��-����-�-�����������������������Re: 640k is not 'nuff...�������������������Ŀ
���-��������������������������������������������������������������������������
��-�> Here's What You Said��.
� That's a very blatent exageration.  Win95 ran 3.11 apps at the same rate
� (faster on floating point based apps...like Lotus 1-2-3).  It also runs JUST
� FINE on 8 megs.  If you open more than 3 apps at a time, then go for 16 megs.
�  3 out of the 6 buisnesses I am contracted with have Windows 95 on reserve
� for Aug. 24th.  Do you really hate MS so much that you'd make up stuff to
� make it look bad? 
� Jeeze...all they did was make an OS
�� -��-��������������������������������������������������������������������Ŀ
���> Now Here is what I Say��.                                              �
                      ��-�����������������������Reply�Requested���������������

Read below, nuff said.  Incase you dont know, PC Week is very biased
*TOWARDS* windows..

            PC WEEK? - August 7 1995
*************************************************

   Windows 95 offers few improvements over Windows for
Workgroups in a typical office setting.  Your Win 3.1 apps
won't run any faster, and may actually be slower under Win
95.

   While the Win 95 interface is a big improvement over Win
3.1, people work with applications, not operating systems,
so until you get that new look in your apps as well, you
don't gain much from the move.

   Plug and Play means little when you have a large PC
population filled with older "legacy" cards.  New Plug and
Play cards are easier to configure.  But to upgrade to Win
95 is to go the other way, installing a new operating system
in boxes full of older cards that already work fine--but may
not under Win 95, at least without a lot of fiddling.
Besides, don't you and your staff, not your users, do the
configuration work on your PCs?  You know what you're doing.

   A move to Win 95, especially right away, is a fearsomely
expensive step.  You need more memory, you need new apps,
and you need a large-scale training program to move your
users onto Win 95.  Where's the payback?

   The absence of Win 95-compliant apps now means your users
will get very few of the potential benefits of Win 95 today.
And the feature most new Win 95 users like most,
256-character filenames, won't work at all with existing
apps.

   Serious incompatibilities with many DOS and Win 3.1 apps
may prove crippling.  Microsoft's now-famous "List of 2,500
Programs That We're Pretty Sure Work OK, Probably, Except
for Some of Them," has scared a lot of IS people -- and
their users, too.  As Win 95 honcho Brad Silverberg has
admitted, backward compatibility with Win 3.1 and DOS apps
turned out to be a lot harder than Microsoft expected.
Obviously.

   Windows NT is the real corporate operating system from
Microsoft, so why not go to NT now -- or even better, wait a
few months more and go to NT when it gets the attractive Win
95 interface?  You don't want to double-clutch this, moving
to Win 95 now a nd NT next year.  Yet NT seems more and more
the inevitable destination of business computing:  robust,
stable, secure.  Why move twice?


Why, indeed.


   Windows 95 is a sparkly, attractive, well-thought-out GUI
atop a pile of code still largely unproven, despite a
beta-testing cycle that included most of the sentient beings
in North America.


But it's just not ready yet. And neither are we.

*************************************************

� �����Black Knight���� �
	�PP	�  [VSB] @1512046  	�PP	�