The PC corner: Windows 95 reviewed

Business Economics, Jan, 1996 by John H. Qualls

I was originally going to devote this quarter's column to more Internet topics, but all of the hullabaloo about Windows 95 has prompted me to switch subjects. Frankly, I have not seen as much marketing hype about a product since the New Coke/Coke Classic fiasco. Please don't misunderstand me ... Windows 95 is a definite improvement over Windows 3.1. However, it in no way represents the sort of quantum jump over the previous version that Windows 3.0/3.1 was over DOS. The fact that it has commanded so much attention in the media is more a measure of Microsoft's marketing clout than of the technical advancement of this particular operating system.

As most of you know, I was a long-time supporter of DOS, with an almost visceral aversion to graphics user interfaces, particularly to the use of the mouse and the "point-and-click " paradigm. I attribute most of this aversion to a disastrous introduction to Windows 3.0 on a slow 386 SX machine. Now that I have used Windows 3. 1 for almost two years, I must admit that my reluctance to switch was ill-founded. I can now "cut and paste" with the best of them, although I must confess that I have kept my old DOS version of Lotus 2.3 and find myself using it instead of Excel 5.0. I create a spreadsheet in Lotus, import it into Excel, dress it up a bit, and save it for incorporation into my Win Word documents. It sounds complicated, but I can still work in Lotus about twice as fast as in Excel.

Given my initial reluctance to move to Windows 3.1, most of you probably suspect that I am equally reluctant to move to Windows 95. Well, as you will see, you are half-right. Yes, I will move to Windows 95, but no, I am not going to do it immediately. While no two users are the same (after all, that's what makes personal computers personal), you may want to consider the reasons that have convinced me of the wisdom of this strategy.

Let's first consider the reasons to move to Windows 95. First and foremost is the easier user interface. Windows 95 has been highly touted as being more "Mac-like," i.e., more like the proprietary Apple Macintosh operating system. (I can just hear my Mac readers such as Paul Davis saying, "I told you so.") Among the new features of Windows 95 are an easier installation procedure, the ability to use longer and more descriptive file names, complete replacement of the much-maligned Windows File Manager program, and perhaps the most significant advancement of all - true "Plug-n-Play" capability.

This last feature has the potential to simplify dramatically the installation of new software and hardware, particularly multimedia components such as sound boards, CD-ROMs, and speakers. Unfortunately, "Plug-n-Play" works best with the latest hardware and software products that are certified as being compatible with Microsoft's specifications. Older components may continue to give you problems, according to the articles that I have been reading. The moral is this: Look for the Windows 95 "Plug-n-play" compatibility certification on any new hardware or software that you buy, particularly multimedia.

Equally as important as the ease of use of Windows 95 is its technical superiority over Windows 3.1. Windows 95 is an integrated operating system and user interface. This is in sharp contrast to Windows 3.1, which is an operating shell/environment overlaid on the DOS operating system. Because of its integrated nature, Windows 95 is a more stable system than 3.1. It is capable of handling many more tasks simultaneously than is the old version of Windows, with fewer system crashes (the dreaded General System Fault error message). Old DOS applications such as my Lotus 1-2-3 seem to run more reliably under Windows 95, and Windows 3.1 applications run at least as well. In addition, Windows 95 is a true 32-bit system capable of using more of the power of the Intel 386/486 Pentium family of processors. Applications that are programmed specifically for Windows 95 will run faster than their DOS or Windows 3.1 equivalents. It also means that multitasking operations will run more reliably.

Another reason to switch to Windows 95 is the addition of integrated communications programs that come with 95. These programs include the ability to access both the Internet and the new MS Network, a Microsoft rival to the Big 3 services (CompuServe, America On-line, and Prodigy). Although the MS Network does not yet appear to offer the breadth of services of the others, its base price of $4.95/month gives you an Internet e-mail address for half the price of the others.

The final (and ultimately the most compelling) reason to switch to Windows 95 is the fact that software written specifically for 95 will not run on earlier versions of Windows. Thus, development of 3.1-compatible software will quickly come to a grinding halt. This reason compelled me finally to move to 3.1 and will be my primary motivation to move to 95.

Why, then, am I not moving immediately to Windows 95? First and foremost is the pioneer syndrome - pioneers tend to get arrows in their posteriors. I was burned badly with windows 3.0 and wasted a lot of otherwise billable hours at Hill and Knowlton struggling with system installation and setup. Although most installations of Windows 95 seem to go smoothly, there are a lot of horror stories about difficulties in the process, particularly if your system has one or more viruses lurking on your hard drive. Although 95 is purported to be the most tested computer system ever released, it is incredibly complex.