Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?

Discuss Windows 95, 98 and ME.
Post Reply
Steve42424
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 6:47 pm
Contact:

Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?

Post by Steve42424 »

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?

AlphaBeta
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2137
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:33 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?

Post by AlphaBeta »

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

ComputerHunter
FTP Access
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:37 am

Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?

Post by ComputerHunter »

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

Overdoze
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1694
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?

Post by Overdoze »

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.
Last edited by Overdoze on Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks

ATeamInc
FTP Access
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:49 pm
Location: GMT+2 w/dst
Contact:

Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?

Post by ATeamInc »

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-->

winnt32
FTP Access
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:40 pm

Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?

Post by winnt32 »

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.

ComputerHunter
FTP Access
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:37 am

Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?

Post by ComputerHunter »

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.

ATeamInc
FTP Access
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:49 pm
Location: GMT+2 w/dst
Contact:

Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?

Post by ATeamInc »

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-->

MCpillager12
User avatar
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:44 pm
Location: Russia
Contact:

Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?

Post by MCpillager12 »

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.
Help!!!! hOw DO I run WiNdoWS 8 vM wIThouT vm soFtWarE???

Exemptus
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:29 pm
Location: England

Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?

Post by Exemptus »

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.

ComputerHunter
FTP Access
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:37 am

Re: Is Windows Chicago build 34 is fake?

Post by ComputerHunter »

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.

Post Reply