Supposed Interface Manager build

Discuss MS-DOS, Windows 1, 2 and 3.
Post Reply
Astro6284
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:57 pm

Supposed Interface Manager build

Post by Astro6284 »

A channel (Spyonclear), known for his WNR content (I won't talk about WNR on this post) had made an video (Windows History with Never Released Versions, Release 3), with the first version appearing on it being a 'Interface Manager 0.2 alpha' build, most likely from mid-1983! The image seems to not have an interface manager, but a DOS-like UI. I do have the image of the supposed build, although I am not sure if this was already shown in previous posts. I think that this isn't a fake build, and rather a real build.

I need to get 3 approved posts to upload an image, so i will try upload it soon (Maybe you can go to the video and see the image inside of it).

MyFaceNeverWhen
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2022 12:22 am
Location: Canada

Re: Supposed Interface Manager build

Post by MyFaceNeverWhen »

*sigh*

Don't even bother with WNR...
Nerdiest nerd of the FTP Access-only town in Nerdana.

Emulators and Hypervisors I use
86Box for early versions of Windows, Intel Apple Rhapsody, OS/2 pre-3.0, DOS, etc.
VMware Workstation for later versions of Windows (sometimes early versions), Intel macOS, OS/2 post-3.0, etc.
Mini vMac for System Software pre-7.x
Basilisk II for Mac OS 7.x-8.1
SheepShaver for Mac OS 7.x-9
QEMU for later PPC Mac OS, Windows RT, etc.

anonymous74
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:47 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Supposed Interface Manager build

Post by anonymous74 »

Yeah WRN is all fake. If you want reliable info about known builds and screenshots, Betawiki.net or our very own wiki are the best places to go. YouTube is full of fakes.
I collect old laptops and mess with old software.

My chosen virtual machine programs:
Win 9x+, Intel macOS: VMware
9x as well (and earlier): 86box
PPC Mac OS: QEMU

Current Projects: Installing every beta build of Windows Me in VMware and recovering from data loss. (viewtopic.php?p=468094#p468094)
Past Projects: Installing every beta build of Windows XP, Longhorn, Vista, and Windows 7 in VMware (https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/index. ... nonymous74)

Astro6284
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Supposed Interface Manager build

Post by Astro6284 »

Sorry. That was a random video I came across to that had an mixture of that and that, so I couldn't really know what that would be.

AleQC
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2023 1:10 am

Re: Supposed Interface Manager build

Post by AleQC »

Most WNR related stuff is fanmade content. FYI, there is even a WNR wiki, however its important to keep in mind that they are not actual releases.

"Legit" never launched releases of Windows include Cairo, Nashville, Neptune, Oddisey, Blackcomb, Vienna, Windows 10 Mobile RS4, Santorini. Some of them were just planed stages for the Operating System roadmap, with no active development behind them.

DiskingRound
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:26 pm
Location: Inside the space between . and I

Re: Supposed Interface Manager build

Post by DiskingRound »

Here's the screenshot for anyone's interest.
Image
Some file dates are interesting as well as the boot message. There are however many suspicions:
-Why is "Interface Manager" a registered trademark with only a few months of development and not the name of the final product?
-Why is there no MSIM.exe in the directory list? There's no cd command, so it's the same folder.
-Half of the file dates are from 2020, not 1983.
-Why is there a WRITE.EXE? There is nothing even close to that in the Windows 1.0 beta builds we know of.
-DOS 2.0 was released at least a month after the supposed compiling of this build in February 1983.
-The 1983 Windows pre-alpha had a version number of 0.01. How can this be 0.2, being made 7 months earlier?

src
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:05 pm

Re: Supposed Interface Manager build

Post by src »

DiskingRound wrote:
Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:33 am
-Why is "Interface Manager" a registered trademark with only a few months of development and not the name of the final product?
Also, the Interface Manager "registered trademark" never existed in the US Patent and Trademark Office database until 1986 by some company in Atlanta, Georgia.

Lucas Brooks
FTP Access
Posts: 772
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:37 am
Contact:

Re: Supposed Interface Manager build

Post by Lucas Brooks »

.EXEs should never be 256 bytes in length. Reversi, Paint and Write didn't exist back them. In 1983 Microsoft used .SYS for drivers and .MOD (or nothing, all statically linked into MSWIN.EXE) for executables, not .DRV and .EXE.

vbdasc
FTP Access
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:14 pm

Re: Supposed Interface Manager build

Post by vbdasc »

Lucas Brooks wrote:
Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:55 am
.EXEs should never be 256 bytes in length.
Why, if I may ask?

Lucas Brooks
FTP Access
Posts: 772
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:37 am
Contact:

Re: Supposed Interface Manager build

Post by Lucas Brooks »

DOS linkers do not produce 256-byte .EXE files. Generally the header alone takes up a page (512 bytes).

Post Reply