Windows 1.03 Beta?

[German]

I found very interest screenshot. What you think about this?

Offtopic Comment

My 400 post

[Overdoze]

Looks interesting. Where'd you find it?

[German]

Looks interesting. Where'd you find it?

My friend sent this screenshot

[The Distractor]

Looks fake...

(19:22:23) (~OBattler) look at the artifacts on the bottom
(19:22:31) (~OBattler) those happen when someone alters the size of the logo file
(19:22:36) (~OBattler) without correctly updating the code inside

[xelloss]

Looks fake...

(19:22:23) (~OBattler) look at the artifacts on the bottom
(19:22:31) (~OBattler) those happen when someone alters the size of the logo file
(19:22:36) (~OBattler) without correctly updating the code inside

That's entirely possible, but the most common occurrence of those weird characters is when starting Windows 1.x on a recent DOS system.

[Battler]

- xelloss: No, all that would cause is the rendering to be wrong. It wouldn't cause characters from beyond the logo to be rendered. Notice how the version string is 1 character longer than in regular 1.03.

[betaluva]

so are we calling Fake or Real?

[Battler]

I think this is fake, for reasons explained above.

[ibmpc5150]

The best way is to upload it as disk image or file.
No meaning with Screenshot only.

[xelloss]

- xelloss: No, all that would cause is the rendering to be wrong. It wouldn't cause characters from beyond the logo to be rendered. Notice how the version string is 1 character longer than in regular 1.03.

I can't compare the two situations but believe you

[DiskingRound]

- xelloss: No, all that would cause is the rendering to be wrong. It wouldn't cause characters from beyond the logo to be rendered.

That does not mean it's fake. They also appear in Windows 1.03 RTM when the DOS version is incorrect:

[nerd70]

- xelloss: No, all that would cause is the rendering to be wrong. It wouldn't cause characters from beyond the logo to be rendered.

That does not mean it's fake. They also appear in Windows 1.03 RTM when the DOS version is incorrect:

And it says "incorrect DOS version" in the picture before the strange characters.

[tarlabnor]

That does not mean it's fake.

Moreover, Microsoft Windows 1.03 (1.03.04) for DEC Rainbow can be found on BA ftp. Probably beta of this version existed as well (and maybe not DEC Rainbow only).

[Battler]

Actually, I have to apologize. I was indeed wrong. The artifacts on the bottom are due to the Windows being run on the incorrect DOS version. A tampered with logo would actually render incorrectly starting from top, offset by some pixels. So this doesn't seem to have been tampered with.

I also wonder, what does the logo of that DEC Rainbow Windows actually say? Someone could have simply attempted to run that on a regular PC, and ended up with that logo.

[crazyc]

The DEC Rainbow graphics adapter is entirely incompatible with CGA so I doubt it would display anything.