(REQUEST) Windows NT 3.1 Workstation Floppy Sets

[Win95Fan]

Windows NT 3.1 Workstation in 3.5'' Disks is already available on the FTP, but it was badly dumped.
Therefore, we need a redump of it!

[Battler]

- Win95Fan: On what basis have you determined that it's a bad dump?

[longhornwhistler]

If it's because they refuse to install in VMware then it is not a result of a bad dump as much as it is running it on a non-supported CPU. Only other problem I can think of is a corrupted download which in that case try downloading them again.

You have to replace a couple of files in the setup... if you need assistance I have a YouTube vid on it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHfGOaIqRlc

[Win95Fan]

- Win95Fan: On what basis have you determined that it's a bad dump?

They were dumped without write-protection.

[Battler]

So they have IHC headers? It shouldn't be difficult to reconstruct the correct OEM ID's then.

[Win95Fan]

So they have IHC headers? It shouldn't be difficult to reconstruct the correct OEM ID's then.

No, they have no IHC headers.
Their structures may be bad.

[Battler]

- Win95Fan: So you are not even sure the floppies are bad in any way?

[Win95Fan]

Battler: I'm not even sure about that.

[Overdoze]

Then don't go around making topics where you claim it's badly dumped...

[Windows OS]

Then don't go around making topics where you claim it's badly dumped...

Yeah. I could see him being curious and asking about the headers, but he just jumps to the bold conclusion that they must be bad without discussing that the weird headers might mean that the disks could be bad. Weird oddities are found like that all the time, especially with older software and dumps.

[mrpijey]

Enough with the bickering, discuss the topic, not the OP!

[Overdoze]

I see someone had a bad day.

It's a bit hard hard not to discuss the OP when he provided no evidence as to why this might be a bad dump, then even admitted he isn't even sure. That's deliberate spreading of misinformation in my book - something I thought this site doesn't have a place for. Of course if he actually provided any evidence or what he thinks would be a proper dump then it'd be fine.

But hey, gotta use bold text and yell at people who point this out.

[mrpijey]

The bold text is used to bring everyones attention to it, and it's not new here. Yelling is by tradition marked with capitalization, not bold text. Or is every bold text in this forum treated as yelling?

Either way, the topic isn't about the OP. If he claims something that isn't true ask him to prove it, otherwise leave it. Discussing the OP in third person is not something we do here. You either talk TO the OP, or you skip ahead to the next thread. You don't talk ABOUT the OP, or any other member. If you have a problem with a member you contact a mod or admin privately.

You've all made your arguments why it necessarily isn't a bad dump, leave it at that.

[Win95Fan]

I mean, some of the floppies have creation dates of 2015 in their file system.

[Battler]

This means the release we have has most likely been CPU-patched for installation under virtualization. If there's anyone out there with an untouched set of floppy images, please make it available.

[Win95Fan]

This means the release we have has most likely been CPU-patched for installation under virtualization. If there's anyone out there with an untouched set of floppy images, please make it available.

I can't agree with you anymore!

[merlix]

Could someone check the md5 sums of the images?

efc6e013678bd94954922f3e92ebabdf *disk1.img
529cad05ab025a4b7e2669aaf7826519 *disk2.img
5ef29e03f4aaf09193716309ed8458a7 *disk3.img
54191678d589d50e0c747f20c56e81d1 *disk4.img
42b3c210797111ae2468a6d4bf2187b1 *disk5.img
2cd1cf9bb5e627588633d7903e2f9c32 *disk6.img
dfda0514eb494149e70b198daa817670 *disk7.img
516395c8c4168ece963066de1de10855 *disk8.img
0861e723c5c42b8a497f58866d63a714 *disk9.img
a2a42bd6a19a28230e6880b20b190990 *disk10.img
76252f4b4d47c8c97f0f79cd17370210 *disk11.img
50a2ad5f3202af9a4e68a110f6ab1069 *disk12.img
1c4ed5a6d23a0d2480640a7ea3ea4917 *disk13.img
89b8f8efa42b9c3d396e78e66d8dc828 *disk14.img
91bb3308338d19a90fc678849050d4e2 *disk15.img
b05d21b3dbc34418d5f7ddac955bb28a *disk16.img
21ce042b86a70d266b73b871ffb0cca7 *disk17.img
f3e32cec862b423345f93dd8408f0598 *disk18.img
8cfd848f658cd94ea6de4972161662e0 *disk19.img
9c8f5e05aa78909087a7ca911230fba1 *disk20.img
52b2ff0b9aed8be45c4cef258a0ba17f *disk21.img
ca08f4dd8257bb93f4216c3b85256665 *disk22.img
5672418e6164d0f7f2f62ee449a3acd7 *disk23.img

These are from a set I created in 2012 using winimage.

[Win95Fan]

merlix: Aren't you missing the Boot Disk for CD-ROM Installation?

[Battler]

Why would that come with the floppy version of NT 3.1?

[Win95Fan]

Why would that come with the floppy version of NT 3.1?

Because Windows NT 3.1 was distributed on both floppies and CD-ROM in the box.

[Win95Fan]

Overdoze uploaded the Windows NT 3.1 Build 511 floppy set, but I found it badly dumped.
Therefore, we need a redump!

[AlphaBeta]

Overdoze uploaded the Windows NT 3.1 Build 511 floppy set, but I found it badly dumped.
Therefore, we need a redump!

Why do you think it is badly dumped?

[Overdoze]

Actually, it's not a dump at all. I had to re-create the images from a folder-dump I got. So I can't provide a re-dump, I could only do a better approximation of the real thing if I knew what the proper volume labels and bootsectors are. But for the time being, this is apparently the only copy we have, which is why I thought it's worth preserving. It's perfectly usable and all files are completely untouched.

But I agree, if someone comes along with this particular release on real floppies and dumps them correctly, then by all means it should replace my copy. Also, posting in this topic every month saying we need a redump is not likely to increase our chances of actually getting one.

[os2fan2]

There is a fix you need to apply to the setup to get it to install on a 586 or faster machine. This version of windows does not really install on a 586, so you have to fiddle it somewhat.

Look at this page: http://bearwindows.boot-land.net/winnt31.htm

[Battler]

- os2fan2: NT 3.1 works fine on a Pentium, without patches, tested in 86Box. The patch is needed to install it on much more modern hardware, since NT 3.1 probably does not recognize it correctly.