🚀 go-pugleaf

terjeb@vestnett.no (Terje A. Bergesen) wrote:

>In article <40m24d$ojm@steel.interlog.com>,
>daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue) wrote:

>[Compress]
>> >"Windows 95 - the upgrade of the century"
>> 
>> It is, for PC users and the PC architecture in general.

>That is - almost - an insult. I use OS/2, NT and Linux on
>my PC. Windows 95 can't match ANY of them in ANY area (maybe
>except for installation, but I've done that already, and
>have no problem, so I don't care...)

The "except" in installation is simpy the biggest one.  As Mac users
have shown, the public _wants_ ease of use.  Silky-smooth multitasking
and rock-solid protection are nice, and you and I may appreciate them,
but the average person wants to plug in a device and watch it actually
_work_.  Plug and play, Autorun, hot-swapping of PCMCIA devices, and
the avoidance of the DOS prompt is _huge_ for the PC industry.

I know, because although I use a PC, I've recommended Mac's far more.
Because most people who ask me have very little computer experience.
Sure, they might get a properly configured and smooth working system,
but not always- and I don't want to be the one running over to help. 

Based on my experience with Win95, I will no longer be recommending
Macs only to first-time users.  The difference is that dramatic.
Perfect?  No, but so momentually improved over any other PC OS in
terms of easy-of use it appears to be.

>> >"How to prepare your computer for windows 95:"
>> 
>> An article telling you what you need to run 95.  God, how disgusting.

>Agreed.

What, in the sarcasm?  How is an article telling you what you'll need
to run 95 "disgusting"?  How is it different than ANY article on ANY
new OS?  OS/2, Copland were/will be no difference with respect to
their coverage on magazines that cover that platform.


>Well, very few of these magazines put on the fron cover:
>"Windows 95, a complete failure" and in small prints under
>that "Not even ONE of the features MS promissed have been
>delivered on".

Most magazines have no desire to lie outright.  MS has delivered on
most of their "promises" (did they ever "promise" anything)?  Every
review of 95 in these magazines I've read has always indicated:

1)Many of the GUI "enhancements" the Mac has had for a while, but it
is significant for the PC community.

2) Despite the promises of full-protection, 32-bit apps are not fully
protected.

3) There is still some DOS code in it.

The magazines I've read are from this year, not 2-3 years ago when the
"details" on Win95 were that its code name was "Chicago".


>Why don't they? You see, it would be VERY close to the
>truth. Not 100%, but close enough, and most magazines tend
>to paint things a bit in black and white.

No, closer to the truth in your own wishfull-thinking,
platform-bigoted view.  They've actually used 95.  They like it,
because it's far from flawless (NO OS is), but it certainly is a very
good product.