• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Windows "Premiere Edition" on 4 5.25 inch Floppies

trueyanksfan

New Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
1
Hi all,

I'm a longtime vintage computing/video game collector and just came upon something I've never seen. It looks like a pre-public release of Windows that was only released to the press and some OEM developers. The latter would make the most sense to me as I discovered it along with Microsoft C Compiler 4.0 on 6 disks. I've spent the day doing research online and it appears this may be pretty rare. Has anyone here ever seen these and or have additional information?

Thanks in advance.
 

Attachments

  • 2014-03-16_16-18-13_991.jpg
    2014-03-16_16-18-13_991.jpg
    95.3 KB · Views: 1

awergh

New Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
5
Location
Australia (Canberra)
From what I gather is that this was the very first windows release opposed to the far more common Windows 1.01 that is more common and often modified to make a fake 1.00 I believe.

Not sure on the actual difference though apart from the about box, most likely bug fixes or something like that.
 

linuxlove

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
1,018
Location
Auburn, AL
I've not seen any of the floppies before but I have messed with a copy that was thought to be the Premiere Edition. Turns out that copy was nothing more than a hexedited copy of Windows 1.01. I do believe it exists as Microsoft themselves posted this image on one of their various social media accounts:
6KqGpEo.jpg


If you can dump these disks, it would be much appreciated as then we can finally figure out just what Windows Premiere Edition really is.
 

SomeGuy

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
4,180
Location
Marietta, GA
Wasn't this posted over on betaarchives the other day? You have to take stuff posted over there with a grain, or a whole pile, of salt. There are a bunch of kids on that site who are so obsessed with everything Microsoft they regularly produce fake Microsoft "leaks" to get attention.

The most hilarious one was a set of fake "1983" Windows screen shots based on the 1983 Byte magazine review/advertisement. They even went to the trouble to make a hand-drawn screen shot of the Piano app. Never mind that the real PIANO.EXE was distributed on most Microsoft Mouse driver disks through the 80s.

In a way it is too bad that site isn't more serious and less MS centered, there is a lot of vintage stuff that should go in an archive like that.
 

k2x4b524[

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
1,519
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA. Zip code 98404
It was posted, however, the beta archive version is NOT the genuine thing, which they have been looking for, for quite some time. If that's the real deal, cherish it.

Someguy, i have browsed the BA site, and have been a forum/ftp member there. Some of the stuff yes, take with a grain of salt, but a lot of things they have are the real deal. And yes, their archives do have a good amount of vintage things on it, just gotta dig through it, as with all file repositories.
 

barythrin

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
6,256
Location
Texas
That's really dumb (faking a version and uploading?). Do they at least delete it and ban the user? No sense that I can see. Yes we all thought it was hilarious to hex edit progmon.exe and replace four letter words and other menu items but really, I thought that site was legit beta collectors.

Regarding the pics, very neat either way. Version 1.0 or even 1.1 probably fetch over $100 on ebay. Do you have just the disks or manuals also?
 

linuxlove

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
1,018
Location
Auburn, AL
That's really dumb (faking a version and uploading?). Do they at least delete it and ban the user? No sense that I can see.
They delete any fakes and used to have a rule against spreading fakes but they got rid of that rule with one of their site updates.

I thought that site was legit beta collectors.
The site's now basically staffed by known fakers (probably why that rule about faking builds mysteriously vanished) and the userbase consists primarily of 12-year-olds. No kidding; one of the kids on that site is 9 years old.
 

SpidersWeb

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
2,697
Location
New Zealand
Best quote from that link:

Tandy Trower, stated: "But by the early summer of 1985, we were still not close to being done, so Steve declared we should release a preliminary release that I dubbed the Premiere Edition, which we provided to key application vendors, analysts, and members of the press for feedback and in partial fulfillment of Ballmer’s promise to ship the product that summer."

So I sincerely hope as a collector, the original poster makes images of these disks so their contents is not lost.
 

Battler

New Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
2
They delete any fakes and used to have a rule against spreading fakes but they got rid of that rule with one of their site updates.
The rule against spreading fakes is still there. It is however a pretty common sense rule, and therefore doesn't really need to be specificially listed.

The site's now basically staffed by known fakers (probably why that rule about faking builds mysteriously vanished) and the userbase consists primarily of 12-year-olds. No kidding; one of the kids on that site is 9 years old.
Known fakers? First, what a generalization. The Distractor and James were never involved in any fakery. As for myself, yes, I did use to spread unreliable or even fake screenshot, claiming they are 100% real, without verification, but that was 4 or more years ago, and I have since long apologized and move on, something by the way you and your friends are incapable of doing, as demonstrated by your very post here. And the rule about faking stuff is definitely still enforced.
As for the userbase being 12-year-old kids... there were always people this young there, and you yourself were not that much older when you first joined.
Also I would like to point out, that linuxlove is himself a former Moderator of BetaArchive who was demoted because he behaved inappropriately, and as such quite clearly has a personal reason to resent the fact those he dislikes the most, are now Staff while he is not. Also, 4 years ago, linuxlove was involved in stuff much worse than the stuff I did, and is involved in it to this day, specificially impersonation, harassment, attacks, and so on. Maybe he should tell you a bit about the WinTalk group he was a member of 4 years ago and to what extent that group went to bully me and my friends. And to what extent he still goes at harassing even BetaArchive now (including putting up a fake index page clearly mocking it) and posting inflammatory posts about me and my friends every time he can.
 

fs5500

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
450
I think Windows "Premiere Edition" on 4 5.25 inch Floppies must be fake.

1) Boot Sector and ID is strange.

Original BOOT ID and sector must be following.

--> 1.03 (BOOT ID : IBM 3.1 <-- 1st disk / IBM 3.0 (Compaq version) <-- 2~6 disks)
--> 1.04 (BOOT ID : IBM 3.2 <-- 1~7 disks)

But faked version seems to use BOOT ID : MSDOS3.0

2) Original release of Windows 1.0x was 1.01 (Not 1.00)

I have 1.03 (5.25" 6EA) and 1.04 (5.25" 7EA) version of it dumped correctly.

I'm also looking for 1.01 and 1.02, I tried to buy them from ebay but failed.

To get 1.01 and 1.02 are very hard and expensive.

Already distributed Disk Image of 1.01 and 1.02 are fake.
 

SomeGuy

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
4,180
Location
Marietta, GA
I think Windows "Premiere Edition" on 4 5.25 inch Floppies must be fake.

If you mean the ones that are currently floating around, the files are identical to Windows 1.01 with just strings in resources and the boot logo changed.

I don't believe the original poster has provided a dump of their disks anywhere yet.

Already distributed Disk Image of 1.01 and 1.02 are fake.
Unfortunately, back in the 90s and early 200xs most people were in the habit of just zipping files instead of making disk images. With the proliferation of PC emulators and virtualizers that use disk images, many people are simply converting old zip file sets to disk images. Proper redumps are always appreciated.
 

SomeGuy

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
4,180
Location
Marietta, GA
Nice picture, those disks look different from the original poster. Do you know if they still have the original content? I think trueyanksfan posted elsewhere that his first three disks were overwritten (but he never did share the contents). (Suggestion: write protect those ASAP)

Alias, (Nice nick -- says user SomeGuy :) ) Roughly where about are you located? Perhaps someone nearby can help you archive the disks, if you have not already done so?

Would you mind at least posting a few more, higher resolution pictures or scans?

I think trueyanksfan only posted the one picture, leaving some room for speculation that it might have been PhotoShopped.

In the off chance you haven't been following along, a way while back, some nutjob released an incredibly complete hack up Windows 1.01 that claimed to be Windows PE. Looks like a passable release, except there are no code differences. That has caused quite a bit of commotion elsewhere.

On a related note, there is someone on eBay selling what they claim is an unopened box of "Windows 1.00".
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Genuine-Mic...l-Sealed-in-Retail-Factory-Box-/381070622290?
Not sure how they figure that.

Personally, as far as I am concerned anything starting with "Microsoft" can rot, but it would be good to put some of the controversy to rest.
 
Last edited:

Caluser2000

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
4,657
Location
New Zealand
Nice picture, those disks look different from the original poster..
If you bother to enlarge the pics of both you will see they are the same. It's just that the OPs labels have been written on in pen at some point, most likely indicating they have been over written. Hence the reason for no disk images from the OP I'm guessing.

There's been a price sticker on that ebay box a some point.
 
Last edited:

Timo W.

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
1,424
Location
Germany
If you bother to enlarge the pics of both you will see they are the same. It's just that the OPs labels have been written on in pen at some point, most likely indicating they have been over written.
While I agree that they look *very* much identical, they aren't. The level of wear is different, too different to show the same disks. This can be seen especially at the additional sticker on the label of disk 2, which is also aligned in another way.
 
Top