Видео

drive.google.com/file/d/1eKZj2JP8_OVJ_Lvfop6PYBM7Uac6zveQ/view

drive.google.com/file/d/10pyFbBuSbfDO79aBVMANoqCM0JaB4jxl/view

lol 6 october. i had planned to change it but forget it

ok

At what part of the step? Use this guide betawiki.net/wiki/Document:Installing_7xxx-series_ARMv7_Windows_8_builds_in_QEMU

Ah man, it wasn't working for me then. If I spent more time I would have got it, but I rushed the video. Also there is a rewritten DWM which is quite interesting, I advice you to check it on betawiki

@@techactivate781 I already made a tutorial

Yeah, it would have been a disaster

@@techactivate781 A very bad one

Ye, it is a timestamp.

@@techactivate781but it’s intresting nevertheless

Thanks for the comment! Also, I believe that the speed is due to it being Windows 95, and I tried it on VMware. If you try it on an emulator (not a hypervisor), it will be the same speed as a computer of back in the day. The '_' (compressed) files were in some installers I did, and they had the same speed (Side note - Try installing Windows 2000/Neptune on VMware. The speed is so fast that the installer often crashes) However, often the speed goes unnoticed when installing via Floppy as most of the time is taken to change the floppy image inserted.

@@techactivate781 I shared my theory about the speed because a few days ago I installed several versions of Windows 3.X and was struck by the installation speed of this build compared to the others I installed recently (I did all the installations in DOSBox because it seems easier to use since I don't need to create virtual drives and I can copy files directly). Regarding VMWare, I haven't used it much. To emulate virtual machines, I use Virtual PC 2004/2007 if possible, and if I can't, I use VirtualBox, but it almost always fails to the point where I can't start virtual machines. If possible, I try to use real hardware. The issue of speed when using floppy disks is true with physical hardware as well, XD. It also takes longer using CDs directly for installation. If possible, when I have to install any version of Windows from MS-DOS, I try to copy the contents of the CD to a folder on the HDD first. It's faster, avoids some errors, and I don't need to look for the CD when installing drivers or new Windows components. I saw on your channel that you upload videos about Windows and its beta versions. I had the installer for MS-DOS 6.0 in Spanish on 5.25" floppy disks, but unfortunately, Disk No. 1 was damaged due to a floppy drive, and I can't find a copy of that specific version, I only have the other disks and an installation of that version on a stored HDD. I'm not sure if it's possible to recreate Disk 1 with what I have. I want to upload it and preserve it on the Internet. If you have any ideas, please let me know!

You should try VMware, workstation is free now. Also yes, I try physical hardware but I only have an extra PC which can do Vista+ (LH doesn't work :( ). About that MS-DOS build, try to see files normally on disk 1, maybe compress them. For ones that are not there, try to get them from the closest available build.

Actually, 6.22 is there, so if you meant by 6.22 its on IA.

@@techactivate781 Ok, I didn't know that VMWare Workstation is now free, I'll try it later. Regarding my version of MS-DOS, I really mean version 6.0, so I'll try what you suggested to see if I can fix it that way. Thank you very much!

Well, I didn't take a screenshot lol

First, I extracted the files from 7zip Then, I put them all in a folder, and used PowerISO to make an ISO. After that, I booted from MS-DOS, went to R:\, launched setup

@@techactivate781 oh there's nothing need to change file

Windows 95 is Chicago. (The codename for Windows 95 is Chicago, so you can use either.)

@@techactivate781 real

This is true, but marked as Windows 3.11 for Workgroups.

Yeah, the wrote 'winball' for some reason (wfw 3.11)

What?

@@techactivate781 Oh, sorry, the disk 22 patch. You see, when you use disk 22 for more than one time, it just asks and if you’re not with your emergency disk, you’re screwed. Best Solution: Either have your emergency disk or try to nail NT 3.1 setup first try and download a lot of copies.

stargazer

Yeah, it’s a really crazy experience…

So we found a guy who makes a video about recently leaked builds.

@@Win11FTW theres several people who do that...

Yeah

What was your VM config? Find one here, and go to M5-M6 betawiki.net/wiki/Draft:Recommended_VM_configurations/Windows#Windows_Vista

Yeah I think I could have done better. Some stuff is like.. come on. There is a Windows 8 logo in 8092. Even 8102.101 (dev prev) didn't have that logo. It didn't come until 8250 (consumer prev)

I could try..

Yeah, more evidence.

Just checked, and, like you said, the base was 1366 so I changed it to 1368. But, the output was on 1092x614. I changed it anyway, thanks for this, as I have sometimes noticed some bad quality. Tried it now, and woah, that is MUCH BETTER. Thanks, I feel like my videos have gone up a notch. (do u also have a 1336x768? i use an old 2014 lenovo g50-70)

Oh wow, I didn't actually know that. Thanks

Its old; older than the first release. It is how Windows 11 was while being developed.

Its a beta; a part of the development. Its cool to compare it with the RTM (Release to Manufacturing).

Thanks

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Now that I'm free, I might do weekly uploads.

At least we can still install it

Where did you download the ISO image from? I got it from: ruclips.net/user/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqa3pRa3JVX0RlaHh2alZmUkJzLWhPakRLWnhLZ3xBQ3Jtc0tuZC03QVZ4V094UEZ1ZnpMd21IYmxCWHFVM3pBWGp2OVd0ME9rM0J2YTc2aGFRYnR3VTVhcm5ybkE0RGw2LVBPWUR2VmFSemhFejlTbjlRMlllREpRU2ZqQjhyRTNXV1FNQ0xKOGdoNkRnVDhxRlFZMA&q=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.org%2Fdownload%2FWin10_9908%2F9908.0.141212-1625.WINMAIN_PRS_CLIENTPRO-CORE_OEMRET_X64FRE_EN-US.ISO&v=ti5NbFFJuAE This will start the download