Site's genuine images versus warez repacks

dude

I've been a bit dismayed that most of the Windows 95 content isn't dumped from the original media. The RTM, 95A, and 95B (American English, at least) ISOs are all repacks done by XiSO -- and it's not even difficult to tell. All the dates on the discs are set to 2003!

I've been attempting to hunt for real Windows 95 discs to replace these (actually, the largest result is in something predating the RTM release), but haven't had much luck. I think I must have thrown out most or all of my Win95 discs years ago. Anyone else happen to still have stashes to dump ISOs from?

SomeGuy

Yes, genuine ISO dumps would be better.

I guess nobody has really picked through these before. If you are inspecting these, please do point out which specific downloads are not genuine and what is wrong with them, so we can at least have a note about them.

If you find some genuine CDs to replace any poor dumps, please do send them in.

Thanks.

Icon

If you're really concerned with genuine media, why not just look on Ebay? There's tons of original Windows 95 discs to be had for a reasonable price.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R4 ... D&_sacat=0

dude

eBay's a nice option. can't do it atm for myself, but will keep it in mind

With the aide of a contributor that hasn't yet registered an account, Windows 95 OSR1 has been uploaded from a genuine CD. :-)

wpblogheader

https://winworldpc.com/download/47525AD ... 54D21A8599

Repack discovered.

SomeGuy

Ok, marked that as needing a redump.

wpblogheader

https://winworldpc.com/download/412AC58 ... 54D21A8599

Another one.

SomeGuy

Thanks. Marked that as needing a redump.

SomeGuy

Actually, this one appears to be a correct dump of Windows 95 OSR2.1 (OSR 2 with USB update): https://winworldpc.com/download/411CCB1 ... 54D21A8599

Although some of the fields had not been filled in.

wpblogheader

https://winworldpc.com/download/47A3BB2 ... 54D21A8599

Yet another warez repack. 2003 file dates as usual. Although some of the files are dated 1997. Go figure.

SomeGuy

Yeish, that one was modified out the yingyang. I've replaced that with clean dumps of 97 Pro and 97 Pro SR-1.

dude

I'd like to submit that Windows Me MSDN is suspect, based on the fact that an msbatch.inf file is included that preloads the product key. It seems like an unusual thing for Microsoft to do, but not entirely implausible: before activation, MSDN shared keys for all subscribers.

The timestamps in the image are all consistent with the regular ones, although these could easily be generated by cdimage. It was created with cdimage 2.39 (version from 1997), also consistent with the normal images. The file name casing consistent with the regular copies, and none of the *.cab files have any suspect dates in the archived files.

In short: there's a good chance of it being legitimate, but unless someone has an MSDN disc to verify, I'll hold from being absolutely certain :-)