WFW 3.11 was a MASSIVE performance improvement over Windows 3.1 back in the days before Windows 95. Pretty much everyone I knew moved to it even if they didn't need the networking capabilities.
Really nice video, i remember networking WfW 3.1 back in the early 90s, then WfW 3.11 and this is what started my career in computers as a lot of businesses needed networking done and i just offered it at a cheaper price than the others so i got a lot of work doing this, so its good to see this again. Have a nice time off for your summer break and cant wait for the next episodes.
We were running IPX/SPX by the early 90s due to games and Netware. Always ran dual stack IPX/SPX and 'NetBEUI' because running IPX/SPX by itself would never resolve computer names. IIRC, file transfers were faster if you had IPX/SPX running because NetBEUI is not great... I think it always uses broadcast frames.. not sure exactly. It's been a while.
Since I prefer to network all of my legacy systems, Windows for Workgroups is excellent for my lower-powered machines that can't handle Windows 95. And you're right, loading any of the networking components from DOS will eat through Conventional memory so quickly! It is better just to run the networking from within Windows and take advantage of all the extra memory available. The only downside to that is needing to load Windows to access any network shares, but since WfW performs quite well, it's not too much of a bother. Can't wait to see your next video in the series!
Great video as usual! Unfortunately I seem to be too young for having used Win3x as a daily driver but I love it! Enjoy your break and I am looking forward to the next video! Greetings from Germany!
@@JARVIS1187thx ;) Actually, Windows 3.x was one of my daily drivers back then, along with DOS 5+ and OS/2 2.1, and ecerything that folowed. A teacher, who ran the school campus network once gave me some old 10Base2 gear and told me to use it at home. That was mid-nineties, and led me to have an IPX/SPX based network at home for our then already three PCs. And this ultimately led to the unique opportunity, that I could help in rebuilding our campus network, with an all transititition from 10base-2 to 100base-TX, and from WfW+Novell over to NT server and Windows 95. So not daily drivers in a professional life until 2nd half of 1995, but close enough, as definitely not average teenager‘s hobby ;-) I was always all-in for computers since I got the C64 in 1988 or so, and later on even my dad‘s IBM AT.
Entertaining video detailing 3.x networking. A bit before my time, but I like to see the genesis of some ideas which continue today and I love the visual look of older MS config and control panel type applets.
Back when I did Y2K work, our office network was mostly WfW. I remember Mail and Schedule+. We switched to Eudora Mail after. Colour text! Woohoo!!! 😁 It was clunky by today's standards but it worked. Good video!
Thanks for this deep dive. I'd love to see if the % gains that MS claim with 3.11 stack up! Especially RAM usage vs stock 3.1. People with antique computers would like to know performance vs memory usage trade-off! Thank you!
I still have few 3COM ISA 10MB ethernet card with rj45, bnc and 15pin connector from old times, few with only rj45 i used in AT PC with W95. Then was time for PCI 10/100M i remeber 3com 905C(X)-TX-M with cable for WOL very expensive card that time but used in various ATX PC with W98SE, W2000SP4, XP, W7 until 2015. After that got motherboard with integrated 1GB rj45 but still have that card just for case.
Random question, as you cloned the "VMs" did you give the 2 NICs different hardware Mac addresses as they can cause issues as it thimks it's the same network card
At 21:38 "my" first laptop a Bondwell Model 8 a 8088, dos yours have the modem on the motherboard? Here in Sweden were the modem NOT mount on the motherboard. Thanks for a nice video.
I was surprised as well. But then intreagued, because: Why would they start in 1920. For a product that was released in 1992, what useful purpose would a calendar and scheduling application have, to begin 70 years prior? Anyway, it was fixed in Schedule+ shipping with Office 95 onwards.
The big problem I always saw was it allowed anybody to setup a network. So the thing pointed out in the video was lets share drive C. The next best thing was to turn off the machines at night and when turned on in the morning. A few would connect if drive letters was used. I never did figure this out. If you rebooted the shared machine. Then load your program. It would not connect up. (this followed into windows 95). You would then have to click on the computer in network or even reboot if using a drive letter. But what I consider superior software like Lantastic. Had no issue with it. On all point aside though. I did have a really nice WFW setup with simple dos workstations using a boot disk to run a point of sale program. Far cheaper the other peer to peer networks. Plus a simple lesson for the customer was all that was needed to explain the main machine needed to be up first or on. Mostly left on due to the tape backup in it. Work for years without an issue. Such a money maker even up through windows, xp and even 10 due to security changes.
@@idahofur LANtastic will be featured soon. Unfortunately I never had a chance to use it myself. Still I‘m curious to see what the competition had to offer. I heard many good words sbout LANtastic.
@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR The best thing I liked about Lantastic was it would beep if it was out of resources. I know that sounds strange. But other software like NWLITe or Personal Netware would just run really slow or lock up. I believe it beeps when you are low on base memory. But, I cannot remember. If you can find the 5 user ne2000 version of 5 or 6. That would be the best. If not you will be locked into using artisoft cards and a license for each workstation.
@@idahofur Indeed, I found myself tripping into exactly that, that they had node-locked licenses. Luckily I found 999-node license, so that's plently to experiment with.
Long time ago at school we have a network based on WFWG, you only need a floppy disk with DOS and novell drivers to start a Windows session in a PC without hard drive 😮...
I now wonder how did it all interact with Windows NT. WfW 3.1 predates NT 3.1, but WfW 3.11 was released after it. Maybe it has something to do with the addition of the logon utility? It would be nice to see a follow-up with a network of WfW clients around an NT server :)
@@kFY514yes, there will be a follow-up for that. The current episode was explitely covering the workgroup feature, as NT and domain nerworking is a different beast and would have side-tracked to much for one episode.
The intel pro 100 and pro 1000 (100mbit and 1000mbit) pci cards also have dos/win 3 drivers and works great. I have a 1000 in my 486 and kinda seems rodiculous to have a 1000mbit ethernet on my WfW 3.11 / NT 3.51 computer lol
WFW networking was always flakey. So hard to tell if it was software or hardware. TCP/IP is fun for win 3.11. i think it is subject to a blue screen when an oversize packet is sent. I think win 3.1 networking only really was kind of secure with NT or Netware. Workgroups were all about complete trust.
Yeah i think both wfw 3.1 and wfw 3.11 had maaaaany such problems. Oh and security never was a thing for any dos based windows, they have no concept of security
True, the absence of a centralized directory for managing user accounts and permissions globally, was more a thing of the higher-end products like Netware and Windows NT targetting at large scale enterprises. Workgroup networks were much more simplistic in nature. We'll see more of that simplification when comparing other similar products in follow-up episodes.
@@Lofote True, neither of which was a multi-user system, nor was OS/2, and neither Win9x. They all had been as single-user systems. True multi-user capability was only implemented beginning with Windows NT 3.1 onwards. Albeit Microsoft originally had a multi-user system already somewhat 10 years prior, which was XENIX, but that's a different story.
I remember getting on the Internet on WFW3.11. It was easy to get someone's IP address on IRC and then DDoS using OOB data (WinNuke). Happened a lot especially when a flame war broke out.
Don't worry, these will be looked at in a follow-up episode about NT and domain networking. Today's episode was strictly confined to a workgroup-only, hence server-less, peer-2-peer network setup. That's because I'll also look into other peer-2-peer network products, like LANtastic or Netware Lite. For comparison reasons on the peer-2-peer functionality, it made sense to not blend in too much into the current episode.
You mean ... uhm ... books? The things vendors gave us in the past. Made from paper. Sometimes the came also in binders? That thing? You had to take into your hands, and flip the pages with your fingers? That kind of thing? Never heard about it! ^^
Interesting you mention MS competing with 3com at time. And ironic that Windows NT LanManager (SMB/NetBIOS) stack actually comes from 3com (licensed source which later was bought all rights completely). Many of the best technologies on Windows NT are "acquisitions" and "friendly leases" (sic) from 3rd party vendors, including NT itself (DEC Prism).
As far as I understand it, the NT kernel has been indeed written from scratch... but it was designed by the guy who earlier designed VMS at DEC and basically did the same thing again for Microsoft.
why should he? I find it adds character and keeps the videos from being too monotone, perhaps you don't like him because you yourself are a mr know it all, eh?
Windows for Workgroups always reminded me of a Dave Barry joke, where he surmised that there must be a "Windows for Groups Who Mostly Slack Off".
Wow, very thorough! You know your stuff! I'm a big DOS/Win3.x networking junkie, so really enjoyed this.
WFW 3.11 was a MASSIVE performance improvement over Windows 3.1 back in the days before Windows 95. Pretty much everyone I knew moved to it even if they didn't need the networking capabilities.
Really nice video, i remember networking WfW 3.1 back in the early 90s, then WfW 3.11 and this is what started my career in computers as a lot of businesses needed networking done and i just offered it at a cheaper price than the others so i got a lot of work doing this, so its good to see this again. Have a nice time off for your summer break and cant wait for the next episodes.
We were running IPX/SPX by the early 90s due to games and Netware. Always ran dual stack IPX/SPX and 'NetBEUI' because running IPX/SPX by itself would never resolve computer names. IIRC, file transfers were faster if you had IPX/SPX running because NetBEUI is not great... I think it always uses broadcast frames.. not sure exactly. It's been a while.
Home Server became "Windows Essential Server" 2016 was that last version that resembled WHS with client backup.
Have a happy and safe holiday. Love your content, it's great content to satisfy hunger for retro tech videos.
@@Coburn64 Thank you very much, I definitely will!
Great vid! Blast to the past as usual
Albeit is prounounced all-be-it
Thanks, next-time over I believe my pronounciation will be right!
@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR I'll be there for it !
Since I prefer to network all of my legacy systems, Windows for Workgroups is excellent for my lower-powered machines that can't handle Windows 95. And you're right, loading any of the networking components from DOS will eat through Conventional memory so quickly! It is better just to run the networking from within Windows and take advantage of all the extra memory available. The only downside to that is needing to load Windows to access any network shares, but since WfW performs quite well, it's not too much of a bother.
Can't wait to see your next video in the series!
I really could use someting like this old MS Chat today. I like how minimalistic it is. Just exchange text messages over LAN.
Great video as usual!
Unfortunately I seem to be too young for having used Win3x as a daily driver but I love it!
Enjoy your break and I am looking forward to the next video!
Greetings from Germany!
@@JARVIS1187thx ;)
Actually, Windows 3.x was one of my daily drivers back then, along with DOS 5+ and OS/2 2.1, and ecerything that folowed.
A teacher, who ran the school campus network once gave me some old 10Base2 gear and told me to use it at home.
That was mid-nineties, and led me to have an IPX/SPX based network at home for our then already three PCs.
And this ultimately led to the unique opportunity, that I could help in rebuilding our campus network, with an all transititition from 10base-2 to 100base-TX, and from WfW+Novell over to NT server and Windows 95.
So not daily drivers in a professional life until 2nd half of 1995, but close enough, as definitely not average teenager‘s hobby ;-)
I was always all-in for computers since I got the C64 in 1988 or so, and later on even my dad‘s IBM AT.
Entertaining video detailing 3.x networking. A bit before my time, but I like to see the genesis of some ideas which continue today and I love the visual look of older MS config and control panel type applets.
That incoming mail sound...
Back when I did Y2K work, our office network was mostly WfW. I remember Mail and Schedule+. We switched to Eudora Mail after. Colour text! Woohoo!!! 😁
It was clunky by today's standards but it worked. Good video!
Thanks for this deep dive. I'd love to see if the % gains that MS claim with 3.11 stack up! Especially RAM usage vs stock 3.1. People with antique computers would like to know performance vs memory usage trade-off! Thank you!
Half a video I have been fighting my memories. And then boom... 3.11 😂
I still have few 3COM ISA 10MB ethernet card with rj45, bnc and 15pin connector from old times, few with only rj45 i used in AT PC with W95. Then was time for PCI 10/100M i remeber 3com 905C(X)-TX-M with cable for WOL very expensive card that time but used in various ATX PC with W98SE, W2000SP4, XP, W7 until 2015. After that got motherboard with integrated 1GB rj45 but still have that card just for case.
In the early 2000s I had an old printer hosted on Windows Xp that I was able to send documents to from a machine running 3.11 (using TCP)
Random question, as you cloned the "VMs" did you give the 2 NICs different hardware Mac addresses as they can cause issues as it thimks it's the same network card
@@systemchris 86Box detects this and asks if the VM was copied or moved.
Responding with „copied“ will generate a new MAC address.
At 21:38 "my" first laptop a Bondwell Model 8 a 8088, dos yours have the modem on the motherboard?
Here in Sweden were the modem NOT mount on the motherboard.
Thanks for a nice video.
I'm surprised that Schedule+ can handle dates until 2019?? I thought it would have ended in the year 2000 or 2010.
I was surprised as well. But then intreagued, because: Why would they start in 1920. For a product that was released in 1992, what useful purpose would a calendar and scheduling application have, to begin 70 years prior?
Anyway, it was fixed in Schedule+ shipping with Office 95 onwards.
The big problem I always saw was it allowed anybody to setup a network. So the thing pointed out in the video was lets share drive C. The next best thing was to turn off the machines at night and when turned on in the morning. A few would connect if drive letters was used. I never did figure this out. If you rebooted the shared machine. Then load your program. It would not connect up. (this followed into windows 95). You would then have to click on the computer in network or even reboot if using a drive letter. But what I consider superior software like Lantastic. Had no issue with it. On all point aside though. I did have a really nice WFW setup with simple dos workstations using a boot disk to run a point of sale program. Far cheaper the other peer to peer networks. Plus a simple lesson for the customer was all that was needed to explain the main machine needed to be up first or on. Mostly left on due to the tape backup in it. Work for years without an issue. Such a money maker even up through windows, xp and even 10 due to security changes.
@@idahofur LANtastic will be featured soon. Unfortunately I never had a chance to use it myself.
Still I‘m curious to see what the competition had to offer. I heard many good words sbout LANtastic.
@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR The best thing I liked about Lantastic was it would beep if it was out of resources. I know that sounds strange. But other software like NWLITe or Personal Netware would just run really slow or lock up. I believe it beeps when you are low on base memory. But, I cannot remember. If you can find the 5 user ne2000 version of 5 or 6. That would be the best. If not you will be locked into using artisoft cards and a license for each workstation.
@@idahofur Indeed, I found myself tripping into exactly that, that they had node-locked licenses. Luckily I found 999-node license, so that's plently to experiment with.
Brought back memories. However it also brought back nightmares. The TCP/IP stack killed performance.
Long time ago at school we have a network based on WFWG, you only need a floppy disk with DOS and novell drivers to start a Windows session in a PC without hard drive 😮...
Yes! I recall that novell red logo when booting
@@jbinary82 I never noticed the red color because the monitors were Black & White 😁
I now wonder how did it all interact with Windows NT. WfW 3.1 predates NT 3.1, but WfW 3.11 was released after it. Maybe it has something to do with the addition of the logon utility? It would be nice to see a follow-up with a network of WfW clients around an NT server :)
@@kFY514yes, there will be a follow-up for that.
The current episode was explitely covering the workgroup feature, as NT and domain nerworking is a different beast and would have side-tracked to much for one episode.
@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR I guess seeing NT on a workgroup could be fun too 😅
Interesting, I've never heard about WWG 3.1.
EXCELENTE! 👏🏻 Saludos desde Argentina 🇦🇷
The intel pro 100 and pro 1000 (100mbit and 1000mbit) pci cards also have dos/win 3 drivers and works great. I have a 1000 in my 486 and kinda seems rodiculous to have a 1000mbit ethernet on my WfW 3.11 / NT 3.51 computer lol
You can check out my videos on how to do Remote Desktop and Windows file share between Windows 3.1 for Workgroups and Windows 11.
WFW networking was always flakey. So hard to tell if it was software or hardware. TCP/IP is fun for win 3.11. i think it is subject to a blue screen when an oversize packet is sent. I think win 3.1 networking only really was kind of secure with NT or Netware. Workgroups were all about complete trust.
Yeah i think both wfw 3.1 and wfw 3.11 had maaaaany such problems.
Oh and security never was a thing for any dos based windows, they have no concept of security
True, the absence of a centralized directory for managing user accounts and permissions globally, was more a thing of the higher-end products like Netware and Windows NT targetting at large scale enterprises.
Workgroup networks were much more simplistic in nature. We'll see more of that simplification when comparing other similar products in follow-up episodes.
@@Lofote True, neither of which was a multi-user system, nor was OS/2, and neither Win9x. They all had been as single-user systems.
True multi-user capability was only implemented beginning with Windows NT 3.1 onwards.
Albeit Microsoft originally had a multi-user system already somewhat 10 years prior, which was XENIX, but that's a different story.
@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR Exactly :)
I remember getting on the Internet on WFW3.11. It was easy to get someone's IP address on IRC and then DDoS using OOB data (WinNuke). Happened a lot especially when a flame war broke out.
I hope you saved all that floppy swapping footage for a future compilation episode
@@DankUser Oh yes, I‘ve got hours of setup procedures recorded…
@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR
Were you ever able to source a token ring system?
@@DGTelevsionNetwork no, unfortunately not yet. I‘m scouting…
What about Windows for Workgroups 3.1 Workstation with Windows NT 3.1 Server & Windows for Workgroups 3.11 with Windows NT 3.5 Server ?
Don't worry, these will be looked at in a follow-up episode about NT and domain networking.
Today's episode was strictly confined to a workgroup-only, hence server-less, peer-2-peer network setup.
That's because I'll also look into other peer-2-peer network products, like LANtastic or Netware Lite.
For comparison reasons on the peer-2-peer functionality, it made sense to not blend in too much into the current episode.
Im stil having issues with teh Networking on Win3x.
I ahve the OS working in 86Box but Tcp32b kills the OS everytime
Google: "Dos Windows 3.11 auto-install iso template (for vmware)"
TCP/IP will be covered in a follow-up.
What happens for you? Does it just freeze, or what is the exact symptom?
@@THEPHINTAGECOLLECTOR I get a Crash with an Error, or I have to start it as "WIN /n" if I want windows to run
I miss all the printed technical documentation.....grin
You mean ... uhm ... books? The things vendors gave us in the past. Made from paper. Sometimes the came also in binders? That thing? You had to take into your hands, and flip the pages with your fingers? That kind of thing?
Never heard about it! ^^
Interesting you mention MS competing with 3com at time. And ironic that Windows NT LanManager (SMB/NetBIOS) stack actually comes from 3com (licensed source which later was bought all rights completely). Many of the best technologies on Windows NT are "acquisitions" and "friendly leases" (sic) from 3rd party vendors, including NT itself (DEC Prism).
As far as I understand it, the NT kernel has been indeed written from scratch... but it was designed by the guy who earlier designed VMS at DEC and basically did the same thing again for Microsoft.
peace be upon you sir and zamzam water
Grr. Yt eats comments
Yep but I can say pee pee poo poo and that's perfectly fine but as soon as you say something worth saying YT eats it
Please could you get rid of the 'Mr Know it All' overlay videos, I find them very annoying. Any facts, just pop up a box with the information.
why should he? I find it adds character and keeps the videos from being too monotone, perhaps you don't like him because you yourself are a mr know it all, eh?
@@oggilein1 🤣🤣🤣🤪🤪🤪