[RELEAK] IE4 "Nashville Plus Pack" 4.70.1056

[The Distractor]

Another awesome releak

Uploaded to BA FTP already.





This icon looks a lot like the Athena PIM icon, doesn't it?


It seems to be pretty buggy. I just tried to restart the VM and explorer crashed.

After rebooting, IE came up. So buggy it didn't even load properly. Half the menus are blank.

[JimOlive]

Great find! Where did you find it?

[Pwned]

Great find! Where did you find it?

Some old warez group sources, apparently.

[Battler]

Two screenshots of this running on top of Nashville 999 (running on Virtual PC 2007 SP 1 6.0.210):

The second one is with Plus! 256-color icons turned on:


Note that Explorer crashes when I try opening The Internet.

[JimOlive]

Great find! Where did you find it?

Some old warez group sources, apparently.

What source would that be? Or is it private?

[The Distractor]

Great find! Where did you find it?

Some old warez group sources, apparently.

What source would that be? Or is it private?

It's private at his or her request.

[vizerous]

So, then Nashville at some point of development was splitted into these parts:
- Nashville Shell, what eventually became IE4;
- OSR2/Detroit update;
- WDM BITS/Memphis, what eventually became Win98.

That's right? Can someone clear up this for me?

[The Distractor]

Turns out this isn't IE4 after all: OBattler managed to get to iexplore's about box, it says IE 3 Beta 1.

[WinPC]

Turns out this isn't IE4 after all: OBattler managed to get to iexplore's about box, it says IE 3 Beta 1.

Just because it still has the Internet Explorer 3.0 Beta 1 product name and version number does not mean that it is actually Internet Explorer 3.0 Beta 1 itself.

It is quite obvious that the two products were likely being developed side by side with each other. This version of Internet Explorer even includes features (such as the web-integrated shell) that Internet Explorer 3.0 did not include, and yet Internet Explorer 3.0 comes from the same year, so it would obviously seem logical that they would use the Internet Explorer 3.0 base for the upcoming Internet Explorer 4.0 product, which would explain why the Internet Explorer 3.0 references still exist in certain places.

The same is true for other parts of the Windows operating system. For example, in Nashville Build 999, most references still state the product name as being "Microsoft Windows 95".

[Battler]

- WinPC: Sorry but, "it is quite obvious" is subjective and not evidence of anything at all. This is 4.70.1056, Internet Explorer 4.0 is 4.71, and its Build numbers were reset, which is why we have Internet Explorer 4.0 Build 544 from 1997. 4.70.1056 is also perfectly consistent with the 4.70.10xx Build number of Internet Explorer 3.0 Final. And of course Nashville 999 references itself as Windows 95 in some points, but at the same time, also has version 4.10, rather than 4.00, and it's dated later than Windows 95 RTM. This here is dated before Internet Explorer 3.0 RTM, has a version number clearly pointing at 3.0, and a Build number consistent with 3.0 RTM. Also, including features the corresponding RTM lacks means nothing either, otherwise by that same logic, Longhorn is not the codename of Vista, but of a successor to Vista, given how it has features Vista RTM lacks.
So in short, there is little if any evidence about this being IE 4.0 and the two being developed in parallel from start on, and enough evidence about this being IE 3.0 and the Explorer integration being originally planned for IE 3.0, but then scrapped.

[betaluva]

post removed

[WinPC]

- WinPC: Sorry but, "it is quite obvious" is subjective and not evidence of anything at all. This is 4.70.1056, Internet Explorer 4.0 is 4.71, and its Build numbers were reset, which is why we have Internet Explorer 4.0 Build 544 from 1997. 4.70.1056 is also perfectly consistent with the 4.70.10xx Build number of Internet Explorer 3.0 Final. And of course Nashville 999 references itself as Windows 95 in some points, but at the same time, also has version 4.10, rather than 4.00, and it's dated later than Windows 95 RTM. This here is dated before Internet Explorer 3.0 RTM, has a version number clearly pointing at 3.0, and a Build number consistent with 3.0 RTM. Also, including features the corresponding RTM lacks means nothing either, otherwise by that same logic, Longhorn is not the codename of Vista, but of a successor to Vista, given how it has features Vista RTM lacks.
So in short, there is little if any evidence about this being IE 4.0 and the two being developed in parallel from start on, and enough evidence about this being IE 3.0 and the Explorer integration being originally planned for IE 3.0, but then scrapped.

First of all, just because there were later versions of Internet Explorer with the version number 4.71 does not necessarily mean that there were no such versions of Internet Explorer 4.0 with the version number 4.70. Since we don't have any information on hand, we have no way of confirming this to be true either.

Second, we have no proof that this was the same Internet Explorer 3.0 that was eventually used in Windows 95 OSR 2. For all we know, they could have just as easily started development of Internet Explorer 4.0 as Internet Explorer 3.0, and then later changed their plans and decided to rename it to Internet Explorer 4.0 and then just develop an interim version as Internet Explorer 3.0. And since the web integrated shell was eventually shipped with Internet Explorer 4.0, I find that to be quite likely in this case.

Finally, Longhorn contained features (such as WinFS) that were not used in the final product, but the difference here is that they also were not used in Windows 7 either. By comparison, this Internet Explorer 3.0 includes the web-integrated shell. The final version of the Internet Explorer 3.0 that we know does not include it, but Internet Explorer 4.0 does.

Of course, we don't have any definite "evidence" on hand to support any of our theories at all, so all that the two of us are doing is just debating what we personally find to be much more likely. But what I am saying is that just because this particular build identifies itself as being "Internet Explorer 3.0" does not necessarily mean that it is the same product as the Internet Explorer 3.0 that later shipped with Windows 95 OSR 2, especially when you consider that product plans may have changed a great deal in that time.

[vizerous]

- Battler, WinPC.
It's not IE3 after all. I got screenshots of another build of this Nashville plus pack. It clearly states it includes IE4 alpha (not sure about 1056, as it is still not released on ftp).

[The Distractor]

- Battler, WinPC.
It's not IE3 after all. I got screenshots of another build of this Nashville plus pack. It clearly states it includes IE4 alpha (not sure about 1056, as it is still not released on ftp).

Would that be the other build of it I know about? 107x?

[WinPC]

- Battler, WinPC.
It's not IE3 after all. I got screenshots of another build of this Nashville plus pack. It clearly states it includes IE4 alpha (not sure about 1056, as it is still not released on ftp).

Could you please post your screenshots here, and also the source that originally posted them in the first place? It would help us out a great deal, thanks.

[vizerous]

Thats 1101. I will show you later when I return from my job.

[WinPC]

Thats 1101. I will show you later when I return from my job.

Thanks for taking the time to do all of this, since it would help us out a great deal if we knew for sure what version of Internet Explorer this even is (especially when you consider that it is about to be added to the FTP server).

[betaluva]

so is it available for download yet?

[Battler]

First of all, just because there were later versions of Internet Explorer with the version number 4.71 does not necessarily mean that there were no such versions of Internet Explorer 4.0 with the version number 4.70. Since we don't have any information on hand, we have no way of confirming this to be true either.

No, but we have evidence for IE 3.0 using version number 4.70. We have zero evidence of any IE 4.0 Build with that version number. My statement is backed up with version number evidence, your statement is not.

Second, we have no proof that this was the same Internet Explorer 3.0 that was eventually used in Windows 95 OSR 2. For all we know, they could have just as easily started development of Internet Explorer 4.0 as Internet Explorer 3.0, and then later changed their plans and decided to rename it to Internet Explorer 4.0 and then just develop an interim version as Internet Explorer 3.0. And since the web integrated shell was eventually shipped with Internet Explorer 4.0, I find that to be quite likely in this case.

Actually, it calls itself IE 3.0 Beta 1, has version number 4.70, and a Build number consistent with Beta 1 of IE 3.0 (we have IE 3.0 Beta 1 Build 1086 on the BA FTP, by the way, and 1056 would be an earlier Beta 1 Build). So this is ample evidence for this being IE 3.0. And Occam's Razor tells us the simpler explanation is more likely to be true. In this case the simpler explanation is that the Desktop integration was originally planned for IE 3.0, but only released with IE 4.0. The evidence we have at hand also weighs this way. On the other hand, we've yet to see evidence for there being two different IE 3.0's.

Finally, Longhorn contained features (such as WinFS) that were not used in the final product, but the difference here is that they also were not used in Windows 7 either. By comparison, this Internet Explorer 3.0 includes the web-integrated shell. The final version of the Internet Explorer 3.0 that we know does not include it, but Internet Explorer 4.0 does.

We have Nashville 999 which has either IE 2, or an IE 3 so early that it looks like IE 2, and yet already has very primitive Desktop integration (single-click hover mode for Explorer, for one). Sorry, but I find it very unlikely Microsoft would have forked IE 4 from IE 3 that early.

Of course, we don't have any definite "evidence" on hand to support any of our theories at all, so all that the two of us are doing is just debating what we personally find to be much more likely. But what I am saying is that just because this particular build identifies itself as being "Internet Explorer 3.0" does not necessarily mean that it is the same product as the Internet Explorer 3.0 that later shipped with Windows 95 OSR 2, especially when you consider that product plans may have changed a great deal in that time.

I think the product identifying itself as IE 3.0, having version 4.70 just like IE 3.0, a Build number that's consistent with being an earlier Beta 1 Build (we have 1086 on the BA FTP, this is 1056), and it being in the right time frame, are quite solid evidence. It is up to you to provide equally solid counter-evidence to challenge the interpretation I have presented. We also have Occam's Razor weighing in favor of my explanation.

Now, I'm waiting for vizerous' screenshots too, since he claims Build 1101 clearly calls itself IE 4.0 Alpha, so I'd like to see them.

[WinPC]

Actually, it calls itself IE 3.0 Beta 1, has version number 4.70, and a Build number consistent with Beta 1 of IE 3.0 (we have IE 3.0 Beta 1 Build 1086 on the BA FTP, by the way, and 1056 would be an earlier Beta 1 Build). So this is ample evidence for this being IE 3.0. And Occam's Razor tells us the simpler explanation is more likely to be true. In this case the simpler explanation is that the Desktop integration was originally planned for IE 3.0, but only released with IE 4.0. The evidence we have at hand also weighs this way. On the other hand, we've yet to see evidence for there being two different IE 3.0's.

Except that we have no evidence whatsoever that this is the same Internet Explorer 3.0, even with the earlier build number. We have no way of verifying either "theory" to be true at all. There is nothing that could have possibly stopped Microsoft from developing Internet Explorer 3.0 first, then renaming Internet Explorer 3.0 to Internet Explorer 4.0 and just released another version as an interim release.

Since we can't prove either theory at all, then we have no way of knowing.

We have zero evidence of any IE 4.0 Build with that version number.

We also have zero evidence of this being the same Internet Explorer 3.0 that shipped with Windows 95 OSR 2, so if they ever did originally plan to release Internet Explorer 4.0 as Internet Explorer 3.0 first (before changing their plans later), then I wouldn't be at all surprised if they started out with version number 4.70 also.

We have Nashville 999 which has either IE 2, or an IE 3 so early that it looks like IE 2, and yet already has very primitive Desktop integration (single-click hover mode for Explorer, for one). Sorry, but I find it very unlikely Microsoft would have forked IE 4 from IE 3 that early.

But it is also perfectly possible for them to have originally started development for Internet Explorer 4.0 as Internet Explorer 3.0 even as early as Nashville Build 999, and then just had a change in plans later in development which led to Internet Explorer 3.0 being renamed to Internet Explorer 4.0 and another version simply being released as Internet Explorer 3.0 as an interim release.

If Microsoft started development of Internet Explorer 4.0 as Internet Explorer 3.0, then it is perfectly possible for them to have just as easily done it as early as Nashville Build 999. We have no way of knowing for sure either way, though, so I think that we should just wait until we can find some verifiable evidence.

[Battler]

- WinPC: Sorry but just because the evidence I provided does not match your interpretation of the facts, it doesn't mean it's not evidence. I also brought up Occam's Razor, why you keep ignoring. Sorry, the evidence we do have, while not 100% definitive, makes my interpretation more likely than yours, by the simple virtue that mine is simpler.

Edit: And I repeat again, we have other IE 3.0 Beta Builds, like 1086, on the BA FTP. They are in the same time frame. So for your interpretation to be true, they must have developed both IE 3.0's at the same time.
In addition, we don't see actual IE 4.0 Builds until early 1997, even in Memphis. If they were already developing IE 4.0 before, wouldn't we see such early IE 4.0 Builds in Memphis 13xx?

[WinPC]

- WinPC: Sorry but just because the evidence I provided does not match your interpretation of the facts, it doesn't mean it's not evidence. I also brought up Occam's Razor, why you keep ignoring. Sorry, the evidence we do have, while not 100% definitive, makes my interpretation more likely than yours, by the simple virtue that mine is simpler.

Edit: And I repeat again, we have other IE 3.0 Beta Builds, like 1086, on the BA FTP. They are in the same time frame. So for your interpretation to be true, they must have developed both IE 3.0's at the same time.
In addition, we don't see actual IE 4.0 Builds until early 1997, even in Memphis. If they were already developing IE 4.0 before, wouldn't we see such early IE 4.0 Builds in Memphis 13xx?

According to the Memphis Release Notes in Build 1351, Internet Explorer 4.0 was already being developed (along with the web-integrated shell), but the current builds were not yet stable enough to be released with the Memphis Developer Release, so Internet Explorer 3.02 was included in its place until Memphis Beta 1.

Also, I know that you mention other Internet Explorer 3.0 pre-release builds, but are you sure that they are from overlapping dates? If this particular build happens to be from January 1996, and the earliest Internet Explorer 3.0 build that we already have is from several months later (which I am not completely sure about, but I will check to verify), then it would be entirely possible for them to have originally developed Internet Explorer 4.0 as Internet Explorer 3.0 in January 1996, and then had their change of plans in around March or April. I am not even sure when Internet Explorer 3.0 Build 1086 is from, but I will check it soon enough just to make sure that it isn't from the same date or earlier as this Build 1056.

What I am saying is that we have no evidence at all. And in my opinion, the "most simple" explanation doesn't prove anything either. It could easily be as you say, or it could just as easily be otherwise.

[Battler]

- WinPC: We have evidence, I provided it. You insist on dismissing it simply because it does not fit your view, and that's wrong. What you are doing, is having a previously formed conclusion and trying to fit in the evidence with it. In scientific research, you must always be prepared to change your hypothesis if evidence makes it less likely.
Also here is more evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_3 . Let's see, Build 1056 is from April 17th, 1996. Build 1086 is from May 24th, 1996. These two observation come from the Builds themselves.
The Wikipedia article above dates Alpha 1 as far back as March 1996. Geez, we have a Build number earlier than 1086, a date earlier than 1086, and a date later than the Alpha's. Seems to fit quite nicely into IE 3.0 development, and clearly confirms my statement that if two IE 3.0's were being developed, they would have to be developed at the same time in order to fit in with the evidence we have, and it would make no sense to be developing two IE 3.0's with Builds in the same range at the same time.

[WinPC]

- WinPC: We have evidence, I provided it. You insist on dismissing it simply because it does not fit your view, and that's wrong. What you are doing, is having a previously formed conclusion and trying to fit in the evidence with it. In scientific research, you must always be prepared to change your hypothesis if evidence makes it less likely.
Also here is more evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_3 . Let's see, Build 1056 is from April 17th, 1996. Build 1086 is from May 24th, 1996. These two observation come from the Builds themselves.
The Wikipedia article above dates Alpha 1 as far back as March 1996. Geez, we have a Build number earlier than 1086, a date earlier than 1086, and a date later than the Alpha's. Seems to fit quite nicely into IE 3.0 development, and clearly confirms my statement that if two IE 3.0's were being developed, they would have to be developed at the same time in order to fit in with the evidence we have, and it would make no sense to be developing two IE 3.0's with Builds in the same range at the same time.

But it is also possible that they could have changed their plans in over a month's time. For comparison, Neptune Build 5111 is from December 1999, and yet the Neptune and Odyssey development teams were merged at the end of January in 2000. One month can make quite a significant difference in terms of product planning, so that is no evidence either.

Also, we should also consider the fact that Wikipedia could be somewhat inaccurate also. Articles frequently misinterpret facts even for products that are currently in development. I have a June 1997 issue of PC World, which provides some information on the development of Memphis (later Windows 98). In it, they clearly stated that Windows 95 OSR 2.x didn't have the "unified driver model" (Win32 Driver Model or WDM for short), and yet they contradicted themselves when they said that Windows 95 OSR 2.1 has USB support (but supposedly no WDM), since the USB supplement installs a version of WDM that contains the USB driver files (this is also why it can result in NTKERN errors on certain CPUs). And this article was even from a time when Windows 95 OSR 2 and Memphis were still new. Wikipedia likewise provides not much (if any) evidence to back up its own claims either, so we still have no way of knowing for sure.

And I am not saying that I am "dismissing evidence because it does not fit my personal view". I know perfectly well that I originally thought that this build was specifically a build of Internet Explorer 4.0, but then I also realized the possibility of product release plans changing; the problem here is that in a situation such as this, there is possible evidence for either side, which some people seem not to understand. I never claimed to have "100% evidence" for either side (the idea of Internet Explorer 4.0 originally being planned to be released as Internet Explorer 3.0). We can all have our opinions, but in situations such as this, we can only claim to have any type of evidence at all if we have official data regarding product planning, which we don't have.

I am not at all angry with you and I have no reason to. The main reason why I am bringing this up, though, is simply to try to figure out whether this is a build of Internet Explorer 3.0 or Internet Explorer 4.0, especially since we have such conflicting evidence in this case. And when it goes on the FTP server, we will need to know what product it belongs to so that mrpijey can properly label it.

NOTE: Edited for clarity of meaning, so as not to create confusion.

[Battler]

- WinPC: The problem is, you keep telling me the evidence I rely on is not evidence, yet you have so far provided no evidence that points the other way, except for the inclusion of the Explorer integration, which I explained the inclusion of in a way that fits the evidence we have, and that is simple, as it requires no product renames or twin products. That alone makes it more likely since it's much more consistent with the general way Microsoft develop things, while yours is not. Mine does not introduce a hypothetical new Internet Explorer version (the "original IE 3.0"), mine simply fits 1056 into the known IE 3.0 and 4.0 development process. If you want to claim there was a second IE 3.0, it's up to you to prove that was the cause, not to me to prove it was not.