This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Having developed in it, I can say that Win32s was pretty lame. But still, this article seems to be unduely harsh, with several particularly strong (and uncited) accusations. It did help ease the transition to 32-bit Windows, and it let me develop apps at the time for my Win 3.x clients using Windows NT 3.51. Thalter 16:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I used it for a year or two (can't really remember why at this point), and it didn't cause big problems. AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Many programs that were advertised as, or had on their boxes, compatible with Windows 3.1 and Windows 95, used Win32s. Some also used WinG on 3.1x. Some claiming compatibility with both were 16 bit programs tested with 95, then "Windows 95 compatible" was added to the promotional material without any changes to the software. One could be fairly certain 1995 and later Windows software that *didn't* claim 3.1 compatibility was 32bit, using the Windows 95 API. However, some companies simply didn't mention their programs were still 16 bit Win 3.1 apps to avoid seeming to be outdated. Bizzybody (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that ou have any references for that... mabdul 16:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
MIT copy is apparently damaged. Someone should report to them, and provide them with a copy that's not damaged (maybe taken from Pilot Bros CD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yura87 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)