According to the rags i have read about 95 and its problems, not to mention
almost everyone elses gripes 95 is almost worthless. whlie a few get lucky
the majority get dumped on...

Starting in Aug. 95 every rag started going off on 95 - both good and bad.
but there is something else to take into account, win NT REQUIRES 32 Mram to
function correctly and os/2 has some poorcompatabilities with oother software
mainly a lack of. however, beginning w/ pcweek special report (aug 21, 95) if
you get above the base requirements of 8 Mram, win for workgroups 3.11 rates
above all the others tested (95, NT, os/2, win 3.11) beleive it or not...

Once you get to 32 Mram, win workgroups even outperforms NT in some of the
speed areas. there are other things to consider with security and
multitasking and so on but the alternative being 95, i'll stick with
workgroups. 95 has a long way to go before i will spend my dollars on it. and
until it can adequately run my older 16 bit apps along with the  32 bit apps
(like NT) i can live without it.