Windows for Workgroups 3.2 on Google Groups

[DiskingRound]

Basically, I found a post about a supposed Windows for Workgroups 3.2 on Google groups.
Link here:

4/14/96
I got a laptop Windows for Workgroups 3.2 486DX4 with 8 megs and
windows ISP. It has a front end on it and cant seem to figure out how
to a dos ppp connection to work. This is an employer provided
computer so i cant upgrade the ram or upgrade to win95. Any
suggestions? Would it be worth to wait for NetMech for DOS and
get the dos ppp to work? or forget about it?

Edit: I found more.
Link here:

5/4/03
> Gee, it is has been awhile. I have the ProComm plus sitting around here
> somewhere...
> ...If you really think it is worth it, I will install ProComm Plus on a pc, and
> test for you.

That would be great! I'm using PromcommPlus 32 on Win95 and the
client is using a similar (but not identical!) version on his Windows
for Workgroups 3.2 machine. He is hard-wired to his Native AP
payables application, and the script enables capture to the
default.cap file, stores the check data, disables capture, and then
dials the bank and transmits the data to the bank.

Link here:

4/17/09
Gord McFee wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:39:23 -0400, in
> <iJOdnZqhkpm4wnrUnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@posted.localnet>, Doc Tony
> <doc...@localnet.com> wrote: ...
> ...I should point out that Netscape died with version 9.
>


Ahhh, so Netscape is now among the defunct browsers! I liked it and can
actually recall way back when purchasing it, I think it was Netscape 2.0
[installed via the now 'dinosaur' square disks] and, at the time, I was
using as an O/S, Microsoft Windows for Workgroups 3.2 or as some termed
it, "Bluescreen 3.2", where the Netscape browser sold in stores with the
commercial price for the browser being about $40-45 or so, plus tax.
Then it changed to a freebie with Netscape 'Communicator' series but
after version 7.2, they dropped the included news/email client in both
Netscape 8 and 9.

I wonder if this is real...

[ibmpc5150]

At lease WFWG 3.2 doesn't exist at least English-USA version. (Final version 3.11)
Without package or screenshot, it is Not belieable.

[Battler]

- ibmpc5150: We have enough references from different people, including Microsoft's own Knowledge Base, to be able to say the existence of Windows for Workgroups 3.2 is believable. And you so far have not provided any evidence to prove that wrong.

[ibmpc5150]

- ibmpc5150: We have enough references from different people, including Microsoft's own Knowledge Base, to be able to say the existence of Windows for Workgroups 3.2 is believable. And you so far have not provided any evidence to prove that wrong.

So, I memtioned at leat Eng-USA version.

According to MS support, 3.2 exist on another language.
But without package or screenshot, media, I don't believe.

[Battler]

- ibmpc5150: No, they clearly mentioned Windows for Workgroups 3.2, which is different from the Windows 3.2 chinese which is not for Workgroups.

According to MS support, 3.2 exist on another language.
But without package or screenshot, media, I don't believe.

Well, feel free to not believe. Doesn't mean noone else should believe either. I think the references we have are good enough. Several Microsoft Knowledge Base and now even Google Groups posts. Unless all these people, including Microsoft themselves, are either hallucinating or somehow even conspiring to spread a big lie of a non-existing OS, I'd say we have reason to believe it did exist. And since you are the one claiming all those references are either invalid or not referring to an English version, it is up to you to provide evidence backing up your assertion.

[rthdribl]

Well, I'll be damned:
https://www.google.pl/search?q=%22Windo ... m&filter=0

What I find particularily interesting here is that there are multiple articles about the network stack that apply only to Windows NT and WfW 3.2 (but not 3.11):

http://support.microsoft.com/KB/127764
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/122389
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/148967/EN-US

Maybe WfW 3.2 was not what we think it was? :)
But then again, it might also make sense that it's a typo or a "mislabel" 3.11 <> 3.2:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/99859/EN-US
Tags: 3.10 3.11 WINDOWS
kbnetwork kbdisplay kbsound kbfasttip kbsetup kbtshoot

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/126637/en-us
Tags: 3.10 3.11 3.50 WINDOWS
kbdocerr

I obviously hope for finding more references to the magical "Windows Version 3.20 (Cougar)" ;)

[ibmpc5150]

>No, they clearly mentioned Windows for Workgroups 3.2, which is different from the Windows 3.2 chinese which is not for Workgroups.

The most important thing is real software not theory.
At least no Eng/USA version of 3.2

[Battler]

- ibmpc5150: You still have provided zero evidence that there was never any English/USA version of Windows for Workgroups 3.2. Just because you don't have it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all. It's unconfirmed, yes, that much is true, but that's still a fry cry from non-existant.

We have evidence for the existence of a Windows for Workgroups 3.2, and none of it points at it being a foreign-language version. So the most important thing here is evidence. So either you provide some to back up your claim or you recognize that you could be, you know, wrong.