Windows 95 Chicago

System

Read the full story here

WindowsUserWoo

56 , 73 ,and 78 are all fake

SomeGuy

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

1040ST

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

SomeGuy

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.

LangsamSpieler

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

SomeGuy

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.

JonathonWyble

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

LangsamSpieler

@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.
;

BF10

@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.