Golfortune

Post subject: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:36 am

Does anyone know if any of these known images match up with an MSDN copy, or an official MS build of any capacity?
Was OSR 2.5 ever on MSDN?
(I know that Windows 95 was allegedly on MSDN for download until 2003, but I don't know details of what version was hosted there. Can anyone manage to find an archived download page on Archive.org, or have some other way to verify? I can't seem to).
I keep looking and can't find a definitive answer.
I've performed some detailed comparisons of the contents and images of the following ISO's:

• Disc #1 (found on BetaArchive FTP)
  File: win95c_osr25.iso
  Size: 596,140,032 bytes
  MD5: 63D344A46010E85871C79DCA32F17FCB
  SHA1: E050106B59520BABB64295041E44287B0E29A17F
  CRC32: DD09CE03
  Notes:
  - Likely IS an 95C/OSR 2.5 disc, although ISO contains files modified 8/24/1996, but they are bytewise identical with almost all files on discs #2/#3/#4 (which are dated 11/26/97), with the following differences.
  - These are the only differences that exist between this ISO and Discs #2/#3/#4:
  Additions: contains 'AUTORUN.INF' file in the root of the disc and an 'AUTORUN' folder (which contains 'AUTORUN.EXE' and 'WIN95CD.ICO').
  Deletions: does not contain 'ohare.inf' in the 'WIN32' folder.
  Alterations: modified files: 'GOODTIME.AVI', 'WELCOME1.AVI', 'WELCOME2.AVI', 'WELCOME3.AVI'. All four are smaller in size (same content, reduced bitrate).
  - This image IS NOT bootable.
  
• Disc #2
  File: Windows95CISO.iso
  Size: 617938944 bytes
  MD5: 429F1F3DB1EE6C385CD2EECBA1138F7A
  SHA1: D0108F98F4D08EE7335606CE229A2FEBE6737004
  CRC32: 55538854
  Notes:
  - Likely IS an 95C/OSR 2.5 disc, as ISO contains files modified 11/26/1997.
  - Identical contents as Disc #3 and #4 (no differences whatsoever inside ISO image), but the ISO image itself is different.
  - This image IS NOT bootable.
  - This image is byte-for-byte identical with Disc #3, except has padding ('00') at the end of the image.
  
• Disc #3 (This appears to be the 'best available copy', IMO. Also, a better name might be 'en_win95_osr2.5.iso' to match the MSDN naming convention.)
  File: Win95_OSR25.iso
  Size: 617308160 bytes
  MD5: 912DB741210BC04CB8591EDEEC3FA0A0
  SHA1: 97F66E77445CD4B1AC55508C36D0FDBC17F17F25
  CRC32: 115C1EC4
  Notes:
  - Likely IS an 95C/OSR 2.5 disc, as ISO contains files modified 11/26/1997.
  - Identical contents as Disc #2 and #4 (no differences whatsoever inside ISO image), but the ISO image itself is different.
  - This image IS NOT bootable.
  - This image is byte-for-byte identical with Disc #2, except has NO padding ('00') at the end of the image.
  
• Disc #4
  File: Win95_OSR25.iso
  Size: 596627456 bytes
  MD5: C7B9A6DD79C262E2C287E26110EA6153
  SHA1: 02FB6BB9A6163868A2FA4069FD05BACF1F196ED2
  CRC32: B7F18C7C
  Notes:
  - Likely IS an 95C/OSR 2.5 disc, as ISO contains files modified 11/26/1997.
  - Identical contents as Disc #2 and #3 (no differences whatsoever inside ISO image), but the ISO image itself is different.
  - This image IS bootable.
  - This image is significantly different bytewise as compared with Disc #2 and Disc #3, the ISO was likely created by a different program (or modifications to insert the boot sector may have altered the structure somehow).

A note about the Windows 95C install process:
- If your setup complains about missing disks, it is likely that your CDROM driver was not loaded when the computer rebooted after the first setup process. If after formatting the C: drive you copy your CDROM drivers (MSCDEX) to C:, and add the appropriate line in AUTOEXEC.BAT for your cdrom to load, then reboot.. then the setup should go without a hitch.
- If or when the Internet Explorer Active Setup hangs (RealPlayer hanging at 78%), you can kill the process 'slfxtr' to make the setup complete successfully. With that, everything else will install except RealPlayer.

Post subject: Re: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:15 am

Probably just used different programs that offer different compression ratios. If they're all the same inside the ISO then it just depends on what program was used to create the disk and also if it's an OEM disk where the company might have modified some files to be compatible with their system or changed, say the videos, to show only the stuff their computer have.

Post subject: Re: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:36 am

I have a feeling that #2 and #3 were the same image, but that #2 got those end bytes ('00' padding) appended somehow later, perhaps by some odd downloader or downloading service, which changed the file.
I also share the same view that different programs likely created the images, so I looked closer and found the following.
Disc #1: CDIMAGE 2.47 (10/12/2000), UltraISO 8.6.5.2140
Disc #2: CDIMAGE 2.38 (08/27/1997)
Disc #3: CDIMAGE 2.38 (08/27/1997)
Disc #4: CDIMAGE 2.38 (08/27/1997) ???
So Discs 2 or 3 could potentially have been created by Microsoft (shows a CDIMAGE that is old enough).. and I find it unlikely Disc #1 ever was . I think Disc 4 was a modified version of 2/3 to insert a bootsector, but Disc 4 bytewise looks substantially different (though content of ISO is exactly identical).

Post subject: Re: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:15 am

Disc #1: CDIMAGE 2.47 (10/12/2000), UltraISO 8.6.5.2140
edited by somebody

Post subject: Re: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:31 pm

Very interesting topic. I have always wondered why there are so many 'different' versions/copies of 95C, and it's nice to see the comparison.
As for the files in the CABs being dated 8-24-96, I have come to the conclusion that there was never a '95C' set of CABs. There is only the '95B' set of CABs, and any changes for 95C were simply added to the WIN95 folder and no new set of CABs was built for 95C.
Any updated file added to the WIN95 folder will be used rather than extracting the older version from the CABs. For example, 95C contains a modified WELCOME.EXE in the WIN95 folder that is used to launch the installation of IE4, and then deletes itself. This overrides the old WELCOME.EXE in the CABs which actually WAS a 'Welcome to Windows' introduction utility.
A closer inspection will show modified files in the WIN95 folder that are overriding older versions in the CABs, I have a list of these differences (12 files I believe) but not on this machine.

This can be fixed by downloading IE 4.01 SP2 and placing all of its files in the WIN95 folder, overwriting the older IE4 version included on the CD.

Post subject: Re: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 11:37 pm

As for what LoneCrusader said, I was very sure that I had a copy of Windows 95 OSR 2.5 once that was like that, and this was back many years ago. However, the CD-R on which I burned the copy is, I'm afraid, no longer in good enough condition to be at all usable, and as for the copy available here, well..
The problem here is that our copy for some reason does not install Internet Explorer 4.0 automatically as it should. Windows 95 OSR 2.5 added on another stage of Setup where the final portion of the operating system was installed, including Internet Explorer 4.0 as well as the updated user interface (also seen in Windows 98; presumably, this version of Windows 95 OSR 2.x was released as an interim to Windows 98). And thus, normally, after the installation of the first portion of the operating system, Setup will continue from there and finish installing the rest of the operating system components - in this case, the ones that were significantly updated since Windows 95 OSR 2 was first released.
The culprit here is likely the WELCOME.EXE that LoneCrusader mentioned. It's also the case that, as he also pointed out, any file placed within the WIN95, WIN98, or WIN9X folders that has the same name as another file contained within a .CAB will be copied instead, and the copy of the same filename contained within the .CAB archive will simply be skipped entirely.
So likely, whoever uploaded our copy of Windows 95 OSR 2.5 either deleted it accidentally, or it had already been deleted by the time that the received a copy of it. Either that, or our particular copy had it deliberately removed at the request of an OEM. But either way, it's definitely not the original.

Post subject: Re: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:14 am

Nice comparisons. I also have all these 4 images and I think that disk 1 is most likely a fake, just because if you will unpack at least USBSUPP.EXE, you will see that files inside it dated 10 April 1997, so this disc could not be created in 1996 year. And AVI files just probably taken from Retail or OSR 1 discs. So I guess it just amateur attempt to create compact and slightly improved (with autorun from Retail or OSR 1.0/2.0 added) release of Windows 95C, and to not mislead people completely, files was dated by OSR 2.0 release dates.
As for other 3 images, I think that most correct from them is 3rd image, 2nd have extra zero bytes in the end of file (and btw 2 different bytes at 3/4 of file) and 4th have self-made boot part (some files of it dated 1998 and 1999 years). Disk 1 btw is bootable too (boot part also not original). And Disk 2 that I have, named 'Win95_OSR25.ISO'. It also from BetaArchive (has corresponding comment and locked from changes).
Although, about these extra zero bytes it's known, that some CD writers adds it for compatibility purposes, so it's not an error, but in my opinion, correctly grabbed image (from original CD, w/o intermediate re-burnings) should not have them.

Too few changes was made since 2.0 released, and most of them collected in USB Supplement Updates (files USBSUPP.EXE in 2.1 and USPUPD2.EXE in 2.5), even those not related to USB, like support of Pentium II processors (I found also description of OSR 2.0 if anyone interested, but I couldn't find it for OSR 2.1, if anyone knows where take it, let me know).

It's strange, but when I tried to install 95C in Virtual PC, it was installed w/o IE and additional components, like Real Player, although version in System Properties was 4.00.950 C. Btw, not many knows, but if to install and then remove USB Supplement Update, version will permanently changed to 4.00.950 b and reinstallation of this update will not restore it back.

I can learn you how to make it usable. But you will need a lot of patience.

I dont know what copy of 2.5 you had, but I tried to install from 3rd disc, mentioned in this topic, and no additional components was installed, although file WELCOME.EXE is present in image. Will try more with the rest images, but afraid that the reason not in them..

Post subject: Re: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:54 pm

Windows 95 OSR 2.0 simply refers to the original release of that version of Windows 95, Windows 95 OSR 2, whereas Windows 95 OSR 2.1 and OSR 2.5 were updates to that version of Windows 95.
Also, LoneCrusader explained the reason why our copy doesn't install Internet Explorer 4.0 automatically as it should, and the reason is this: Apparently, the IE4SETUP.EXE was integrated into the Setup process by being renamed to WELCOME.EXE, being slightly redesigned to appear as a part of 'Windows 95 Setup', and with WELCOME.EXE being placed in with the rest of the Setup files, so that that is copied, rather than the 'Welcome to Windows 95' program.
What it basically does is to install Windows 95 OSR 2.5 with Internet Explorer 3.0 first, and then update it to Internet Explorer 4.0. But the problem here is that in our copy, apparently, the normal version of IE4SETUP.EXE is present, but not the replacement WELCOME.EXE, meaning that it doesn't install automatically as it should.
However, as I said, I did indeed have the original copy once from WinWorld many years ago, but I'm not sure if I still have a working copy of it anymore (that was back when I was still using CD-Rs to hold much of my storage, and sadly, many of them seem to have failed).

Post subject: Re: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:49 pm

I've checked this file in all images. It's same everywhere and have nothing common with IE4SETUP.EXE, except for the same version number (4.72.2106.1). In file properties it have description 'Language Check Helper Progman' and original file name LANGCHK.EXE. So I think that problem not in this specific file, but in inappropriate setup conditions, since it's known that installers of this system had been capricious enough, and on two seemingly identical computers installation could proceed quite differently. With the images itself, I'm sure, there are no problems.

You can try this method (point 1.5) for restoring scratched CDs. All I can add to that is written there, that it's actually works and I personally had restored many CDs by this method. The only thing is that I used to restore the paste named 'GOI', which probably impossible to get anywhere except Russia or Ukraine, but toothpaste can be suitable too. And the important thing, that for polishing I used not a cloth but usual newspaper (with cheap rough thin paper), which we probably all use to polish the mirrors for example (I guess that not only russians do so).
If you give me scans of working surface of your scratched CD, I can give you personal instructions how to restore it with forecasts for its recovery.

Post subject: Re: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:52 am

No, I didn't mean that WELCOME.EXE was a modified version of IE4SETUP.
WELCOME.EXE is a file that exists in the CABs and when 95 is installed it runs on the first boot to desktop. Under 95RTM/95A/95B it is actually a 'Welcome to Windows' registration/tutorial/etc program.
This old version of WELCOME.EXE still exists in the CABs of 95C, because 95C uses the 95B CABs. The difference with 95C is that a handful of updated files (~12?) dropped into the WIN95 folder override the 95B ones in the CABs.
One of these is the different WELCOME.EXE. (Also among these files is an updated VMM32.VXD which adds the Pentium CPU support previously mentioned.)
Now, by 95 design, WELCOME.EXE is supposed to run at the first boot to desktop. In order to force the IE4 install, Microsoft simply replaced this WELCOME.EXE with a 'dummy' WELCOME.EXE that is used to call IE4SETUP (through a Registry entry set during install by OHARE.INF) and then deletes itself on the next boot through WININIT.INI/WININIT.EXE.

Post subject: Re: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:12 am

Are you sure that exactly this file adds Pentium II support, but not the one that comes with USBUPD2.EXE (VMM.VXD)? If you have Intel CPU can you check what is written in the System Properties window immediately after installation, Pentium II or Pentium Pro? And with USBUPD2.EXE installed?

Hmm, then it's look like I really used first fake image for installation, cause it just does not include this file (OHARE.INF)..

Post subject: Re: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:45 am

As I noted in the other thread, the update only corrects errors USING the CPU's. It does not change how they are identified.
VMM/VMM32 This is complicated. I will try to explain it..
The USB Updates are not related to the CPU issue. The CPU issue can exist, and can be fixed, on 95 systems WITH or WITHOUT the USB updates. USBUPD2 does include the proper file to fix the CPU issue as well, but this is a 'coincidence' rather than 'by design.'
VMM.VXD does not exist by itself on a Windows 9x system unless it has been added by an update or HotFix. VMM.VXD is integrated inside VMM32.VXD otherwise.
The USB and non-USB versions of 95 OSR 2.x use different versions of VMM.VXD.
VMM.VXD 4.00.111x = 95 OSR 2.x WITHOUT USB INSTALLED
VMM.VXD 4.03.121x = 95 OSR 2.x WITH USB INSTALLED
Depending on which you are using, a different updated VMM.VXD is needed to apply the CPU update.
WITHOUT USB, VMM.VXD 4.00.1113 is needed.
WITH USB, VMM.VXD 4.03.1216 is needed.
These files are included in this HotFix.
Now, as for VMM32.VXD and 95C -
The VMM32.VXD included in 95C ALREADY includes the VMM.VXD 4.00.1113 from the HotFix above inside.
USBSUPP and USBUPD2 would BOTH need to be installed on 95C or you could actually end up replacing the CPU-fixed 4.00.1113 code with an OLDER USB-Supporting version of VMM.VXD (any 4.03.121x version before 1216) without the CPU fix.

Post subject: Re: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:33 am

Checked one more time. In fact I used normal image, not fake, because exclusive 2.5 files, copied from WIN95 folder, like awfxcg32.dll or isignup.exe have in my installation proper change dates (26 November 1997) and if would I installed from fake disk, then they would have wrong OSR 2.0 release dates (24 August 1996). So the problem is in something else..

Well, now I understood. In other words Pentium II update is present in USB update only because they both uses one shared file (VMM.VXD). Thanks for comprehensive reply.

Post subject: Re: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:23 pm

It's also worth noting that the Windows core system file mentioned above was once known as WIN386.EXE in Windows/386 2.0, Windows/386 2.1, and all versions of Windows 3.x, before first being renamed to DOS386.EXE during the test period of Windows 3.2, codenamed 'Cougar' (simply a test of the updated kernel) and later 'Chicago' after the Cougar development was merged, before finally being renamed to VMM32.VXD by Windows Chicago Beta 1 (Build 122).
This was even explained quite well in Andrew Schulmann's book, Unauthorized Windows 95 (which also confirmed a great deal of other facts about the development of Windows 3.x and Windows 95 also), not to mention that the VMM32.VXD file is still an executable file, so if renamed to VMM32.EXE, it can easily be directly executed from the command prompt just as WIN386.EXE and DOS386.EXE could also be executed directly in that way.

Post subject: Re: Differences between Windows 95C (OSR 2.5) images. Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:06 am

I did some experiment on VMware Workstation 10 with DISK #3 and a virtual machine with network adapter, and network id dialog pops up after first reboot, then some files need to be copied from 'DISK 01 OF WIN95'(just looks like a floppy edition) , but it seems like CDROM driver is not loaded and allocated a drive letter for. After installation, IE4 installation pops up.
Is it possible that disk #3 is made from some floppy edition of win95C?