TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: subscribe to list From:"Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- STARBASECORP -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 29 Aug 1995 15:24:33 -0700
Suzanne Pyle wonders...
> 1. Windows 95 : I've heard some people are waiting to see how it will
> perform; and
> others are sticking to what they know with Windows 3.11 and still others are
> proposing Windows NT. Mmmm. Is Nt and 95 the same, or have similarities?
> And if you're a contractor like myself, do you find yourself considering your
> interface capabilities if you select one over the other? I personally am
> leaning
> toward Windows NT because it has been around a while and does perform well,
> however am wondering if this will interfere with being compatible with
> clients.
Windows NT is Microsoft's solution to running Windows on non-
Intel chips. It's used as a network server a lot. But its
interface is currently the same as Windows 3.1. It does manage
memory better (for applications -- although it uses a lot itself),
but it's probably overkill on a single workstation (as long as
Windows or Workgroups is serving you well).
I've run into more compatibility problems with Windows-based
16-bit applications running on NT than on 95 -- for example,
CorelDraw 4.0 would run but wouldn't save files -- something
about the way NT accesses the disk. (CorelDraw 5 runs well on
NT, thought.)
It's my impression that MS will market NT as more of a server
application than a workstation app (but I've been wrong in the
past). And I've heard that the next release of NT will adopt the
95 interface.
Windows 95 has a much different interface that previous Windows
products. It does multi-task nicely and manages memory better
than 3.x does. There are some compatibility problems, so I'm
sure that using 95 will result in your having to update some
of your applications (like Photoshop). But, for the most part,
16-bit applications run well and are usually a lot faster than
they are under 3.x.
The real question is -- why do you want to upgrade??? If your
clients are rapidly moving to 32-bit versions of their applications
and require you to use the Win 4.0 help compiler, you need 95
yesterday. You can choose to wait until MS updates the NT
interface, but you could lose a lot of business in the
meantime.
If your clients are sticking to 16-bit platforms for the
immediate future, you'll probably want to wait a little
until they iron all the kinks out of the interface.
BTW - it's possible to install Win 95 without disturbing
your present Win 3.x setup. Your machine will boot to 95
automatically, but at a certain point in the boot process,
pressing F4 recalls your last good installation of DOS
(and, consequently, your last good instalation of Win 3.x).
So if you're feeling a little nervous about the upgrade,
and if you have the disk space, you can hedge your bets
and run both versions.
And the story I heard about OS/2 is that IBM has decided
to target the server market with their OS/2 product and to
de-emphasize desktop/workstation installations. So the
product isn't going away, it's just being retargeted to
the market where they think they'll get the most money.
Sue Gallagher
sgallagher -at- starbasecorp -dot- com
