Windows 95 Chicago

Comments

  • 56 , 73 ,and 78 are all fake

  • Why do you believe they are "fake"? Do you have any supporting information?
    As they say on Wikipedia "[Citation Needed]"

  • Sheeeeeedd! Where Chicago was to buy? Was it even available for normal users?

  • Although Chicago was never on store shelves, Microsoft made Chicago available through a number of channels to IT professionals. During late 1994/early 1995 Microsoft had gotten entire companies to run Chicago/95 betas on all of their machines. Microsoft was REALLY pushing this product.

  • It’s true, that 56, 73 regular and 78 are fake: 56 is modified 58s, 73 a modified 73g and 78 too, with the real 78. See here: https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_95
  • That still doesn't have the level of information I really need, but I'll take a look at those builds when I get a chance.

  • Isn't there a build 33 and 34, or are those builds fake?

  • @JonathonWyble said:
    Isn't there a build 33 and 34, or are those builds fake?

    33 is just a faked Screenshot. 34 is mentioned in OLDSETUP.INF from 58s, as this line: ; Remove these as of build 34. Were reverting back to Win 3.1 Comm support.
    ;

  • edited April 8

    @SomeGuy said:
    Although Chicago was never on store shelves, Microsoft made Chicago available through a number of channels to IT professionals. During late 1994/early 1995 Microsoft had gotten entire companies to run Chicago/95 betas on all of their machines. Microsoft was REALLY pushing this product.

    Microsoft has a different way of actually getting beta testers to use those builds then today. Nowadays all you need to do is just enter a ring on your computer and let Windows Update do the trick, so even a regular user can beta-test. Boy, it was better when they would ship you a DVD and ask you to install it on real hardware.

Sign In or Register to comment.