🚀 go-pugleaf

mobergru@oslonett.no (Rune Moberg) wrote:



>We've been running Win95 on some of our machines since February. Why should
>we wait? It's been betatested by an army of betatesters for quite some time.
>There are probably less bugs left, than any Windows 3.x version!

>Upgrade now, get more productive and earn in the investment faster.

I have to agree.  There are those who are saying that you should wait
for 95.1 before upgrading.

The fact is, 95 is an evolutionary, not revolutionary, step up from
Windows.  Because of this, it's incomparable to a brand-new OS written
from the ground up.

The first version of 95 released is already _far_ more stable and
reliable than the most tweaked Win3.1/WFWG configuration out there.
If users can stick with 3.1 and its faults, but avoid 95 because
there's not a ".1" after it, that's a ridiculous decision.  You will
have a far more stable and productive environment than the 3.1 you're
used to.

That doesn't mean 95 won't have bugs- just that its "bugs" are far
less severe than 3.1's major architectural flaws.