BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 54d, 12h, 2m | CPU: 40% | MEM: 5773MB of 10601MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Chicago 40 Screens Faked?        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:53 am 
Hello, i saw the Chicago 40 Screens and was very excited at the beginning, then a friend told me, that you cannot enter any name in 58s. Then i heard that he maybe updated from 3.1 with inserted name. i thought that could be possible and tried it myself (but because i dont have 40 or earlier i had to try 58s)....

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

my friend told me (and i really think its that way) if this feature were in 40, it wouldnt be removed in 58s and later re-introduced in 73 or 73g...

I think ken faked those screenshots...


oh, and here are all 2 known 40 screenshots...

Image
Image

and one i found on my hd, dont know where i get it and dont know if its real...

Image

what do you think about? and if you dont believe me, try it yourself...


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:27 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:21 am

Posts
2068

Location
Australia

Favourite OS
Neptune/Whistler2419/Linux Mint
KenOath is NOT a faker!!!!! why would he need to make fake screenshots?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:39 am 
betaluva wrote:
KenOath is NOT a faker!!!!! why would he need to make fake screenshots?


What are your proofs for this?

For me its pretty clear he faked lots of things...


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:46 am 
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12473

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Namronia wrote:
betaluva wrote:
KenOath is NOT a faker!!!!! why would he need to make fake screenshots?


What are your proofs for this?

For me its pretty clear he faked lots of things...


Lets not start this again please. Comments like this already made him leave.

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:48 am 
Andy wrote:
Namronia wrote:
betaluva wrote:
KenOath is NOT a faker!!!!! why would he need to make fake screenshots?


What are your proofs for this?

For me its pretty clear he faked lots of things...


Lets not start this again please. Comments like this already made him leave.


i wont start this again, i know that but im just telling the truth, why should ms delete the "update" feature in later builds?


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:59 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:21 am

Posts
2068

Location
Australia

Favourite OS
Neptune/Whistler2419/Linux Mint
wheres your proof he did fake screenshots? if ken was posting a mock-up or a fake screenshot he would tell people.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Chicago 40 Screens Faked?        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:05 am 
Namronia wrote:
Hello, i saw the Chicago 40 Screens and was very excited at the beginning, then a friend told me, that you cannot enter any name in 58s. Then i heard that he maybe updated from 3.1 with inserted name. i thought that could be possible and tried it myself (but because i dont have 40 or earlier i had to try 58s)....

Did you install it over the top, or rather, within windows 3.1


Last edited by Unknown on Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:09 am 
His Build isnt real, read my post and you will perhaps understand...

Quote:
Namronia wrote:
Hello, i saw the Chicago 40 Screens and was very excited at the beginning, then a friend told me, that you cannot enter any name in 58s. Then i heard that he maybe updated from 3.1 with inserted name. i thought that could be possible and tried it myself (but because i dont have 40 or earlier i had to try 58s)....
Quote:
Did you install it over the top, or rather, within windows 3.1


I installed it as update, within 3.1 and i also tried with 3.0 and 3.0a, the same result....

Image

thats how i installed it, please try it yourself and post your results if theyre different this thread could be deleted, but i cant really imagine...

please try it yourself


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:13 am 
Does a windows 3 build import user data when installed within
an earlier build.
I'm led to believe that chicago was based on windows 3 series.
Perhaps if it was built from a windows 3 series, then perhaps
the user data is imported as if it were a windows 3 build itself.

Namronia wrote:
betaluva wrote:
KenOath is NOT a faker!!!!! why would he need to make fake screenshots?


What are your proofs for this?

For me its pretty clear he faked lots of things...

I'm curious as to what else there is faked.
Did anyone ever happen to see a real checked build of chicago.
I made a few requests regarding these checked builds but was
ignored.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:27 am 
Unknown wrote:
Does a windows 3 build import user data when installed within
an earlier build.
I'm led to believe that chicago was based on windows 3 series.
Perhaps if it was built from a windows 3 series, then perhaps
the user data is imported as if it were a windows 3 build itself.

Namronia wrote:
betaluva wrote:
KenOath is NOT a faker!!!!! why would he need to make fake screenshots?


What are your proofs for this?

For me its pretty clear he faked lots of things...

I'm curious as to what else there is faked.
Did anyone ever happen to see a real checked build of chicago.


I just said, in 58s you cannot enter user names, the first chicago build you could was 73g.

So i wounderd about how he does. so, i told that to oBrasilo (very nice guy :wink: ) and he told me (or was it tpemail:?? doesnt matter now) , he had installed it from 3.x with entered name and then made an upgrade, ok i thought, but i also thought that windows chicago wouldnt take the old names... so i tried, the results are as i thought, you can see on the top....

my first was 3.1, then i tried wfw 3.11, 3.0, 3.0a, and all: the same result....

so no early chicago takes the names from earlier windows'ses i think, but why should build 40 do?

and, sorry if i sounded rude, when i talked to ken when he was still here he was nice to me most of the time, but i also talked to others, "non ken's", they told me about things like that here and so i started searching my own... this thread is a part of my actual results


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:39 am 
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:11 pm

Posts
2607

Location
Germany, Earth

Favourite OS
Windows 10
Maybe this is a proof, that Cicago Build 40 exists.

Image

You can also find files from the following builds:

4.00.47
4.00.55
4.00.57
4.00.058
4.00.58j
4.00.58k
4.00.58n
4.00.58o

_________________
MS vNext: Windows 10 ESD Database - Windows 10 Build Labs - Windows 10 Update Archive - Office 2016 Version Tracker - Office Downloader


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:43 am 
D.Konieczny wrote:
Maybe this is a proof, that Cicago Build 40 exists.

Image

You can also find files from the following builds:

4.00.47
4.00.55
4.00.57
4.00.058
4.00.58j
4.00.58k
4.00.58n
4.00.58o


There were lots of 40 Builds files, i saw them in later builds too, i never said there is no build, i just said Ken faked the screens because he dont have this build...


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:54 am 
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:11 pm

Posts
2607

Location
Germany, Earth

Favourite OS
Windows 10
Could it be possible that Chicago was originally planned as something like a Plus Pack for Windows 3.1 and build 40 (and earlier builds) were only an update for Windows 3.1? Because then, if those builds are only an update or something, the username would have been obsolete. Maybe they decided to make Chicago a standalone product after build 40 and implemented the new setup routine where you can enter your username and your organisation not until build 73?

_________________
MS vNext: Windows 10 ESD Database - Windows 10 Build Labs - Windows 10 Update Archive - Office 2016 Version Tracker - Office Downloader


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:58 am 
D.Konieczny wrote:
Could it be possible that Chicago was originally planned as something like a Plus Pack for Windows 3.1 and build 40 (and earlier builds) were only an update for Windows 3.1? Because then, if those builds are only an update or something, the username would have been obsolete. Maybe they decided to make Chicago a standalone product after build 40 and implemented the new setup routine where you can enter your username and your organisation not until build 73?


nice thought :)

but afaik it was planned as "Windows 4.0" from the beginning


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:13 am 
Namronia wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Does a windows 3 build import user data when installed within
an earlier build.
I'm led to believe that chicago was based on windows 3 series.
Perhaps if it was built from a windows 3 series, then perhaps
the user data is imported as if it were a windows 3 build itself.

Namronia wrote:
betaluva wrote:
KenOath is NOT a faker!!!!! why would he need to make fake screenshots?


What are your proofs for this?

For me its pretty clear he faked lots of things...

I'm curious as to what else there is faked.
Did anyone ever happen to see a real checked build of chicago.


I just said, in 58s you cannot enter user names, the first chicago build you could was 73g.

So i wounderd about how he does. so, i told that to oBrasilo (very nice guy :wink: ) and he told me (or was it tpemail:?? doesnt matter now) , he had installed it from 3.x with entered name and then made an upgrade, ok i thought, but i also thought that windows chicago wouldnt take the old names... so i tried, the results are as i thought, you can see on the top....

my first was 3.1, then i tried wfw 3.11, 3.0, 3.0a, and all: the same result....

so no early chicago takes the names from earlier windows'ses i think, but why should build 40 do?

and, sorry if i sounded rude, when i talked to ken when he was still here he was nice to me most of the time, but i also talked to others, "non ken's", they told me about things like that here and so i started searching my own... this thread is a part of my actual results

I'll say it again, but this time think about what I am saying.
If you install a latter windows 3 build, like for instance, 3.11 over the top
of, or within windows 3.0 or 3.1, does it import the USER DATA.
If it does then perhaps the early chicago builds did as well, then as
D.Konieczny said, perhaps the latter builds were builds designed to
be installed as stand alone builds, importing no user data or system
drivers and settings.
Whereas installing windows 3.11 on top of windows 3.0 imports both
user data and system drivers and settings.
It's just a thought, but would explain the name in the about window.

And i'll ask again, did anyone ever see or obtain any of the checked
builds shown here in the screens section.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:16 am 
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:11 pm

Posts
2607

Location
Germany, Earth

Favourite OS
Windows 10
Namronia wrote:
D.Konieczny wrote:
Could it be possible that Chicago was originally planned as something like a Plus Pack for Windows 3.1 and build 40 (and earlier builds) were only an update for Windows 3.1? Because then, if those builds are only an update or something, the username would have been obsolete. Maybe they decided to make Chicago a standalone product after build 40 and implemented the new setup routine where you can enter your username and your organisation not until build 73?


nice thought :)

but afaik it was planned as "Windows 4.0" from the beginning


Code:
; SETUPPP.INF
;
; This is the main Setup information file for the Chicago Windows
; retail product.  This defines the Plus Pack options.
;
; Copyright 1993, Microsoft Corporation

[version]
signature="$CHICAGO$"
ver=00.00.00

[DestinationDirs]
pp.sys.files        = 11    ; LDID_SYS
inf.files           = 17    ; LDID_INF

[SourceDisksNames]
1="disk description 1", "SETUP      ", 0001

[BaseWinOptions]
pluspack
infs

[pluspack]
OptionDesc = %PLUSPACK%
CopyFiles  = pp.sys.files

[pp.sys.files]
dskmaint.dll
windisk.cpl

[infs]
CopyFiles  = inf.files

[inf.files]
setup.inf,setuppp.inf

[SourceDisksFiles]
dskmaint.dll = 1, pluspack
windisk.cpl = 1, pluspack
setuppp.inf = 1

[Strings]
PLUSPACK        = "Plus Pack Components"

[...]


Hmmmm...
This is a part of the SETUPPP.INF from Chicago 58s.

_________________
MS vNext: Windows 10 ESD Database - Windows 10 Build Labs - Windows 10 Update Archive - Office 2016 Version Tracker - Office Downloader


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:18 am 
Unknown wrote:
Namronia wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Does a windows 3 build import user data when installed within
an earlier build.
I'm led to believe that chicago was based on windows 3 series.
Perhaps if it was built from a windows 3 series, then perhaps
the user data is imported as if it were a windows 3 build itself.

Namronia wrote:
betaluva wrote:
KenOath is NOT a faker!!!!! why would he need to make fake screenshots?


What are your proofs for this?

For me its pretty clear he faked lots of things...

I'm curious as to what else there is faked.
Did anyone ever happen to see a real checked build of chicago.


I just said, in 58s you cannot enter user names, the first chicago build you could was 73g.

So i wounderd about how he does. so, i told that to oBrasilo (very nice guy :wink: ) and he told me (or was it tpemail:?? doesnt matter now) , he had installed it from 3.x with entered name and then made an upgrade, ok i thought, but i also thought that windows chicago wouldnt take the old names... so i tried, the results are as i thought, you can see on the top....

my first was 3.1, then i tried wfw 3.11, 3.0, 3.0a, and all: the same result....

so no early chicago takes the names from earlier windows'ses i think, but why should build 40 do?

and, sorry if i sounded rude, when i talked to ken when he was still here he was nice to me most of the time, but i also talked to others, "non ken's", they told me about things like that here and so i started searching my own... this thread is a part of my actual results

I'll say it again, but this time think about what I am saying.
If you install a latter windows 3 build, like for instance, 3.11 over the top
of, or within windows 3.0 or 3.1, does it import the USER DATA.
If it does then perhaps the early chicago builds did as well, then as
D.Konieczny said, perhaps the latter builds were builds designed to
be installed as stand alone builds, importing no user data or system
drivers and settings.
Whereas installing windows 3.11 on top of windows 3.0 imports both
user data and system drivers and settings.
It's just a thought, but would explain the name in the about window.

And i'll ask again, did anyone ever see or obtain any of the checked
builds shown here in the screens section.


and as i said, i dont think so, from the beginning on it was called "windows 4.00", that wasnt planned as "plus pack", i cant believe this...

and i think i never saw a checked build there...


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:21 am 
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:11 pm

Posts
2607

Location
Germany, Earth

Favourite OS
Windows 10
Namronia wrote:
and as i said, i dont think so, from the beginning on it was called "windows 4.00", that wasnt planned as "plus pack", i cant believe this...

and i think i never saw a checked build there...


But then, what is the sense of those line?

Code:
; This is the main Setup information file for the Chicago Windows
; retail product.  This defines the Plus Pack options.

_________________
MS vNext: Windows 10 ESD Database - Windows 10 Build Labs - Windows 10 Update Archive - Office 2016 Version Tracker - Office Downloader


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:25 am 
D.Konieczny wrote:
Namronia wrote:
and as i said, i dont think so, from the beginning on it was called "windows 4.00", that wasnt planned as "plus pack", i cant believe this...

and i think i never saw a checked build there...


But then, what is the sense of those line?

Code:
; This is the main Setup information file for the Chicago Windows
; retail product.  This defines the Plus Pack options.


i saw too, but i think thats for the "PLUSPACK" folder which should be automatically installed with Chicago


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:30 am 
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:11 pm

Posts
2607

Location
Germany, Earth

Favourite OS
Windows 10
Namronia wrote:
D.Konieczny wrote:
Namronia wrote:
and as i said, i dont think so, from the beginning on it was called "windows 4.00", that wasnt planned as "plus pack", i cant believe this...

and i think i never saw a checked build there...


But then, what is the sense of those line?

Code:
; This is the main Setup information file for the Chicago Windows
; retail product.  This defines the Plus Pack options.


i saw too, but i think thats for the "PLUSPACK" folder which should be automatically installed with Chicago


Yeah, I've totally forgotten the PLUSPACK folder.... xD

_________________
MS vNext: Windows 10 ESD Database - Windows 10 Build Labs - Windows 10 Update Archive - Office 2016 Version Tracker - Office Downloader


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:54 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Posts
2406
User.Exe holds the user data. If user.exe is replaced, you will get the user data that was in the executable.

Quote:
I think ken faked those screenshots...

Umm....Resource hacking?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:09 pm 
Windows OCManage wrote:
User.Exe holds the user data. If user.exe is replaced, you will get the user data that was in the executable.

Quote:
I think ken faked those screenshots...

Umm....Resource hacking?


Could not open USER.EXE:
This file type is not supported.


16bit? or he used a reshacker but just for some screens it would be to much work i think...but thanks, ill try


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:13 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Namronia wrote:
Could not open USER.EXE:
This file type is not supported.


16bit? or he used a reshacker but just for some screens it would be to much work i think...but thanks, ill try

Use a 16-bit resource editor.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:19 pm 
empireum wrote:
Namronia wrote:
Could not open USER.EXE:
This file type is not supported.


16bit? or he used a reshacker but just for some screens it would be to much work i think...but thanks, ill try

Use a 16-bit resource editor.


:?

you know one?

sorry i think we had that already but i dont know it, i just forget how that was called... :(


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:29 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Namronia wrote:
empireum wrote:
Namronia wrote:
Could not open USER.EXE:
This file type is not supported.


16bit? or he used a reshacker but just for some screens it would be to much work i think...but thanks, ill try

Use a 16-bit resource editor.


:?

you know one?

sorry i think we had that already but i dont know it, i just forget how that was called... :(

Borland Resource Workshop 4.5.
(Note: This is intended for Win3.x, so don't expect it to work perfectly on later versions.)


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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 © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS