(continued) Fake Screenshot Contest

[Patrick]

The old topic was over 90 days old, and I didn't want to bump it, so I created a new topic.

This is Windows Odyssey 4122... It has a 3D prism taskbar

[Blizzardo1]

I did this for OSBN/EABG/DetoNet/Abandonet... WOW They have a lot of names... k
and Battler turned this down, I can do better though, but he didn't like it. Tell me what you think.

[TheCollector1988]

Windows NT 3.0 is real! xD well this is how it will really look like if it was real (complete with the name command prompt instead of MS-DOS prompt like it was in a previous one) and this is my version of it.

[WinPC]

Even though I already posted these screenshots on AbandoNet, I'll repost them here on BetaArchive. Anyway, Bob Cowart sent me screenshots of Cougar Build 31 Simplified Chinese, Chicago Build 09c, Chicago Build 35d, and Chicago Build 58 German, though he is also going to send me screenshots of Windows with Multimedia Extensions 1.1 version 3.1, which he said is codenamed "Syracuse", in this case, Build 186, which he also said was among the last builds of it compiled before it was merged with "Janus", which of course is Windows 3.1.

Excuse the deficiancy in coloring due to the .BMP to .GIF conversion.

Cougar Build 31 Simplified Chinese (March 2nd, 1993):


Chicago Build 09c (September 30th, 1992):

Note that if installed over Jaguar (MS-DOS 6.1), the "Jaguar Genuine Parts" logo is displayed in the background


Chicago Build 35d (April 2nd, 1993):








Chicago Build 58 German (July 16th, 1993):

Notice how the last screenshot, the one of Chicago Build 58, seems to have been spared the deficiancy in coloring, possibly due to the fact that Bob Cowart used the SVGA driver and as such, the screenshot itself is in SVGA coloring (256 colors), rather than VGA coloring (16 colors).

EDIT: Added in the spacing between screenshots that were stacked together.

[Rob Jansen]

Unacceptable material, Fake Files
- You may not distribute improperly modified files (fakes) without the files being clearly marked as being fakes.

Before posting I think all of those images you created should have (FAKE) written on them (like an Word watermark), newbie beta collectors think that they are real then and always think they are real and posting them as proof.
Which then turns the beta world into a big mess and nothing is clear anymore.

And why should we even have this topic?
This is just stupid...

And no, I am not creating fake screens myself, waste of time.
Better to install Genuine Beta's and have fun with them.

[Blizzardo1]

Unacceptable material, Fake Files
- You may not distribute improperly modified files (fakes) without the files being clearly marked as being fakes.

Before posting I think all of those images you created should have (FAKE) written on them (like an Word watermark), newbie beta collectors think that they are real then and always think they are real and posting them as proof.
Which then turns the beta world into a big mess and nothing is clear anymore.

And why should we even have this topic?
This is just stupid...

And no, I am not creating fake screens myself, waste of time.
Better to install Genuine Beta's and have fun with them.

So will the Ban hammer be brought upon us? Says the Topic. Clearly we understand that this is the Continuation of a Fake Screenshot Thread. If outside the bounds of this or not in another thread marked as fake, then I think the Rule should be heavily applied.

[compgeke]

Windows 8:


About as fake as it gets.

[hb860]

compgeke, you are winner!
Very funny fake, lol

[tonynoname]

Hmm maybe I can enter a video in this contest? I started making one that was over 1000 frames and was the best, and then remembered I can't have more than 1000 frames with my video editor.
remember these are all old, newest on bottom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPJi2WtjF4Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMsQsV0NKWk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmrKwyorNAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N06LUFAeru8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKu0Yjbpyas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keydURTXzVg (which was supposed to be last)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaqY0VxpsVA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb2XOET_1_Y

Too bad I never made the last one in parts.

[Eggs6131]

Here's one of mine, Windows XP R2 Ultimate Edition:



More on the way.

[linuxlove]

Windows Whistler Professional 2317.main.001105-1214:

[Spider-Vice]

Interestingly, I've been in touch with some friends and Microsoft Portugal already has the latest Windows 8 build, translated to Portuguese. Features the restart if necessary switch on Windows Update (gray as there aren't any updates) and the centered titles on some windows. The winver.exe as I've been told is a thing still under heavy construction. This is a very basic build before M3, and there are some new features.
Oh and that gap in the start bar? They say it's some UI change, that'll be applied soon.

[tonynoname]

Interestingly, I've been in touch with some friends and Microsoft Portugal already has the latest Windows 8 build, translated to Portuguese. Features the restart if necessary switch on Windows Update (gray as there aren't any updates) and the centered titles on some windows. The winver.exe as I've been told is a thing still under heavy construction. This is a very basic build before M3, and there are some new features.
Oh and that gap in the start bar? They say it's some UI change, that'll be applied soon.

lol That's a good one, except some text is slipping off the taskbar!

I'm still working on my mod, but I want it to be really convincing

[WinPC]

Well, Bob Cowart (yes, the same person who sent me the screenshots I posted of Janus Build 43e, Cougar Build 31 Simplified Chinese, Chicago Build 09c, Chicago Build 35d, Chicago Build 58 German, Chicago Build 83, and Chicago Build 89) said that he also has that build in English, French, Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, and even Korean, and that the test discrepancy in the taskbar is caused by a bug in the user interface, and that it even occurs elsewhere (such as extensively long window titles when part of the window title should be cut off by a "...")

Anyway, he should also be sending me screenshots of Windows with Multimedia Extensions 1.1 (version 3.1) Build 164 from November 1991, which he said was codenamed "Syracuse" before it was later merged with Windows 3.1, which everyone knows is codenamed "Janus".

[kangaro]

NEW WINDOWS 8 PRE-BETA for GANSTERS

[linuxlove]

NEW WINDOWS 8 PRE-BETA for GANSTERS
*snip*

._.

Here is Chicago 4.00.26:

This is the desktop. It's still using Program Manager as the default shell but some Windows 95 looks have been applied, like the title bar text being left aligned instead of center aligned.
The taskbar is also present in this build and you'll notice the other two buttons are missing.


The Start Menu only hold "Run" and "Shut Down" since Program Manager is still the default shell. Interesting fact: Windows will not shut down in this build if you close Program Manager. It will only shut down if you tell it to do so from the Start Menu.


In the first picture, there's a new icon in the Main group: "File cabinet". This picture is of File Cabinet. In this build, it was nothing more than a glorified DIR command.


Returning back the the Program Manager, this is the "About Windows" screen.

[JoJoz]

OMG! Look what I got for you guys! I took my time-traveling DeLorean from BTTF and went to the year 4253, and I brought you a present. After I got home I installed it on my pc and took this screenshot. Meet Windows 869.3:

[Spider-Vice]

I've found this treasure in a floppy disk. It said Windows 0.1 DEVELOPMENT CONFIDENTIAL. It was given to me by someone, so I decided to install it and test. Doesn't have anything special, just a few features and MS-DOS

[WinPC]

My contact Bob Cowart, who also sent me the screenshots that I posted earlier in this topic, has stated that that build is obviously fake:

WinPC, I saw the screenshot of Windows 0.1 DEVELOPMENT CONFIDENTIAL posted on the Beta Archive and I must say that that is obviously a fake. I have many reasons for this:

1. It's supposedly a "Windows" release, yet it's all command line based, how odd considering that it's therefore basically the same as MS-DOS (?!).
2. The "ver" command produces the version number as being Microsoft Windows 0.1.1.1980 - quite odd considering that no version of Windows prior to Chicago produced a version number in the command line other than that of the MS-DOS version.
3. The mentioning of FDISK is weird when I don't remember seeing it in such earlier versions of either MS-DOS or Windows - though I could be wrong, but I highly doubt it.
4. The "format C:" command produces a message different to that of any version of MS-DOS that was released either by Microsoft, IBM, or Digital Research.
5. References to the word "build" are seen even as much as Microsoft never neared using that term at least until the advent of Windows 2.x, codenamed "Presentation Manager".
6. Supposedly this build was compiled on June 23rd, 1980 even when "DOS" barely existed at that point, let alone Windows, not to mention that I highly doubt that Microsoft of all people/companies/organizations would make the mistake of typing an "0" even in place of a "1", let alone a "2" or a "3" or a "4".
7. The date/time is that of other developed Western nations and not that of the United States/Canada, implying that the creator of this obvious fake made the mistake of using the wrong time format even when Microsoft specifically states that they are based in Redmond, Washington - just outside of Seattle.
8. The cursor is just an underline - looks like a (Microsoft) paint job to me.
9. It says "write" - not "type" - quite strange for Microsoft to use such different vocabulary.
10. Finally, the screenshot provided is in the wrong resolution.

Yes, that is indeed Bob Cowart who said this, the same person who sent me the screenshots I posted earlier in this topic (Cougar Build 31 Simplified Chinese, Chicago Build 09c, Chicago Build 35d, and Chicago Build 58 German).

[Pwned]

That Bob Cowart doesn't understand, that this was intentionally made as a fake, for fun.

[WinPC]

My contact Bob Cowart has more reasons as for why it was fake:

Pfft... that was simply the worst fake I've seen in all my life, and believe me, I remember the days when there was no such operating system as either "DOS" or "Windows" - I can even remember when I used my first Xerox Alto, not to mention some of the older IBM System/360's, which shows that I'm obviously much, much older than most of the people on the Operating System Beta Archives or whatever they call it today (BA/OSBA?!).

And yes, as such, I've got even more reasons as to why that's such a blatently obvious fake:
1. Windows prior to AUTOWIN-enabled Chicago ALWAYS, and I quote, ALWAYS booted up from the command prompt, and until the advent of AUTOWIN in the canceled MS-DOS 6.1 and MS-DOS 7.0, it booted up only from the command prompt - nothing more.

2. The border is all wrong - there is more of a black border than there would be had the screenshot been real.

3. Let alone the "help" command, which didn't even exist until MS-DOS 6.0, I don't even remember there ever being a "/?" arguement for the "command" command in the so-called "old" days of DOS, though if I'm wrong, I stand corrected.

4. Microsoft didn't even start planning Windows until 1981 as Interface Manager, let alone under the "Windows" name, meaning that:

A. "Windows" did not EXIST in 1980, period.

B. Even if it did indeed exist that early, it would have been known as "Interface Manager", not Windows as this (obvious fake) seems to imply.

If you want, I could post a screenshot of the Interface Manager of January 31st, 1981, which is the Hardware Test Release 0, and then you'll see how laughable this obvious fake is (at best).

Oh, and you never heard of me, am I right? I wrote some books, among which Mastering Windows 3.1 was one of them, and yes, I admit that I have indeed inserted beta screenshots of Windows into my books, since I have written all of my books during beta test periods, since I find it more convenient.

Remember, he sent me the screenshots that I already posted in this topic, including those of Chicago Build 09c.

This is of no offence to Spider-Vice, after all, it was Bob Cowart who said this.

[tonynoname]

We should have Bob Cowart identify real and fake builds! He can tell us about chicago 40, and all the new windows 8 builds! Half that stuff I would of never even noticed

[linuxlove]

Windows 1.0 1982:




Would have used PCEm but it didn't want to work right; graphics corruption and such.

[NeXT Computers]

Deleted.

[WinPC]

As my contact Bob Cowart said:

See how bad Windows 0.1 DEVELOPMENT CONFIDENTIAL was?! Here, you're seeing the Interface Manager of December 1981, and it looks nothing like some Windows 0.1 that was obviously done by someone bored at work/school/etc...

Anyway, that said, this predated CGA, a standard of which was not released until 1983, hence the even more simplistic graphics.