUI dude who brought you Win Bez in 239 isn't present


I don't think this was in NT 239. It also has a pretty neat About screen but I couldn't get a screenshot of that.

Great screenshots They make me enthusiastic

I think the build is lower than 200 or between 200-215

D'awww, baby Windows.

Good screenshots! Thank

Why does it say Windows NT version 3.2?

That's what I was thinking. Wasn't Windows NT version 3.1 released in 1993? =/

Mmmmm...something seems a bit fishy....

Remember that Windows NT - December 1991 was saying the same thing.

Looks like they were predicting the newer NT Version or something.

Ah. A bit like how Nightly Firefox says it is Firefox 6 then.

Yes but there never was an NT 3.2

I'm 99.99% sure this is legit, for anybody who's doubting. Awesome shots linuxlove, thanks!

There never was a Windows Longhorn either but there are still betas for it. What's your point?

Also if it isn't clear to others, I wasn't judging the authenticity of it, just wondering about the odd version number, but it's been explained.

I dont know, this is all too confusing to me

What? Longhorn was the codename for Windows Vista - so yes, there was a finished Longhorn product.
(And no, Longhorn wasn't a name only applied to pre-reset builds - 5048, 5203, and 5112 all identify themselves as Longhorn as well.)

And most likely those between 3790 and 5048 were also called Longhorn.

It's quite simple, they just decided to name the first release NT3.1, earlier deciding to use NT3.2, but then they changed their minds.

What confuses me is why start on NT3 in the first place.

@Derf Windows Longhorn became the codename of Windows Vista. Yes, 5048 etc. do refer to themselves as Longhorn, but that's because the name was simply taken to become a term referred to development wise. As for the actual Longhorn Product, as in what Longhorn originally was going to become, there was never a release. Just because the name continued doesn't mean the actual OS did... The development was completely reset, so what would have became of Longhorn had MS not decided to reset development would *literally* be a completely different product.

Erm, what? Windows Longhorn didn't "become" the codename of Vista, it was always the codename of Vista. It wasn't a "term referred to development wise", it was the Codename for Vista from start to end, reset or not. It may have ended up differently than they originally planned but that in no way means it wasn't Longhorn.

Yes but why work on NT 3.2 when 3.1 wasn't released until 2 years later? It makes no sense!

In 1991 there wasn't even a windows 3.1 either....

but it clearly was planned, 3.2 would be the next version... but things changed you know how it goes.

At any rate the December 1991 beta also reported itself being 3.2 ... I suppose the only way to get a handle on it's heritage is the config files, and version stamps in the executables....

@Derf It was just a term referred to development wise... If it meant anymore than that Vista would actually have been released as Windows Longhorn.

Windows Longhorn was planned to be released in 2004. And considering up till ~2005 the name Longhorn was used, do you really think they would have released it in 2004 under the name "Vista"? Please. You're acting like just because it was the next fully-release product after XP, it's all one and the same.

To put it into understandable terms, have a metaphor. By your logic, if I'm making an omelette, then halfway during making it I decide to forget about it and make a cake instead, using ideas from the omelette (some of the ingredients) but for some bizarre reason refer to it as an omelette anyway, but end up finishing it and calling it a cake, does that mean that the cake and omelette are the same thing? No.

Believe me, I do know what I'm talking about, I'm not completely disassociated with MS OS developers, lol. I just wish I was friends with the people I know enough to get the Windows 8 M3 build, =(

@giantsteen The point is they didn't originally plan to call it NT3.1 and decide the first release would be 3.2.

I think I may know just who to ask about this...Ill follow up on this tomorrow.

it makes perfect sense, windows 3.0 was a HIT, OS/2 was a dud. They knew they could easily ship windows 3.1 WAY before the NT people could dump their primary API, and build Win32 ... Needless to say it was a massive task, as the December beta didn't include NTVDM, OS/2 or Posix subsystems... it could barely run win32 programs.. and the networking supported 3 nics, and netbeui only.

Yes indeed, awesome screen shots!

First was OS/2 1.x
Then the abandoned 2.x
OS/2 3.0 was going to be the portable RISC version of OS/2 .. OS/2 NT But Microsoft picked up NT and gave IBM full control of 1.x and 2.x

I don't know if it helps any but that's why it started at 3.x ... then they kind of merged it into the windows 3.1 line, since it looked like windows 3.1, and it could sit on top of a windows 3.1 directory... it's NT 3.1

Ohhh. I see. Cheers =)