Chicago media

Discuss Windows 95, 98 and ME.
Post Reply
Tootles
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 984
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Chicago media

Post by Tootles »

On what format were the copies of Chicago that we have, originally? who donated them? I'm just wondering, about making some floppy disk sets (for show mainly, but it would also make it easier to put onto an old laptop. With, like, Chicago beta 1, the files are distributed as .cab files, but Chicago 58 came as a jumble of files (are there any sets of floppy images, or a way of determining what files go on which disk?).

Another thing, while I'm at it. I was playing with build 189 the other day and read the release notes. They referred to build 122 as M6; wouldn't that make 58 M3? Would that make it possible that such versions as 15 and 40 are the M1 and M2 releases?

We've really got to find those dead early builds - if only to get them out of the way concerning looking for stuff.

Concerning the screenshot of 15 that Namronia posted, I wouldn't be surprised if it was real - it looks primitive etc. enough to be authentic, and it looks like a px-for-px screendump, which would suggest that it has been installed under VPC or something like that... so it IS out there, I'm pretty sure of that.

Has anyone considered contacting Microsoft? I had a reply once about Windows 1.00, giving me a UK phone number to ring (and it wasn't just a stock response). The reason why I never rung (yet) is mainly because I just haven't got round to it. If I ring them, I'll ask about Chicago M1 and M2, shall I?
Have a day.

WinPC

Post by WinPC »

Chicago Builds 58s, 73, 73g, and 81 were distributed on CD-ROM's, although I once saw a website where a guy mentioned his father bringing home a copy of Chicago, on many floppy disks. It can't be Chicago Builds 15b, 21i, or 34, since those builds came on a lot less floppy disks.

Chicago Builds 122, through at least 347 were distributed on both floppy disks and CD-ROM's, but I'm not sure about the later builds.

The earliest Chicago Builds came on floppy disks. They included Disk 1, Disk 2, Disk 3, Disk 4, Disk 5, Disk 6, Disk 7, Disk 8, Disk 9, and two additional disks, A and B.

Chicago wasn't only distributed on floppy disks and CD-ROM's, it was also distributed on many BBS's.

Starting with Chicago Beta 1, Microsoft also included a tool that would allow you to transfer your copy of Chicago onto floppy disks.

Also, I'm going to be looking for the earliest builds of Chicago. I'm actually going to a technical flee-market in April, which is run by a Technology College.

I would say that the screenshots of Chicago Build 15b and 21i are real, since the build numbers use Microsoft's numbering scheme, and because these builds were designed in a very Microsoft like way.

inxsfan92
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am
Location: USA

Post by inxsfan92 »

hey WinPC kinda offtopic here but does your forum still need invites?

Unknown

Post by Unknown »

WinPC wrote:Chicago Builds 58s, 73, 73g, and 81 were distributed on
Is 73 real?
Im sure Ive read somewhere it was someones hack.

Namronia

Post by Namronia »

Unknown wrote:
WinPC wrote:Chicago Builds 58s, 73, 73g, and 81 were distributed on
Is 73 real?
Im sure Ive read somewhere it was someones hack.
edit for rule 13
There are some proofs it was faked, but thats not sure

Admin Edit: <s>Namronia, if you say anything of Kens is fake again without proof, you WILL be banned. I am getting sick of it as are the other moderators and other members. This is your FIRST and ONLY warning.</s>This warning has been lifted due to todays addition of rule 13.

Oh, and also ive got an rare 100% unmodified copy of 58s from unblestone
It was leaked long time ago, this is the NFO:

Code: Select all

/-----------------------------------------------------------\
| German Beta Group presents...                             |
|                               Microsoft Chicago Build 58s |
\-----------------------------------------------------------/

Release Date: October 26, 2005

Release Notes: Build 58s is floating around for quite a while
now, but all the different releases/hacks/fixes are based on a
couple of old zip files, which were damaged and incomplete. It
took us some time to get our hands on build 58s from a different
source, and here it is! Nothing missing, nothing modified. Write
is working and there are no errors when choosing not to install
the Plus Pack. Don't care about the "Cannot find NETWORK.DRV"
error; networking was never correctly implemented in this build.
We thought about removing that error, as it's easy to fix, but
for the sake of untouchedness, we left it in.

Enjoy this great beta!

Tootles
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 984
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Post by Tootles »

We've got Chicago 58, and I think we've got that one; everything sounds about right.

What I was saying that we want to get our hands on the Earlier ones; M1 and M2 are missing from our collections. As in .iso or .zip archives of the install files, not just screenshots. Screenshots just make us want the real thing more. 15 and 21 have been seen as screenshots, and so I think they must exist as VPC images somewhere. Therefore we must get our grubby little protuberances on them!
Have a day.

Battler
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am
Location: Slovenia, Central Europe.
Contact:

Post by Battler »

Well, any Chicago Builds before 34, can't be real, since before Build 34, the OS wasn't Chicago, but Cougar, and it was the code-name of Windows 3.2 (no, NOT the Chinese one).
There are several reverences to that in Chicago Build 58s alone, mainly the beginning of the file SETUP31.VER, which clearly says "Windows Version 3.20 (Cougar)", and the file is Build 33, so Build 33 was definitely still Cougar, also, there's the section ini.upd.32 in the file OLDSETUP.INF.

Also, I'm soon going to get my hands on Cougar Build 28, from the RingMan, who already has that Build, he got it from a friend of his, and they're both from Japan, and the RingMan and I are now trying to get that Build to 100% properly work, after which it will be sent to me, and I'll then leak it.
Join [url=irc://irc.ringoflightning.net/softhistory/]#softhistory @ RoL IRC[/url], a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: [url=irc://irc.ringoflightning.net/aniboshi/]#doki-doki @ RoL IRC[/url], Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.

Tootles
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 984
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Post by Tootles »

Screenshot?
Have a day.

Namronia

Post by Namronia »

marktuson wrote:Screenshot?
Trust him

Im pretty sure we'll get it, i cant wait

happy dude
Donator
Posts: 2461
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:12 pm

Post by happy dude »

Namronia wrote:
marktuson wrote:Screenshot?
Trust him

Im pretty sure we'll get it, i cant wait
Thats pretty hypocrytical of you Namronia, saying KenOath fakes his stuff, then you tell us we should trust some random for a screenshot?

Right...

Namronia

Post by Namronia »

happy dude wrote:
Namronia wrote:
marktuson wrote:Screenshot?
Trust him

Im pretty sure we'll get it, i cant wait
Thats pretty hypocrytical of you Namronia, saying KenOath fakes his stuff, then you tell us we should trust some random for a screenshot?

Right...
Hey man, he told me that long ago and he never faked anything... so... and even if i think it would be faked i wouldnt be allowed to say it (rule 13)

happy dude
Donator
Posts: 2461
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:12 pm

Post by happy dude »

Namronia wrote:
happy dude wrote:
Namronia wrote:
marktuson wrote:Screenshot?
Trust him

Im pretty sure we'll get it, i cant wait
Thats pretty hypocrytical of you Namronia, saying KenOath fakes his stuff, then you tell us we should trust some random for a screenshot?

Right...
Hey man, he told me that long ago and he never faked anything... so... and even if i think it would be faked i wouldnt be allowed to say it (rule 13)
...
Namronia wrote:There are some proofs it was faked, but thats not sure

Admin Edit: <s>Namronia, if you say anything of Kens is fake again without proof, you WILL be banned. I am getting sick of it as are the other moderators and other members. This is your FIRST and ONLY warning.</s>


Thanks, and have a nice day.

Namronia

Post by Namronia »

happy dude wrote:
Namronia wrote:
happy dude wrote:
Namronia wrote:
marktuson wrote:Screenshot?
Trust him

Im pretty sure we'll get it, i cant wait
Thats pretty hypocrytical of you Namronia, saying KenOath fakes his stuff, then you tell us we should trust some random for a screenshot?

Right...
Hey man, he told me that long ago and he never faked anything... so... and even if i think it would be faked i wouldnt be allowed to say it (rule 13)
...
Namronia wrote:There are some proofs it was faked, but thats not sure

Admin Edit: <s>Namronia, if you say anything of Kens is fake again without proof, you WILL be banned. I am getting sick of it as are the other moderators and other members. This is your FIRST and ONLY warning.</s>


Thanks, and have a nice day.

I havent said that this here is fake, i believe in it

So, i stopped talking about the one who was here once and just because i wanted to make some hope that itll be leaked soon i get trouble

Battler
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am
Location: Slovenia, Central Europe.
Contact:

Post by Battler »

marktuson wrote:Screenshot?
Once we get this Build to work 100% properly, not only will I post at least TWO screen-shots of it here, but I'm also going to leak the Build itself, so well, you'll be able to test it yourself.
Join [url=irc://irc.ringoflightning.net/softhistory/]#softhistory @ RoL IRC[/url], a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: [url=irc://irc.ringoflightning.net/aniboshi/]#doki-doki @ RoL IRC[/url], Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.

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

Post by Kenneth »

The Code Name "Cougar", makes all Builds screens that are earlier than 33 fake.

WinPC

Post by WinPC »

The build number of SETUP31.VER isn't 3.20.33, it's actually 3.10.33.

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

Post by Kenneth »

Yet there is a 3.20 string.

Battler
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am
Location: Slovenia, Central Europe.
Contact:

Post by Battler »

WinPC wrote:The build number of SETUP31.VER isn't 3.20.33, it's actually 3.10.33.
If you check the binary Build values, you'll see, that it's actually 3.10.2.033, while Windows 3.1 Builds were 3.10.0.xxx.
And the beginning clearly says this: Windows Version 3.20 (Cougar).
Join [url=irc://irc.ringoflightning.net/softhistory/]#softhistory @ RoL IRC[/url], a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: [url=irc://irc.ringoflightning.net/aniboshi/]#doki-doki @ RoL IRC[/url], Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.

Tootles
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 984
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Post by Tootles »

So, you're saying that Chicago started from build 33, and they never bothered to start from 1? Or that Cougar evolved into Chicago?
Have a day.

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

Post by Kenneth »

Cougar turned into Chicago at build 34.

ddew
Donator
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:09 am
Location: Sweden

Post by ddew »

It sounds like it, names aren't set in stone. Just look at the next version of Windows, even though it's technically the same project as it's been for years now they've switched codenames twice. Blackcomb became Vienna which became 7. Seems like they change name after shifting focuses and things like that.

[edit:] He beat me to it

Tootles
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 984
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Post by Tootles »

Does Cougar contain the same features as the early Chicago, such as the new shell and the 32bit extensions, and its own dedicated DOS? Or is it more primitive?

Can't you put up a screenshot of some sort, so we can see what it looks like; even if it's not working properly yet?
Have a day.

WinPC

Post by WinPC »

marktuson wrote:Does Cougar contain the same features as the early Chicago, such as the new shell and the 32bit extensions, and its own dedicated DOS? Or is it more primitive?

Can't you put up a screenshot of some sort, so we can see what it looks like; even if it's not working properly yet?
Windows 3.20 Codenamed Cougar wouldn't include it's own copy of MS-DOS, since the first Chicago Builds installed didn't include their own copy of MS-DOS either. Instead, they installed on top of MS-DOS 7.0. Also, these early versions didn't install like Chicago Build 58s, instead they installed like Windows 3.1.

Tootles
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 984
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Post by Tootles »

And the shell?
Have a day.

WinPC

Post by WinPC »

marktuson wrote:And the shell?
I'm not sure what the Cougar shell was like, although I've looked in the oldsetup.inf file from Chicago Build 58s before, and the shell name was Progman.exe. Also, the Cabinet shell was also included, but in those early Chicago Builds it wasn't actually a shell, instead it was a file management program like File Manager. I'm not sure if Cougar was like this though.

Post Reply