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
@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.
;
@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.
Chicago build 40 is among the earliest known builds of Windows 95. KenOath leaked several screenshots, but they remain unconfirmed.
Chicago build 40
There was also a fake build 40 floating around some time ago. It was made with files from various builds, supposedly even from the real build 40, but this was never proven to be true.
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.
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?
33 is just a faked Screenshot. 34 is mentioned in
OLDSETUP.INFfrom 58s, as this line: ; Remove these as of build 34. Were reverting back to Win 3.1 Comm support.;
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.
Chicago build 40 is among the earliest known builds of Windows 95. KenOath leaked several screenshots, but they remain unconfirmed.
Chicago build 40
There was also a fake build 40 floating around some time ago. It was made with files from various builds, supposedly even from the real build 40, but this was never proven to be true.
I cant install most versions because I dont have a Beta ID.
I did post the keys in the forum for Builds.
Here is some footage of Windows 95 usability testing:
It's somewhat interesting but it turns out that it was only dug up to be used as pro-Metro propaganda.
You can make your own username and password. I do that
Microsoft Windows 95 (''Chicago'' 4.00.166) is actually build 4.00.116.
Just tested in PCem.
Beta ID: 101907
Password: 999b4cb09
You should check the MD5 hashes too and compare with the hashes listed on TheCollectionBook.
What version of DOS do I need to install it?
Just use a Windows 95 boot disk.
122 has a general error 57 saying the media may be damaged Edit: same issue with 166.
That's a red herring, you entered the wrong beta site ID and password.
@Jayhawk
Build 166 is actually build 116, Beta ID: 101907 Password: 999b4cb09
build 122, Beta ID: 101907 Password: 999b70c9e.