Windows Nashville Build 999

System

Windows Nashville Build 999

WinWorld is an online museum dedicated to providing free and open access to one of the largest archives of abandonware software and information on the web.

Read the full story here

JonathonWyble

There was also a build 1056, which was leaked by someone on BetaArchive back in 2014, but it's probably not 100% real. Build 999 is pretty much the only "real" build for Windows Nashville.

BF10

Build 1056 is just a Plus! pack based around Nashville's features.

ChanceManRox

yes, how exactly do i install? rebooting just left the vm on a black screen with a blinking gray line.

vlad557776

Please correct installation instructions. I can't get upgrade from Windows 95 OSR2, I'm upgrading it from Windows 3.1.

jonirob

Nashville installs easily as an upgrade from Windows 95 OSR2 in PCem, but it will not upgrade if Windows 95 is installed on a FAT32 partition.

SomeGuy

Thanks for clarifying this. Nashville does not support FAT32. Updated the entry.

val123039

Can you please make the instructions more clear? I have no idea how to run the setup on Windows 3.1. I want to use Windows 3.1 Because I experience problems on Windows 95.

jonirob

@val123039 said:
Can you please make the instructions more clear? I have no idea how to run the setup on Windows 3.1. I want to use Windows 3.1 Because I experience problems on Windows 95.

You'll need cd-rom support in Windows 3.1 (use ms-dos 6.22 with cd-rom support), then run setup from your D drive.

val123039

@jonirob said:

@val123039 said:
Can you please make the instructions more clear? I have no idea how to run the setup on Windows 3.1. I want to use Windows 3.1 Because I experience problems on Windows 95.

You'll need cd-rom support in Windows 3.1 (use ms-dos 6.22 with cd-rom support), then run setup from your D drive.

Thanks, it worked finally! I really appreciate the help.

jonirob

@val123039 You're welcome.

Netcliff

Everytime I boot up Windows "96" after installing it I get a protection error. Is there a way to fix this error?

jafir

I've never tried running it, I'm not really that interested in old versions of windows that didn't get released, unless they add something special, like Windows 2000 RC1 for DEC Alpha.

That being said, if the code is very similar to windows 95 code, which I bet that it is, it could have issues with processors that are too fast. Later version of windows 95 had a patch for this. I have no idea if it's that's the same issue, but it's worth a look.

win32

If it's in a VM (and either of the following conditions apply to the host), 350+ MHz AMD machine or 1.7+ GHz Intel machine, then it's probably the same race condition as Windows 95. Try the win95 CPU patch as it's supposed to work with all versions of the OS.

Netcliff

@win32 said:
If it's in a VM (and either of the following conditions apply to the host), 350+ MHz AMD machine or 1.7+ GHz Intel machine, then it's probably the same race condition as Windows 95. Try the win95 CPU patch as it's supposed to work with all versions of the OS.

I tried it, but the problem persists.

DeFacto

Then you want to run this in an emulator.

Netcliff

@DeFacto said:
Then you want to run this in an emulator.

I'm doing exactly that on VirtualBox.

win32

@Netcliff said:
I'm doing exactly that on VirtualBox.

VirtualBox is a hypervisor, not emulator. You should use something that emulates classic hardware like PCem or 86box.

Netcliff

@win32 said:

@Netcliff said:
I'm doing exactly that on VirtualBox.

VirtualBox is a hypervisor, not emulator. You should use something that emulates classic hardware like PCem or 86box.

Where can I get x86box then?

win32

Typing "86box" into a search engine is the preferred method but here it is anyway:

https://86box.github.io/

Note: OS requirement is wrong. It runs on Windows XP.

Netcliff

@win32 said:
Typing "86box" into a search engine is the preferred method but here it is anyway:

https://86box.github.io/

Note: OS requirement is wrong. It runs on Windows XP.

O.K. Thanks!

DeFacto

@win32 said:
Note: OS requirement is wrong. It runs on Windows XP.

Official builds haven't supported XP for a while now, so no, it's not wrong. Build 1844 from September 20th 2019 is the first that no longer works on XP, because it uses a Windows 7 API call for grouping taskbar buttons. Later builds also call GetTickCount64, which is a Vista+ API call.

WindowsEmbedded

ls this an upgraded version?

jonirob

@WindowsEmbedded
Yes, upgrade from Windows 3.1 or Windows 95.

helloisthispizzahut

Is there a product key for this? and if so, what is it?

jonirob

@helloisthispizzahut
Nashville doesn't require a product key.

MrCreeper

I Can Confirm Windows Nashville didn't need a product key, Windows Nashville Was released early in development, By the way Development is the reason because it doesn't need a product Key/Serial. You can run this for free in PCem/86box

thrsded2333

its either Windows 96 (like said) opr This Could Be The Missing OSR 3.

alexvlad3118

Nashville doesn't support FAT32 as of fdisk.exe

128188

@thrsded2333 I believe it was Windows 96, in fact, I think 98 used to be 96 in development. This build has so many features seen in windows 98 like the animated start menu.

SimpleDiskette

This is certainly not an OSR 3 since only OSR 2 started supporting FAT32 and this version doesn't support FAT32, this is more likely to be a experimental or development build, it could be a OSR 3 Beta tho as well. By the way OSR 2 was released at the same time, OSR 2.1 in August 1997 and OSR 2.5 in Novemeber 1997 so it could be OSR 2 Beta/Pre-Release.
Apparently this was also it's very own release, it was never going to be marketed as an OSR (3?) release for windows 95.