Talk:Windows 95

From BetaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cue the marijuana-based jokes :P --Tau Ceti (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2015 (BST)

Or not? BetaWiki isn't known for its sense of humour - but it could happen. Tau Ceti (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2015 (BST)

Why are the 58k on Pre-M4 there? It's unconfirmed to be excist because not mentoined (Signature added by LilShootDawg) --81.63.132.58 08:06 (talk), 20. February 2018

Just because it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean that it didn't exist. (Also get better at the English language please) --LilShootDawg (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2018 (GMT)
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19952 --AlphaBeta (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2018 (GMT)

About 346, surely it's rather confirmed, because Spanish 347 has 346's USER.EXE, and USER.EXE is one half of the official version number in 9x (the other being COMMAND.COM); therefore 346 must exist. 85.210.112.98 13:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

We really need to sort out this whole file version situation. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 13:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
yeah, that "346" was just a typo. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Is it? If code segments (not data/resources because language differences) of USER.EXE are completely identical to a 347 USER.EXE, then sure. 85.210.112.98 14:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Of course it exists, just like 95% of all the other build numbers in between. We can add it back once the file version policy is clarified.--Overdoze (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)