BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 55d, 14h, 17m | CPU: 8% | MEM: 5789MB of 10656MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Chicago media        Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:25 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
973

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
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.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:46 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:33 pm

Posts
3899

Location
Where do you want to go today?

Favourite OS
All Microsoft operating systems!
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.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:57 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am

Posts
544

Location
USA

Favourite OS
Mac OS Classic
hey WinPC kinda offtopic here but does your forum still need invites?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:30 am 
Reply with quote
WinPC wrote:
Chicago Builds 58s, 73, 73g, and 81 were distributed on

Is 73 real?
Im sure Ive read somewhere it was someones hack.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:38 am 
Reply with quote
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:
/-----------------------------------------------------------\
| 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!


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:25 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
973

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
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.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:30 am 
Reply with quote
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
1913

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
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 #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

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


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:18 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
973

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
Screenshot?

_________________
Have a day.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:56 am 
Reply with quote
marktuson wrote:
Screenshot?


Trust him ;)

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


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:03 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:12 pm

Posts
2461
Namronia wrote:
marktuson wrote:
Screenshot?


Trust him ;)

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


Thats pretty hypocrytical of you Namronia, saying KenOath fakes his stuff, then you tell us we should trust some random for a screenshot?

Right...


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:11 am 
Reply with quote
happy dude wrote:
Namronia wrote:
marktuson wrote:
Screenshot?


Trust him ;)

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


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)


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:16 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:12 pm

Posts
2461
Namronia wrote:
happy dude wrote:
Namronia wrote:
marktuson wrote:
Screenshot?


Trust him ;)

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


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

[i]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.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:18 am 
Reply with quote
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 :D


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

[i]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 8-)


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:42 pm 
Reply with quote
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
1913

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
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 #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

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


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:23 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Posts
2406
The Code Name "Cougar", makes all Builds screens that are earlier than 33 fake.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:01 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:33 pm

Posts
3899

Location
Where do you want to go today?

Favourite OS
All Microsoft operating systems!
The build number of SETUP31.VER isn't 3.20.33, it's actually 3.10.33.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:45 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Posts
2406
Yet there is a 3.20 string.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:54 am 
Reply with quote
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
1913

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
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 #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

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


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:30 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
973

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
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.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:43 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Posts
2406
Cougar turned into Chicago at build 34.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:45 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:09 am

Posts
368

Location
Sweden
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 :P


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:46 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
973

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
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.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:07 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:33 pm

Posts
3899

Location
Where do you want to go today?

Favourite OS
All Microsoft operating systems!
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.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:57 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
973

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
And the shell?

_________________
Have a day.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:18 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:33 pm

Posts
3899

Location
Where do you want to go today?

Favourite OS
All Microsoft operating systems!
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.


Top  Profile  WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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