[OFFER] Windows 3.1 build 68

[Overdoze]

This is the real 68, dated 3rd February 1992. Comes on seven 5.25"-1.2MB disks. SETUP.INI on disk 3, which holds user info, has been touched (user and company name were set to "." on first use), as well as SETUP.INF, where a string was changed by the warez group. Has the RTM boot screen.


(If you delete SETUP.INI you'll get Unknown user and organization)

[Battler]

Finally, the real and complete Windows 3.10.068 is (re)leaked! Thank you, Overdoze!

[TheCollector1988]

Nice! Now the fake one has to disappear as it may confuse potential new users about this one.

[Meow_2004]

Cool!! Did we have an offer on this a few months ago?

[BF10]

Cool!! Did we have an offer on this a few months ago?

It was formerly leaked to as a frankenbuild using files from other Windows versions, as an earlier copy had a broken Disk 3 since it was modified: https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36110

Also I found out that this is the first build to have the Windows 3.1 Task Manager Warning Screens/Windows 95 BSoD originated (as a black screen), as it appears if you press Ctrl+Alt+Del. Editing the system.ini to change the text/background also doesn't work.

[Battler]

- BF10: No, we only had a handful of real files from this builds, the other files were one or two fake files, and files from 061d and the RTM. Now we finally have the full real build.

[Overdoze]

Just a heads up: the file dates of this build may not be original. Several sources (here and here) indicate build 68 was compiled and shipped in January 1992, not February. So it seems likely the warez group which released this build modified the file dates for whatever reason. Afterall, they modified SETUP.INF too.

[mrpijey]

Well, warez groups were not very particular with keeping their stuff original as long as they were first, with or without preserving any originality.... but as long as we know that the files are original it should be fine.

[Overdoze]

Of course, the build is definitely legit, though a more original copy wouldn't hurt of course.

[Courage]

Just a heads up: the file dates of this build may not be original. Several sources (here and here) indicate build 68 was compiled and shipped in January 1992, not February. So it seems likely the warez group which released this build modified the file dates for whatever reason. Afterall, they modified SETUP.INF too.

Related to the second source, here's 68's AARD code in action:

[Battler]

I just found this coming with a shareware program on a shareware CD I just downloaded from archive.org: http://citadel.ringoflightning.net/COMM ... 01_RC1.rar - COMMDLG.DLL dated February 3rd, 1992, build 3.10.101 (RC 1). So the real build compiled on February 3rd, 1992 was RC 1 (that, according to the Anti-Trust document linked to above, was then shipped on February 14th, 1992).
And this is HIMEM.SYS version 3.04, dated February 2nd, 1992: http://citadel.ringoflightning.net/HIMEM304.ZIP , I suspect this also came with Windows 3.1 RC 1.
So my hypothesis right now is, that people were talking about RC 1, possibly mistaking it for the RTM, with file dates mentioned, and one Warez group decided to change the file dates/times of their copy of 3.10.068 to RC 1's date, and labeled it as "Release", obviously attempting to pass it as the RC 1 mistaken for RTM.
As for the actual date of 3.10.068 - Andrew Schulmann gives January 21st, 1992, and the Anti-Trust document says it was shipped on January 24th, 1992. I know that this build's SHELL.DLL was distributed with some Shareware program (this is why I'm now downloading shareware CD's from archive.org), so if I find it, we'll hopefully know the exact date when 3.10.068 was compiled.
Interestingly enough, Schulmman gives December 20th, 1991 as the date for the Final Beta Release (that the Anti-Trust document says was then shipped on January 3rd, 1992), but the copy we have, has files dated December 17th, 1991, or December 18th, 1991 if we consider the Lucida font files on the supplemental disk.

[DiskingRound]

I just found this coming with a shareware program on a shareware CD I just downloaded from archive.org: http://citadel.ringoflightning.net/COMM ... 01_RC1.rar - COMMDLG.DLL dated February 3rd, 1992, build 3.10.101 (RC 1). So the real build compiled on February 3rd, 1992 was RC 1 (that, according to the Anti-Trust document linked to above, was then shipped on February 14th, 1992).

That build is actually also available on WfW 3.1 IIRC. Im not sure.

[TheOtherGuy]

- BF10: No, we only had a handful of real files from this builds, the other files were one or two fake files, and files from 061d and the RTM.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't what you just posted, by definition - the example of a frankenbuild.

[SoftPCMuseum]

- BF10: No, we only had a handful of real files from this builds, the other files were one or two fake files, and files from 061d and the RTM.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't what you just posted, by definition - the example of a frankenbuild.

If you read this first post here, you would see that the version being offered here is a complete version and is otherwise original with the only exception being that someone previously modified the SETUP.INI and SETUP.INF files.

[TheOtherGuy]

If you read this first post here, you would see that the version being offered here is a complete version and is otherwise original with the only exception being that someone previously modified the SETUP.INI and SETUP.INF files.

No I'm fine thanks, I fully understand the meaning of the thread here, I think it's you who's misunderstood my post.

BF10 posted this below.

Cool!! Did we have an offer on this a few months ago?

It was formerly leaked to as a frankenbuild using files from other Windows versions, as an earlier copy had a broken Disk 3 since it was modified: https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36110

The post I made above was refering to the fact that Battlers explanation of how the previous leak of this wasn't a frankenbuild, was itself the definition of a frankenbuild.

Re:

- BF10: No, we only had a handful of real files from this builds, the other files were one or two fake files, and files from 061d and the RTM.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't what you just posted, by definition - the example of a frankenbuild.

[Battler]

- TheOtherGuy: I was not correcting the statement that it was a frankenbuild, I was correcting the statement that "an earlier copy had a broken Disk 3 since it was modified", as that was not the case at all, and we in fact did not have a single complete disk of this build prior to this releak (we had a total of about 20-30 files, that's it).
The build that had a broken disk is 3.10.034e which had the broken Disk 2, for which multiple replacements were made through the years, the last being my own, and we still haven't found the actual Disk 2.

[TheOtherGuy]

- TheOtherGuy: I was not correcting the statement that it was a frankenbuild, I was correcting the statement that "an earlier copy had a broken Disk 3 since it was modified", as that was not the case at all, and we in fact did not have a single complete disk of this build prior to this releak (we had a total of about 20-30 files, that's it).
The build that had a broken disk is 3.10.034e which had the broken Disk 2, for which multiple replacements were made through the years, the last being my own, and we still haven't found the actual Disk 2.

Well I could see from the link BF10 posted in his response, that disk 3 was corrupt, and that the available copy online was a frankenbuild, I didn't see a problem with what he posted.
Your rebuttal however didn't fit the narrative that disk 3 was corrupt, especially since you never made clear what it was you were debating, one can therefore only see one other option for your response, frankenbuild.

[Battler]

The link was to WinWorld's copy of the same frankenbuild. As the one who made the frankenbuild in the first place (from files of 3.10.061d, real 3.10.068 (what few ones I had), a few 3.10.068 files that later turned out to be fake, and the RTM), I can assure you the original frankenbuild had a working (but still non-original, as all disks were) Disk 3. How the WinWorld copy ended up with a broken Disk 3, is anyone's guess.

[TheOtherGuy]

The link was to WinWorld's copy of the same frankenbuild.

The link in BF10's post is to a topic here titled " Windows 3.1 Build 68 Disk 3 corrupt?", talking about the corrupt copy on Winworld, not to Winworld.

It was formerly leaked to as a frankenbuild using files from other Windows versions, as an earlier copy had a broken Disk 3 since it was modified: https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36110

Check yourself, I read every post in the thread here before replying to your post,

[mrpijey]

Enough! Who cares who said what, stop this nonsense. This topic is about Win 3.1 b68, not who said what about an old copy we care little about today. Take this discussion off the forum please.

Can we just all agree on this:

Old copy: BAD. New copy: GOOD!

mmkay?