Re: Windows 95 info

> 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

I don't understand..what do you mean exactly by function correctly???  I have
20megs of ram and have winnt setup on my computer and use it...although not
as much as OS/2!  What do you mean by not functioning correctly in less than
32megs of ram???  I havn't noticed anything that didn't work right...

> mainly a lack of. however, beginning w/ pcweek special report (aug 21, 95) if

OS/2 can run dos, win 3.x, some win32 stuff...and os/2 apps!  It's windows
support is actually compatible with more win3.x apps than 95 is...plus os/2
and NT allows you to preemtivly multitask win 3.x apps...when win95 runs any
3.x app it turns into a nice looking copy of windows for workgroups.

> 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

Workgroups runs things the fastest yes....but not by much, and for the price
(ie having your whole system go down if something screws up & not being able
to run multiple applications without waiting for an hour glass)  it's not
worth it in my great big blue book.

> 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.

                                                -Papa Smurf