>>> Part 1 of 2...
It's 14 Jan 97  19:56:00,
We'll return to Stephane Bessette and John Augustine's
discussion of Case Against Windows
 SB> Well, not automatically.  It really depends on what you
 SB> actually do, which software you use, and how stable they are under
 SB> that multitasking environment.  There is a multitasker that runs
 SB> under DOS (but can't remember the name), then there's the various
DESQView, and it's quite a clever product.  Very popular in the BBS
world, even today.
 SB> flavors of Windows (Windows 3.1, Win95, WinNT), and there's OS/2.
 SB> Also, it is not simply a habit for the fun of it:  there's a real
 SB> practical value to it.  Here's a concrete, although not realistic,
Indeed.  For me, multitasking is a necessity, as I usually have various
servers and background processes running constantly.  In a DOS
environment, this would mean the machine would have to be a dedicated
server (or I have to run DESQview).
 SB> In conclusion, an OS (operating system) is a tool.  A tool
 SB> should help you in your work, not impede you.  You should feel
 SB> comfortable and secure.  DOS was fine for a while, when all I did
 SB> was play games and BBSing.  But when I started downloading lots of
 SB> files, I got tired of waiting 1-2 hours for the transfers to
 SB> complete before being able to do anything else.
I went to DESQview which helped enormously, but what killed DOS for me
was the Internet.  I got to the point of having to load so many drivers
and TSRs that memory was starting to get tight (even with QEMM helping),
and drivers and applications were starting to conflict with each other.
For what I needed, OS/2 was the best solution.  It allowed me to move
all the networking stuff to protected mode (and gain a heap of
functionality), while maintining a compatible environment.
 SB> And then I heard about OS/2 (don't remember how though).
 SB> Bought it, tried it, and something very strange happened.  My
 SB> computer now felt a lot more powerful.  I still had the same
 SB> hardware as when I was using Windows 3.1 (486-40 with 8 MB), but
 SB> nevertheless, it felt much more robust.  And the frequent crashes
 SB> stopped.
OS/2 works for this machine, though it does have some limitations,
mainly to do with the trend towards Win 32 apps these days. :-(  For
this system, OS/2 is about optimum.  It offers full networking (I'm
using Connect), good native applications for what I'm doing
(Internet gate), and the way ot handles hardware and virtual devices is
ideal for my application (take a look at SIO and Vmodem to see what I
mean).
 SB> What about Win95?  From what I've read on it and heard from
 SB> others, there's a lot of hype surrounding Win95.  MicroSoft said a
 SB> lot of things about it, and so did the press, but not all of it is
 SB> true, not does all of it live up to the expectations of the customers.
 SB> Nevertheless, it is a choice, but you have to make the decision, and
 SB> not simply have the decision thrust upon you (which is oftern the case
 SB> when you purchase a new computer system).  But Win97 is rumoured to be
 SB> released this summer, and is also said to be the equivalent of Win95 +
 SB> Plus Pack + Fix #1.  What a deal!
Win 95 is OK.  It is an improvement on Windows 3.11, particularly the
user interface.  It is a little more stable, and a lot of its device
drivers are now 32 bit protected mode, so the old 640k problems are
almost gone.  However, it is really a "consumer item".  Flashy,
reasonably priced, but not as technically robust as the higher powered
alternatives.  A good choice for Joe Average who wants to play a few
games or surf the Net.
 SB> And finally, there's WinNT.  Requires 32 MB to run (OS/2 and
 SB> Win95 want 8 MB, Windows 3.1 wants 4 MB).  Does not run most DOS and
Hmm, I've had only one program bomb under NT, and that was a Win 32 app
that claimed to be able to run under NT!  I've run several DOS and Win
3.x apps, no problems.  However, I do know it is a little fussy about
what it will run.
 SB> Windows 3.1 software.  Runs some Win95 titles (but lack of multimedia
 SB> features?).  Anyways, WinNT is not ready yet for acceptance by the
 SB> general public, but MicroSoft nevertheless as stated that the general
 SB> public will go to WinNT:  Win95/Win97 is a stepping stone from Windows
 SB> 3.1 to WinNT.
Windows NT is like a manufacturing plant.  It is capable of quite a lot,
and it's designed to be reliable.  But while a manufacturing plant will
allow you to churn out all sorts of things more efficiently than you can
do at home with a few hand tools, it demands more land and heavy 3 phase
power supplies.  In addition, it might not be as versitle as your hand
tools.  Windows NT is a bit similar.  It used heaps of RAM and
processor power, is not as compatible with older applications, but it
performs well as a network server, and is reliable.  In this applcation,
it is hard to beat (unless you have a good unix system :) ).
 SB> In conclusion, find the OS or tool that is best suited to your
 SB> needs.  But make the decision, don't have it made by others.  Also,
 >>> Continued to next message...
--- FMail/386 1.02
---------------