BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Database Screenshots Gallery Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 8d, 8h, 19m | CPU: 5% | MEM: 5655MB of 12273MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?        Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 9:17 pm 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri May 24, 2019 6:47 pm

Posts
3

Favourite OS
4.00.58s
Ok, I looked 3 builds of Windows 95. 4.00e mentioned from early 1993-04. But the Windows Chicago build 34 says '1985-1994 Microsoft Corp'. Also, notice Windows Chicago build 31. It is unconfirmed but it says '1985-1993 Microsoft Corp' in About Chicago window.

Is it true that the Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?        Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:28 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:33 pm

Posts
1997

Location
Czechia
No, Chicago 34 is as real as it could possibly be. Various sources confirm the existence of a build 34, including files from other builds and some lawsuits.

Now, there is a certain video floating around on YouTube, allegedly of build 34, however, its authenticity can't really be confirmed. There were also several fake screenshots made by betaguy224.

_________________
AlphaBeta, stop brainwashing me immediately!

Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?        Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:04 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:37 am

Posts
456
I can replicate every aspect of the Chicago 34 video on YouTube with a copy of 58s. Note the System icon on the taskbar is smaller than the rest and commonly the size of the icons should be the same.
Image
The 1994 copyright happened in 58s from 1993-08, but for early builds from 1994-03 to have 1994 is strange.

I also found a bootscreen of a build from 1994-03 (on my hard drive) which I believe was fake (don't kill me and I did not fake it):
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?        Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:57 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am

Posts
1577

Location
Slovenia

Favourite OS
5111
As AlphaBeta said, the existence of build 34 has been confirmed through OLDSETUP.INF from build 58s, where it is directly mentioned in a comment. 40e is confirmed through an internal Microsoft document, where it's also directly mentioned. Additionally, pre-PDK/M4 (build 58s) releases have been confirmed by more internal documents on Chicago development, but no specific build numbers are mentioned there, unfortunately.

However, using unconfirmed videos and screenshots of build 34 and other early builds to establish a timeline and authenticity of these same builds is like building a house in a swamp. Shaky at best. In this sense, the copyright year is completely irrelevant (and also because Microsoft was not always consistent with it anyway). The only confirmed visual evidence of early builds so far is the Usability Testing video from Microsoft that depicts at least two pre-build 34 builds. That's the only valid visual reference point I'd use in my theories and assumptions.

_________________
Image

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager - my configuration manager for 86Box


Last edited by Overdoze on Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?        Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:59 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:49 pm

Posts
282

Location
GMT+2 w/dst

Favourite OS
6.0.6001
ComputerHunter wrote:
I also found a bootscreen of a build from 1994-03 (on my hard drive) which I believe was fake (don't kill me and I did not fake it):
Image

If that's real then it should be for the usability testing builds and not this build, and it says 1993-03 not 1994-03.
Offtopic Comment
You should clean that hard drive. SERIOUSLY you should.

_________________
<!--Placeholder-->


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?        Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:13 am 
Reply with quote
Offline

Joined
Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:40 pm

Posts
80

Favourite OS
WinNT 3.x, Win95, 3.00.14, Linux
IIRC the build 34 that was shipped out to MS partners didn't have the Windows 95 shell, which was based off of the Cairo M4 shell and forked sometime between late October and the end of 1992.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?        Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:07 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:37 am

Posts
456
ATeamInc wrote:
*snip*

OK, to prove I did not fake it, I wasted 10 minutes to find the source: https://sites.google.com/site/chicagowi ... /chicago34

Build 34 is real but it was only given out to ~40 people whereas 58s was given out to ~2000 people and the chances of a build surviving is almost 0 so we can't assume that YouTube video is real.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?        Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:01 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:49 pm

Posts
282

Location
GMT+2 w/dst

Favourite OS
6.0.6001
ComputerHunter wrote:
ATeamInc wrote:
*snip*

OK, to prove I did not fake it, I wasted 10 minutes to find the source: https://sites.google.com/site/chicagowi ... /chicago34

Build 34 is real but it was only given out to ~40 people whereas 58s was given out to ~2000 people and the chances of a build surviving is almost 0 so we can't assume that YouTube video is real.

I believe those are the fake screenshots made by betaguy224 back in the day.

_________________
<!--Placeholder-->


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?        Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:07 pm 
Reply with quote
Offline

Joined
Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:44 pm

Posts
350

Location
Russia

Favourite OS
Debian 10, 6002, 9600
ATeamInc wrote:
ComputerHunter wrote:
ATeamInc wrote:
*snip*

OK, to prove I did not fake it, I wasted 10 minutes to find the source: https://sites.google.com/site/chicagowi ... /chicago34

Build 34 is real but it was only given out to ~40 people whereas 58s was given out to ~2000 people and the chances of a build surviving is almost 0 so we can't assume that YouTube video is real.

I believe those are the fake screenshots made by betaguy224 back in the day.

These are fake.

_________________
quality signature


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?        Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:07 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:29 pm

Posts
38

Location
England
The existence of build 34 is not in question, but that does not mean that the Youtube video shows it. It could be a frankenbuild for all we know, and there is reason to think so. If a working copy ever shows up we'll know for sure.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?        Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:03 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:37 am

Posts
456
ATeamInc wrote:
*snip*

I know they were fake.

We all know it exist but the YouTube video is questionable. The chances of 40 useless discs surviving for 26 years is pretty low... Because 58s was given to 2000 people, there are a few surviving copies but anything pre-58s were only given to a few testers so I am not surprised that they were all gone.

I also don't see the level of difference from 58s in build 40 (from KenOath) except for the re-branded WfW 3.11 setup and a few different icons.


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2019

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS