I knew there was a Chinese version of Windows, called Windows 3.2, but I've never seen this. Is it real, or something someone faked?
Setup says this and has a few new questions like Primary and Secondary keyboard, and how I wish to switch between them? It also has some startup app called 852Code or something.


Inside the OS it just says Windows for Workgroups 3.11.
The boot screen says: Windows for Workgroups 3.11 for Central and Eastern Europe.

I'm fairly sure it's fake. Microsoft was for the most part avoiding labelling anything Windows 3.2, so as to not conflict with the impending Win32 OS, Windows 95. The Chinese Windows 3.2 was somehow an exception to the rule.

From what I see it's Windows for Central and Eastern Europe that has European languages support (like Pan-Euro edition for 9x). But anyway it was indeed version 3.1, not 3.2

Must be a error

also this german site declares there was an special chinese version named windows 3.2.

quote:The Chinese version of Windows 3.2 in itself is something special, because it does not need its own DOS, all other "complex font versions", that is Russian, Korean, Japanese need their own DOS.

Where have you found this screenshot? I'd ask the people who posted this screenshot if they can give you a copy of this or something, it would be very interesting to test it.

That's actually my own image, I found the OS on another site and when I went to install it that's what it said. It doesn't appear much different from WFW3.11 except for the extra options during setup, the changed boot logo, and some codepage checker that runs on startup?

I found another proof that the 3.2 Chinese real is and not a fake.
There is an Microsoft Knowledge base Entry.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.as ... -us;129451

Windows 3.2 (Simplified Chinese) is real..

Well I have Windows for Workgroups 3.11 for Central and Eastern Europe which has the same features too as this Windows for Workgroups 3.20 for Central and Eastern Europe, but it doesn't refer as 3.20 in Windows Setup, IIRC. So I'd like to check that 3.20 for myself. Would it be possible to give a link to it?

Edit: And I remember very well finding references to Windows for Workgroups 3.2 in a few old articles in the Microsoft Knowledge Base so there's a vague possibility this might be real.

Edit #2: Here are some of the articles I found with a Google Search:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/173241
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/112025
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/111292
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/137966
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/90511
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/91036
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/99859
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/127764
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/136418
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/99891
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/93169
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/97737
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/120554
There are many more though. Just search for:

on Google and see.
They all contain a reference to Windows for Workgroups 3.2 in the "Applies to" section.

Windows 3.2 is real, however it's not a WfW.
Simplified Chinese Windows 3.1, Windows 3.2 and Traditional Chinese Windows 3.1 doesn't need any Chinese DOS environment to run at all (and may NOT run if such environment present).
There was a 3rd-party localized Simplified Chinese Windows for Workgroups 3.11, however.

You can run it on MS-DOS 5.02 , i suppose.

No such thing... Only plain 3.2 (which is just a fixed CHS 3.1) exists.

Several Microsoft Knowledge Base articles, some of which I linked to in my previous post in this thread, clearly mention Windows for Workgroups 3.2.

- MatthewH12: Your copy of that "Windows for Workgroups 3.20" would still be nice to get as then I could verify it and see what it really is. I just verified the Windows for Workgroups 3.11 for Central and Eastern Europe from the BetaArchive FTP and it calls itself Windows for Workgroups 3.11. So this 3.20 would be something we don't have here if it's authentic.

If WfW 3.2 really exists, it might be a later release of WfW 3.11 with integrated TCP/IP stack according to the KB articles.

I'll get it uploaded ASAP. I suspect some of the smarter members here can probably figure out if this is real, and if so why it's called 3.2.

EDIT: @Mods, is a link to an uploading site with the RAR within the rules?

Of course it is, as long as the RAR doesn't contain cracks and as long as the website doesn't try to redirect you to warez or shock sites.

Thanks Linuxlove, just wanted to be sure!

Here ya go guys, let me know what you find! I can tell offhand the file is bloated and contains unneeded files, but I just left it as is.

[url]
http://uploading.com/files/99f15e39/Win ... urope.rar/[/url]

for me this looks like a fake, the file dates are from 1999.

That could just mean the image was repacked in 99. Not necesarily an indication of being fake... Checking now, give me a minute.

EDIT: This is clearly a copy of 3.11 with changed setup text and additional software included (IE, Win32s, MS-DOS 7.1...). So no, so far WfW 3.2 still doesn't exist...

Thanks Defacto, that's what I was looking for! Glad to know now.

Please read the Microsoft Knowledge Base articles I linked to. I'd say that's pretty good evidence that some form of Windows for Workgroups 3.2 does exist.

Edit: However, this Windows for Workgroups 3.2 is not the real thing. It's a hacked copy of Windows for Workgroups 3.11 for Central and Eastern Europe. And it seems whoever did it doesn't know some of the basics of windows, such as the fact WINVER.EXE is named WINVER._ among setup files (and expands to WINVER without extension, renamed to WINVER.EXE by Setup) for example. They added a WINVER.EX_ which is bigger than WINVER._ because isn't even compressed.

So yeah I still believe Windows for Workgroups 3.2 exists as per those those Microsoft Knowledge Base articles (there's too many articles referncing it for it to simply be a mistake) but this here isn't it.

There's nothing to read because the articles only mention WfW 3.2 in the "APPLIES TO" section; in the content itself there is no mentioning of 3.2 whatsoever...

Well even a mention in the "APPLIES TO" section is a mention so I don't understand why you're dismissing it.

It's an unreliable source to me... KB articles have always been messed up and badly written.