OFFER Windows 95 build 311 ISO

02k-guy

https://archive.org/details/windows-95-build-311-iso

Compiled on 1995-01-13
Timebomb 1995-11-30 (+321 days)
Name: CD1.iso
Size: 32618496 bytes (31 MiB)
SHA1: 7d9ae1f89ff8d0b7275873d3044bbc497c68a586

Pulled from a warez CD dated 07/20/1995 - this upload is as found, and has nothing to do
with other scene releases or formats or uploads.

Image was made with PowerISO, it is NOT bootable, and contains FILE_ID.DIZ and RELEASE.NFO.

From Betawiki:
Windows 95 build 311 is a pre-beta 3 build of Windows 95 that was scene leaked soon after it was compiled, however, the ZIPs from the leak requires a password. It was found again and shared on OSBetaArchive on 13 December 2015, alongside builds 180 and 302.[1]

02k-guy

A word about this particular upload:
Warez stuff gets passed around like a blunt at a freshman frat party.
Who knows, and has the balls to claim that whatever they make share now - some 20 years later - is "more gooder"?

While uploading, I noted another ISO on archive.org, same build, dated 2015 as Betawiki referred to, and it was created with "IMGBURN V2.5.8.0" - and contains a subdirectory with the files - genuine? Hardly - but if the files work - that's what matters.

https://archive.org/details/windows-95-build-311

What I am saying is that the upload I made - appears to have actually been generated in 1995, and except for the PowerISO branding and NFO file, seems closer to it's origins.

Now, if somebody shows up with a screen-printed silver, that would be the bee's knees.

DeFacto

Neither image mentioned is a dump from the original disc, files were originally ripped from that disc by the warez group and then a new image was created with non-MS tools. Later still another image was created for purely practical purposes.

So personally I don't see much relevance in "being closer to its origins" if the only difference is in the ISO metadata while the actual build itself is identical in both cases. If you knew what the original disc's metadata was, you could just as easily fake it with yet another image made in 2024 and you wouldn't even know the difference from an actual original dump.

02k-guy

"Neither image mentioned is a dump from the original disc"

Yessir. After rushing to upload, I did some more digging around, and found the original upload YOU had made, and realized the entire CD I'd found it on was likely a complete fraud.

And if archive.org would let me, I'd delete it and explain with apologies.

DeFacto

In addition, if you look at actual original dumps of discs for builds around 310, e.g. 189, 224, 314, 324, etc. that you can find on BetaArchive, you'll see the installation files are contained inside a RETAIL (or some other name) subdirectory (as in the image from 2015) and not directly in the CD root (as in the image you found). It's very likely that the disc for build 311 was made the same way as that was standard practice of MS at the time for Windows 95 discs. So in that sense, the 2015 image is probably closer to the original disc.

tl;dr a non-original dump ISO being created earlier doesn't necesarily mean it's actually "better" than one created later.

02k-guy

I have no interest in it. It was on a CD archive org had listed while doing a search for another software, and I wanted to get it "out there" before I deleted the whole mess.

"In addition, if you look at actual original dumps of discs for builds around 310, e.g. 189, 224, 314, 324, etc. that you can find on BetaArchive..."

I do not have access to BA's archives, likely never will, or earning brownie points, or becoming an expert on Win95.

"It's very likely that the disc for build 311 was made the same way as that was standard practice of MS at the time for Windows 95 discs. So in that sense, the 2015 image is probably closer to the original disc."

YES. I AM familiar with how Microsoft creates it's ISOs - both premastering and production. That's why I was so easily fooled by my (all too quick) inspection of the ISO. Not an excuse, just the fact of the matter.

kay serah. HAND.