As you can see, Windows 95 tends to come up tops for the average user. If you like to play games, surf the Web, do your bills or email your congresswoman, this is probably what you want. While it did take a while for drivers to start appearing to support older hardware, they did eventually come. Windows 95 enjoys an installed base of 40+ million machines, and the OEM computer manufacturers are increasing that number daily. Thus, your chances of finding support for a given peripheral in Windows 95 are probably pretty good.

There are some exceptions, though. For instance, I am vacationing in San Diego, Calif. and writing this article on an antique 386 laptop (running Win95, of course). I have a Xircom combination Ethernet and Modem Adapter that plugs into the parallel port, but when I checked with Xircom to see about some drivers, I was told that none were available for Windows 95. So I'm stuck with a $100 paperweight.

Now, Xircom has their reasons: They are in business to sell hardware, and if they support an older device past a year or two, that cuts into their current profit. I don't have to like it, but that is how the market works.

While Windows 95 offers 32 bit performance, Microsoft was snowing us when it said that the OS was 32 bit. It would be more accurate to say that much of the architecture is 32 bit, but to retain most of its reverse compatibility with Windows 3.11 and DOS applictions, many 16 bit components and subsystems remain. This means that Windows 95 is capable of running most of the old software out there, but can't truely claim to be a 32 bit OS because of it.

The upshot of all of this is that Microsoft did a remarkable job satisfying the vast majority of its customers, as far as compatibility is concerned. But the backward compatibility hampered the ability to really supercharge the Operating System.

Windows NT: Power! Speed! Well Mostly...

Whats different? Not much. Like a VW Beetle with a Rolls Royce hood, this is the same Windows NT that you knew as 3.51. The major change is the interface: Microsoft saw the response to Windows 95's interface and promptly welded it onto the front of the Windows NT architecture. All this means is that NT looks like Win95, but has a powerhouse under the hood. This is great if you balance your checkbook, write you mother, play Duke Nukem 3D, and render a 3 meg AutoCad file all at the same time. But if you just want to wade through a CAD file and do nothing else NT is not for you. This is why NT makes such a great server: It can effortlessly deal out data to many co-current connections at the same time. But running a single application on it doesn't buy you anything. NT will give you a mere extra 15% of a speed boost over Windows 95: not worth the loss of Plug N Play, reverse compatibility, and ubiquitous driver support. NT's only advantage over Windows 95 is its capacity to multitask more efficiently.

Thus, if the recent claims about the "screaming" power of AutoCAD under Windows NT have you salivating, reconsider. Windows NT and Windows 95 will converge...eventually. That time has not arrived, and with the SRU (Shell Release Update) of the erstwhile unnamed Windows 97 looming on the horizon, there are more significant reasons not to jump to Windows NT. Pull out your abacus and do the math: Windows 95 tech support is free for the first 90 days, after which it is $35 per call. Windows NT offers only 2 free calls to assist with setup, after which the cost per call for support is $95. And we wonder how Bill Gates made his millions?

Next month I'll let you know how to get the best technical support possible for your computer.

Peace,

Webwalker