(Request) Adding "Windows 98 (SE) with Plus! 98" to the library
Can you please add these three ISOs to the library?
Windows 98 with Plus! 98 (X03-69965)
Windows 98 SE with Plus! 98 (X03-78265)
Windows 98 SE with Plus! 98 (X05-29162)
Windows 98 with Plus! 98 (X03-69965)
Windows 98 SE with Plus! 98 (X03-78265)
Windows 98 SE with Plus! 98 (X05-29162)
Comments
First link is just one persons "compilation", with no hash checks or info.
Ditto for the 3rd link. Just someones random pile of files with no info.
No images of the silvers, no hash checks, nothing to confirm they are properly imaged.
I know this: it has taken me a long time to acquire and a lot of leg work to obtain and validate 98 SE releases. There is just a lot of crap "out there".
Edit: The file referenced in 2nd link - can be gotten here:
https://forum.winworldpc.com/discussion/14682/offer-windows-98-fe-and-se-with-plus-98-oem-iso
Edit 2: Just downloaded and ran a hash check.
SHA1: 2B68161B1FB2D905A6C05C82087FA1C20B47A8FD
And it's confirmed here:
https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/request-info-windows-98-editions-for-collectors.53435/page-6
The second link is also official but the link is broken. The fixed link is here.
The third link is unknown and isn't confirmed, could just be an edited ISO of the original 98 SE iso.
Please only add link #1 and link #2, i was just referencing link #3 just in case.
For some years now, that mrpjey at betaarchive has required that ISOs be made using Alcohol 120 or one other tool (I forget) and that the MDF format with all those attendant small files be included. So, if those ISOs currently reside on betarchive, they predate by a decade his declared change. It borders on ridiculous for Microsoft non-game products (there isn't any hidden sub-channel infor or cryptic messages), but he made the change because so many bastardized "ISOs" were present on their ftp.
In other words, referencing betaarchive does not mean too much.
That said, the link I posted above is valid, and confirmed at mydigitallife, it includes an image of the CD face, and solves your first request.
Additional: The designations you gave above - which is what? Yes, I know now what one is, but what about the other two? Are they oem, retail, MSDN...?
Hell, there are tens of thousands of links, and somebody (I'm looking at you) needs to do the legwork of downloading, running hash checks, confirming scans of the product, etc, so its worth the time of WinWorld admin to get it added to the collection.
It sounds harsh, but its like the grandies coming home with something they got from a guy, who got it from another kid, who snuck into his brothers room and filched it. There are plenty of sticky fingerprints on most stuff.
PS: I'm fairly certain if something was of value at betaarchive, one of us would hike on over and download it.
Some people do wanna see the original source before downloading.
"I know now what one is, but what about the other two? Are they OEM, Retail, MSDN...?"
X03-69965 is definitely an OEM ISO as there is one image of it online.
X05-29162 is very likely a fake ISO compiled from some random dude claiming it to be official as there are no confirmations or images of this number.
"And somebody (I'm looking at you) needs to do the legwork of downloading, running hash checks, confirming scans of the product, etc, so it's worth the time of WinWorld admin to get it added to the collection."
I already checked the hash of the one from BetaArchive, and it matches one-to-one with the hash on MyDigitalLife, I already said it on the 3rd post.
"PS: I'm fairly certain if something was of value at betaarchive, one of us would hike on over and download it."
Many people don't have access to BetaArchive due to having to have an FTP upload badge to download anything.