POSSIBLE LEAK: Windows Neptune 5056

[LongerHorn]

Hi!

I recently came across a build of Windows Neptune 5056. I recently received this build from an anonymous source who told me he would like me to leak this for him. He said starting off a site is hard, and a leak would get you going. I'm not blind to the possibility this build could be fake, so I've decided to take my findings here. We've personally verified that this build can be installed, but we need your help to determine whether this build is real, or just a fake. We've found some minor differences but nothing substantial We've repackaged this leak and are now releasing it to the BetaArchive community! Let me know what you think about this build. A download link for our leak will soon be found at windows95.rocks.

Temporary Google Drive Link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_sIr ... WVBUTREeE0

LongerHorn
=======
Admin @ Windows 95.rocks forums.

[longhornwhistler]

Mainly what we have found is differences between the 5111 install and this one, and that the watermark is on 5056 while it is not on 5111. I'll get screenshots up later.

[Windows OS]

Could it be... AN ACTUAL NEPTUNE LEAK?! HOLY S-
~slap~
Sorry. It still could be a fake. Cheching it out now...

[xZEROx]

I was under the impression that Neptune had only one build ever compiled from source?

[James]

I was under the impression that Neptune had only one build ever compiled from source?

Fake or not, I believe there were a couple builds of Neptune compiled and made, but 5111 was the only one to be released, and even then, the OS was then after canned forever in favor of Whistler/XP.

This build is unverified, ergo, I shall leave this thread open until it is determined legitimate or fake. I'll also have my eye on this thread for any rule breaking. Thank you.

[Windows OS]

Currently at the beginning of the GUI stage of the setup. Seems legit so far... I think it'll be very hard to fake the reported build number on the command prompt:

[Overdoze]

I was under the impression that Neptune had only one build ever compiled from source?

We know at least 2 builds were made. Aside from 5111.1, there's also a 5111.6 which was also probably distributed to someone.

[johnleakedfan]

I Cant Believe this!!

This is more than just another leak, this is a Miracle. Great Job LongerHorn!!

Offtopic Comment

If it is Legit

The File Dates are 5/25/1999, Not anywhere close to 5111
I assume this is Legit

Currently at the beginning of the GUI stage of the setup. Seems legit so far... I think it'll be very hard to fake the reported build number on the command prompt:

What might the Bootscreen Be, same as 5111?

[DBlake]

I've dug a bit into the ISO, and the random files I checked were all 5.50.5056, so unless this is a VERY elaborate fake, it's real.

[Damian9303]

It appears you got this from the Windows 95 ROCKS! forums. Real or no real, this is a IMPRESSIVE leak as before, Neptune Build 5111 was the only Neptune Build ever leaked. Great job finding this, my friend!

[Windows OS]

What might the Bootscreen Be, same as 5111?

Yep. And, before you ask, 5111's product key works here.
EDIT: While running the installer, I got a "Generic trust failure":

Installer still continues, though.
EDIT2: Got it installed, but VMware tools do not want to cooperate with this. Here's a MEGA link in case you cannot download it from Google Drive:
https://mega.nz/#!8IJxUSib!d8_pEiv6zpkC ... RlWCzMCWEc

[dans34]

build string on the desktop seams alittle odd "Evaluation copy.Build 5056"

[johnleakedfan]

On the Desktop, it has the things Neptune Has (IE Hibernating by Default, etc.). I Would call this "Unofficially Legit"

Here is a Video of the Installation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_vy7RA ... e=youtu.be


EDIT: Virtual PC 2007 Additions Work on this Build

[Lukas Marsik]

build string on the desktop seams alittle odd "Evaluation copy.Build 5056"

5111 is the same

[dans34]

notice how the desktop has a link to the bug reporting page yet the files are not actually installed

[LongerHorn]

I'm glad you guys are enjoying the leak. The anonymous uploader has been verified. He is a close friend to me and heard I was starting up a site. He's mailed the disk to me, so assuming I get the physical copy within a few days I should be able to upload disc scans to prove the legitimacy of this build. I've had this build for a week now and only leaked it to a few close friends. I figured I might as well share it to the community, it's also some good publicity for my forum The Generic Trust failure seems to be because Java is not compiled in this build.

[Battler]

The build is fake. NT5INF.CAT has an internal date stamp of 10 ‎December ‎1999 20:40:03. This is definitely NOT right for a build claiming to be from May 1999.

[Damian9303]

I've never installed this yet to tell you the truth so I am going to and I will tell you everything that happens along the way.

[LongerHorn]

The build is fake. NT5INF.CAT has an internal date stamp of 10 ‎December ‎1999 20:40:03. This is definitely NOT right for a build claiming to be from May 1999.

Very interesting find, Battler. Might you include some screenshots?

[The Distractor]

The build is fake. NT5INF.CAT has an internal date stamp of 10 ‎December ‎1999 20:40:03. This is definitely NOT right for a build claiming to be from May 1999.

Very interesting find, Battler. Might you include some screenshots?

Just open up the i386\NT5INF.CAT and see for yourself....

[Windows OS]

Very interesting find, Battler. Might you include some screenshots?

He's talking about the date of the signature for the certificate:

[Lukas Marsik]

Maybe the original leaker had the CD damaged and couldn't recover this file and opted for the 5111 variant?

[LongerHorn]

Very interesting find, Battler. Might you include some screenshots?

He's talking about the date of the signature for the certificate:

I see. I hope to be getting the disc in a few days to give more conclusive proof the build is real.

---EDIT---

Maybe the original leaker had the CD damaged and couldn't recover this file and opted for the 5111 variant?

It's possible. I haven't talked to him since earlier today. He only provided me with the ISO, so I wouldn't know. I'll drop him a message and get back to you.

[Battler]

- LongerHorn: How do you explain the December 1999 certificate with a file date of May 1999?

[DiskingRound]

Likely the download will fail under my intermittent connection, but I'll try... I wonder if this is real. If it is, then this is truly #LeakYear!