[REQ] - Windows Chicago Build 15b

Download requests and offers should be made in this forum.
Do not request a download if you have under 10 posts. You will be ignored.
Forum rules
Please read the following rules before posting a download request in this area:

1. Don't post a request if you have under 10 posts as stated in the rules. If you do anyway, it will be deleted without further notice.
2. Requests for anything against our rules will not be entertained and you will be warned.
3. Check that we don't already have the file on our FTP servers by using the database linked in the navigation.
Post Reply
dexter152
FTP Access
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:46 pm

[REQ] - Windows Chicago Build 15b

Post by dexter152 »

Does someone have the following:

Windows Chicago Build 15b

Thank you,
dexter152

WinPC

Post by WinPC »

Unfortunately, no one has it. However, Cougar Build 28 is going to leak soon, and it's a lot more primitive than even Chicago Build 15b, and it even has the Program Manager shell. The version number is 3.20.

Daniel
User avatar
Staff
Posts: 2607
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:11 pm
Location: Germany, Earth
Contact:

Post by Daniel »

Chicago build 15 is a fake I think. (Please do not start another war because of this post)

Chicago
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:47 am
Location: $HOME

Post by Chicago »

WinPC wrote:Unfortunately, no one has it. However, Cougar Build 28 is going to leak soon, and it's a lot more primitive than even Chicago Build 15b, and it even has the Program Manager shell. The version number is 3.20.
How can we define soon??

WinPC

Post by WinPC »

I heard that it's going to be leaked this week on Release-a-fortnight. Although I'm not a member, I looked at the Winhistory forums and I saw someone say that.

Chicago
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:47 am
Location: $HOME

Post by Chicago »

OMG!!!
That'd be amazing!!
I've casually got a laptop with 20 mhz and 120 mb hdd.
She's waiting for it!

Unknown

Post by Unknown »

WinPC wrote:I heard that it's going to be leaked this week on Release-a-fortnight. Although I'm not a member, I looked at the Winhistory forums and I saw someone say that.
I just read there that it was mostly made up of WFW 3.1, with some other
Windows 3x files used, basically making it a rebranded windows 3.1
build, is that true, or just someones assumptions.
Ive never heard of windows cougar before that post there on winhistory.

Kenneth
Donator
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Post by Kenneth »

From a PM:
Well, I'd send you the thing, but unfortunately, I don't have it, either. Only my Japanese friend, the RingMan, currently has it, well, and the friend of his, that gave it to him. But, as I've already said, as soon, as I get it, I'm going to leak it.

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12622
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Andy »

WinPC wrote:I heard that it's going to be leaked this week on Release-a-fortnight. Although I'm not a member, I looked at the Winhistory forums and I saw someone say that.
Unfortunately I can say this is not true. This weeks release-a-week files have already been chosen and its not what you ask for.

Chicago
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:47 am
Location: $HOME

Post by Chicago »

is it on any future list?

unblestone

Post by unblestone »

Finally have got my hijacked account back, thanks to KenOath and Andy.

I had the chance to have a look at the supposed build 28 of Cougar already, and it doesn't seem to be authentic. I've posted all my finds at the winhistory forums, and there're many. Not going to repeat them all, but probably the most serious proof for it being a fake is that it uses the kernel from Windows for Workgroups 3.11. If it was going to be the next major release of Windows, why would it dub itself "Windows for Workgroups 3.11" in the kernel? WfW 3.11 was only a small update to WfW 3.10, and the apparent build date of that Cougar version is March 1993 -- WfW 3.11 didn't even exist at that time (it should take another 6 months for it to see the light of day). There's no 32-bit protected-mode MS-DOS kernel either, but that is what code-name "Cougar" actually was.

The whole story of how that build was found doesn't make sense either. They told about fixes they had to do because the pre-owner added device drivers from 58s (trying to add drivers that can't work and not keeping an unmodified copy?!?), but all files look perfectly clean as if they were never touched. Too clean for a beta anyway, seeing the mess of later Chicago betas.

Whatever, in my opinion, it's a hoax. Of course, there's still a very small chance that it is real, but I highly doubt it. After all, there's not a single feature that is has over WfW 3.x.

Post Reply