Something unknow's

Discuss Windows 95, 98 and ME.
Post Reply
LangsamSpieler
User avatar
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:38 pm
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Contact:

Something unknow's

Post by LangsamSpieler »

Did someone ever see this Screenshot here:
https://sites.google.com/site/chicagowi ... chicago429
I think this exists in real or not?
416175:38 BetaArchive Registration
416176:06 First BetaArchive Post
4251811:32 Archive Access Granted

Valerio
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:04 pm

Re: Something unknow's

Post by Valerio »

I guess it's real, KenOath was a very reliable source, I'm pretty sure that he didn't gave us any fake screen.

LangsamSpieler
User avatar
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:38 pm
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Something unknow's

Post by LangsamSpieler »

What funny is: on Betawiki are a little Text there, in those Wiki not.
416175:38 BetaArchive Registration
416176:06 First BetaArchive Post
4251811:32 Archive Access Granted

ShadixAced
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:46 am

Re: Something unknow's

Post by ShadixAced »

Yep, KenOath was a person from BetaArchive also and did release some things, but yeah, he's a pretty reliable and legitimate source, no doubt about it.
S.A.

Releases done so far : 21
Member of Microsoft France's House of Fans (^^)

Courage
User avatar
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:59 pm

Re: Something unknow's

Post by Courage »

Well, there's just two problems with this, and I'll start off with the simpler one first.
1. The start button in the 429 screenshot does not match with any other build in the 420-440 range:

Image

I mean, just look at this screenshot, and then look at the 429 screenshot. This deformed logo is present in 420, 431, 435 and 440, and was replaced with the RTM logo in 445. I'd say that the fixed logo being in 429 is extremely unlikely at best.

2. What sort of early 4xx build has IE?

Nothing earlier than 456, that's what. Just for fun, I tried the earliest Plus! 95 build we have (ie. 4.40.50) on 431, and was quickly stopped by this error:

Image

So yup, it's practically impossible to get any version of IE working under builds earlier than 456, despite what the 429 screenshot shows.

LangsamSpieler
User avatar
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:38 pm
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Something unknow's

Post by LangsamSpieler »

What does that mean?
416175:38 BetaArchive Registration
416176:06 First BetaArchive Post
4251811:32 Archive Access Granted

Courage
User avatar
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:59 pm

Re: Something unknow's

Post by Courage »

LangsamSpieler wrote:What does that mean?
It means that the 429 screenshot is most likely fake, and that the real 429 (if we do get it someday) would look different from the 429 screenshot.

jimmsta
Donator
Posts: 823
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:43 am
Contact:

Re: Something unknow's

Post by jimmsta »

KenOath wasn't one to fabricate screenshots. It's more likely that he had some special build, potentially a frankenbuild.
16 years of BA experience; I refurbish old electronics, and archive diskettes with a KryoFlux. My posting history is 16 years of educated speculation and autism.

Overdoze
User avatar
Posts: 1762
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Something unknow's

Post by Overdoze »

jimmsta wrote:KenOath wasn't one to fabricate screenshots. It's more likely that he had some special build, potentially a frankenbuild.
That doesn't mean he's above reproach when it comes to screenshots attributed to him. It's also not the first time that something was odd anout his screenshots either.
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks

mrpijey
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 9188
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Something unknow's

Post by mrpijey »

Please keep this thread about the screenshot, and not about KenOath.
Image
Official guidelines: Contribution Guidelines
Channels: Discord :: Twitter :: YouTube

_Ken_

Re: Something unknow's

Post by _Ken_ »

Y'know, I'm really past dealing with the childish games people play in my name, the number one reason I left this pointless hobby...

I can tell you for certain that screen didn't come from me, & most probably many others no doubt..
I dug out the last list I had of all betas I'd ever collected { prior to selling it all off }, Win95_429 wasn't on that list..

For starters, there's one lone screen in that link regarding the build, really people, who, in their right mind would ever spend a copious amount of time installing any beta build, & take just one lone screenshot, certainly not me, I take screens of pretty much every feature in the builds, including the version number of the apps included, I take screenshots for reference regarding the history of changes..

Take a look at the screens I've uploaded here on this forum when I had an account to do such, whether leaked or otherwise, I always uploaded multiple screens, especially it it was unleaked, there may be a few exceptions where only half a dozen or so was uploaded, though only if it was a common well known uninteresting build..

There are plenty of other links on that Win05 screens sight, with screens that I did indeed email Gillian, all have multiple screens..
Again, I don't waste my time installing betas & share just one screen, nothing can be learned from one screen, since making the screens serves just one purpose in my mind, documenting history..

There was a time here when my email address was being used with just one change in the address, & a certain individual passing off as me was contacting & arguing with people that were known to be my friends, it wasn't until I saw one posting that I was supposedly bluing with him that made me ask what he was talking about..

I have no doubt that if Gillian thought that one screen came from me, it was the loser passing off as me, playing their usual games..

It would also seem the KenOath hate train still has momentum with regards to what I'm still seeing posted on pastebin & here..

& to the few here in this thread that actually stuck up for me, thanks lads, good to see there's still some that don't despise me for no good reason..

Edit: Another point to note, it would be 8+ years since I've last made any contact with the host of that Win95 screens sight, Gillian, my list of software, betas or otherwise, was made publicly available on another beta forum up til roughly 6 years ago, no doubt someone has a made a copy of the list to keep tabs of what was known to exist, check it..
As you all well know, I was never bothered by divulging anything I had whether leaked or otherwise.

mrpijey
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 9188
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Something unknow's

Post by mrpijey »

With that being said I am once again (and one time only) repeating my previous statement: Keep this topic about the screenshot and not about KenOath. Next time someone derails this topic with speculations regarding KenOath warnings and bans will be issued.

I allowed Ken's comment to pass to settle this once and for all and get back on topic.
Image
Official guidelines: Contribution Guidelines
Channels: Discord :: Twitter :: YouTube

Overdoze
User avatar
Posts: 1762
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Something unknow's

Post by Overdoze »

Fact remains that said screenshot is suspicious for reasons Courage posted. It's also true that anyone could install a build and enter "KenOath" as the name during setup, then pass that off as Ken's screenshots. So the best way to tell who's actually the author of said screenshot would be to find out where it originally came from. Unfortunately, that's usually pretty difficult if not entirely impossible. The site from the OP is the only one where I could find this screenshot, so perhaps the author of the site could tell us.
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks

_Ken_

Re: Something unknow's

Post by _Ken_ »

I got to thinking that like many other fake screens, that perhaps it's just another screen used from another build posted somewhere, & the details edited to show what it currently says, I did a reverse image search, & searched TheCollectionBook, the wiki here & the photo gallery, then noticed that early NT4 builds look similar, though found nothing close.
I also got to wondering where that inbox icon comes from as I didn't find a single build with that icon, so I started downloading early beta IE & mailnews builds from various sources, & never found anything with that icon in it..

I also noticed when looking through the wiki here for screens that may be close, that an entry has been made using this screen, & a statement added that I supposedly have it..! Really..?
Leaves me wondering why..
.
Edited spelling.
Last edited by _Ken_ on Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LangsamSpieler
User avatar
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:38 pm
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Something unknow's

Post by LangsamSpieler »

Let me say this: i think this is a fake screenshot, because the Internet icon came in Windows 95B at first to the Desktop, that mean 4.00.1111
416175:38 BetaArchive Registration
416176:06 First BetaArchive Post
4251811:32 Archive Access Granted

Battler
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am
Location: Slovenia, Central Europe.
Contact:

Re: Something unknow's

Post by Battler »

_Ken_ wrote:I also got to wondering where that inbox icon comes from as I didn't find a single build with that icon, so I started downloading early beta IE & mailnews builds from various sources, & never found anything with that icon in it..
It's present in a lot of Chicago builds, from what I remember, from around 2xx to some point in the 4xx range when it was replaced with the RTM icon which has the globe.
Main developer of the 86Box emulator.
Join the 86Box Discord server, a nice community for true enthusiasts and 86Box supports!

The anime channel is on the Ring of Lightning Discord server.

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

Courage
User avatar
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:59 pm

Re: Something unknow's

Post by Courage »

_Ken_ wrote:I got to thinking that like many other fake screens, that perhaps it just another screen used from another build posted somewhere, & the details edited to show what it currently says, I did a reverse image search, & searched TheCollectionBook, the wiki here & the photo gallery, then noticed that early NT4 builds look similar, though found nothing close.
I also got to wondering where that inbox icon comes from as I didn't find a single build with that icon, so I started downloading early beta IE & mailnews builds from various sources, & never found anything with that icon in it..

I also noticed when looking through the wiki here for screens that may be close, that an entry has been made using this screen, & a statement added that I supposedly have it..! Really..?
Leaves me wondering why..
As OBattler said, that icon was used in many pre-release builds of Windows 95 (180 to 435), for Info Center/Microsoft Exchange.
What's interesting, however, is that the shortcut icon is dropped from the inbox (seen in the fake screen) in 431. This shortcut icon is present in builds from 267 up to 347, so the icon should've been taken from one of those builds.

I haven't checked 420, however, so if that build contains the inbox with the shortcut icon, there is indeed a possibility that the real 429 could've contained it.

UPDATE: Yes, it does:

Image

_Ken_

Re: Something unknow's

Post by _Ken_ »

LangsamSpieler wrote:Let me say this: i think this is a fake screenshot, because the Internet icon came in Windows 95B at first to the Desktop, that mean 4.00.1111
It stands to reason that this screen is fake based on what I've already posted here,
With regards to:
A: I've never been in possession of this build of Windows 95.
B: If my names put on a screen of a build I've never owned, then it's safe to assume the screen posted here is indeed a fake..
Nothing else to it..

Edited spelling.
Last edited by _Ken_ on Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mrpijey
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 9188
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Something unknow's

Post by mrpijey »

B: Because someone puts your name on it doesn't automatically mean the screenshot is fake, but that someone tries to impersonate you or assign you false credit. The screenshot itself may be very real.

Either way, the Wiki will be cleaned of any references to you as it's not really proper to refer to you in this manner. Doesn't matter if you have/had this build or not. The Wiki is supposed to be neutral and give only information relevant to the build, not the possible current or former holder of such build.
Image
Official guidelines: Contribution Guidelines
Channels: Discord :: Twitter :: YouTube

LangsamSpieler
User avatar
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:38 pm
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Something unknow's

Post by LangsamSpieler »

I don’t have a ISO or a Virtual machine of build 429.
416175:38 BetaArchive Registration
416176:06 First BetaArchive Post
4251811:32 Archive Access Granted

_Ken_

Re: Something unknow's

Post by _Ken_ »

mrpijey wrote:B: Because someone puts your name on it doesn't automatically mean the screenshot is fake, but that someone tries to impersonate you or assign you false credit. The screenshot itself may be very real.
If my name was to be put on a "possible" real unleaked build, it would be giving me credit for sharing / owning screens of unleaked material, which makes no sense to me as I'm sure many others..
I can't ever recall seeing screens of unleaked material having any name on it other than the owner of said screens, or even no attributable name for that matter, ever, though I'd like to be proven wrong..
To say that I'm being impersonated by putting my name on an unleaked build makes no sense from where I'm sitting, but then maybe I'm too black & white in my reasoning.

Courage
User avatar
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:59 pm

Re: Something unknow's

Post by Courage »

mrpijey wrote:B: Because someone puts your name on it doesn't automatically mean the screenshot is fake, but that someone tries to impersonate you or assign you false credit. The screenshot itself may be very real.

Either way, the Wiki will be cleaned of any references to you as it's not really proper to refer to you in this manner. Doesn't matter if you have/had this build or not. The Wiki is supposed to be neutral and give only information relevant to the build, not the possible current or former holder of such build.
The other contradictions (Ken not having 429, this screenshot of an early 4xx having IE, and with a mismatched start button) still hold. Also, if someone were indeed to impersonate Ken, why would they put his name on a real screen of a real build?
Considering most of the reasons people would impersonate someone else that's still alive, it would be more in their interests to put his name on a fake screen, obviously.

Overdoze
User avatar
Posts: 1762
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Something unknow's

Post by Overdoze »

Well technically, if you wanted to frame someone for "hoarding", you could do that I guess. But generally yes, impersonation on fake screens makes more sense.
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks

mrpijey
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 9188
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Something unknow's

Post by mrpijey »

Yes, you could also discredit him by adding his name to fake screenshots. After all this is a discussion about a possibly fake screenshot. Either way it's wrong and won't be tolerated.

Either way I think this thread has run its course because the thread has derailed way too much.
Image
Official guidelines: Contribution Guidelines
Channels: Discord :: Twitter :: YouTube

Post Reply