O.K. I'm new here, computers and me are starting to get along, for now.  Heres
my question and its about Windows95, I want some feedback of how are things
with you and Windows95.  Here are some of my experieces with the most
expencive beta edition of any software (so far as I know):
        Had to reboot my computer 95 times to get it started.
        It handdles my resources greatly(I start with 99% free instead of the
        usual 67%.
        So far the only problem I've had is that it doesn't want to end any
        kind of defragmentation program (it reboots itself just before
        the end).
        My roommate has problem with his HD controller, Windows95 doesn't want
        to recognize his.
        The hyperTerminal works great(I'm using it now).
        We had to spend an entire weekend just installing it.  Better change
        "Where do you want to go today" for "Wre you going somwhere tomorow"

Thanks a bunch for your attention.
Happy thoughts from P.R. from me!!!

68 responses total.

I agree about the time it takes to install it, although having installed it
on various systems more times than I care to count, I've gotten it to the
point where it doesn't take much time anymore.  I've generally been pretty
happy with it.  There is already an item on Win95 in the Micros conference,
so this discussion should probably move to that item rather than clogging up
Agora anymore than it already is.

Sorry about that, if anything I could do to move this tell me.  Sorry all you
guys and gals out there for the inconvenience.

Aw, don't believe anything he says.  All items belong in Agora.

Hey! We got rules here! Lessee, Volume 34, Chapter 19, Section 12,
Paragraph 134.5.2.1 - Agora -- blah blah - <oh, hell, who cares?>

1995 is almost over.  Has anyone heard anything about Windoze 96 yet?

...now with TINT CONTROL.....

I think that's the idea of the date-based naming scheme.  Microsoft's biggest
peeve for years has been people who refuse to upgrade.  They just keep running
the old version of the software.  "Windows 3.11" sounds about as good now
now as it always has.  But the "Windows95" name, which sounds so snazzy and
current now, will very quickly sound obviously old and obsolete.  The whole
idea of this naming style is to make people more consciously aware of the
fact that they are out-of-fashion, and thus make them more willing to send
more money to Microsoft for the next version.

It's a sleazy strategy, but it'll work.

It's pretty much in step with the whole current computers-as-fashion-items
marketing strategy.  I keep hoping that the public will eventually figure
out that computers are supposed to be tools, like washing machines and lawn-
mowers, that should be judged on their quality.  But right now we have the
dual problems that (1) the public is too ignorant to recognize quality in
software, and (2) there is so little quality software out there that shopping
for quality often isn't an alternative.

   Remember, the person in charge of marketing at Microsoft was
hired away from (get this)

                      Revlon

   It explains a lot of things, all of a sudden.  Whatever else
you might say about Bill Gates, he makes a lot of good business
decisions.

Windows 95 makes me feel like it's last years model.  The car dealers are
all trying to get rid of their 95 models to make room for the better 96
models.

Lotus is already naming their Office products '96', no doubt in order to make
Microsoft's Office for 95 sound obsolete.  

Yeah, I think you can count on that happening.  I just got the "December 1995"
issue of "Sierra" magazine in the mail yesterday.  I think next-year's-date
will become the standard software-labelling technique.  Windows 95 was
released late.  It was meant to be out early in 95.  I'd guess there will
be no Windows96 (it'd have to be released about now which would really piss
off Windows95 buyers), and that we'll see Windows97 in about a year.

Microsoft is miserable at developing good software, but jeepers they do a
wonderful job of marketing it.

Thanks for the info on the Revlon connection.  I hadn't known that.  It
makes a lot of sense.

#8: Bill Gates makes brilliant business decisions because he knows the
    market like no one else does.

There will probably be something like an Upgrade96 that will up Windows 95.

As long as it knows Daylight Savings time starts once a year, rather than once
an hour... ;)

I have a feeling that in late 96 or early 97, Win NT 96 or Win NT 97 will
start taking over.

Aggree with Autolycus but not in such early
May be some three years later
MS sure know marketing better than developing the soft ware
Just like Bill Gates says about long time plan (or something like that)
Sure he have a good patience during MS monopoly
In just a few years from now he will retire cause he gets what he wants
He's just a damn good man doing a lot of homework
How bout u?

I miss Fortran '77.

I miss vacuum tubes.

If you really need a Fortran '77 fix, I teach a course in it
now and then. Feel free to drop by my classroom.

   you miss vacuum tubes? become a ham and discover them once again ;)

I'm a musician, and have fun with them that way.  :)

I miss front panels. Those lights were *useful*. The switches were cool too.
PS: g77 was recently released, so we could put a Fortran compiler on Grex
if we wanted to....

...but, being sane individuals, we don't want to.

Speak for yourself. %-)

        Well....,
        Life sure goes on...even though it's sucks.

  A friend of mine just had Win 95 trash itself for the fourth time.
"Kernel error.  Windows must be reinstalled."  It surprised me it
even knew this message.  It was working fine, until MS Plus was added.
Plus restarted the system, which wouldn't boot Windows after that.
 
  Saw a kind of amazing/amusing article excerpt from an interview with
Bill Gates...it's about 50 lines, included below.  He contends that
people never upgrade to fix bugs, they only upgrade for new features.
 
 > In an interview for German weekly magazine FOCUS (nr.43, October
 > 23,1995, pages 206-212), Microsoft`s Mr. Bill Gates has made some
 > statements about software quality of MS products. After lengthy
 > inquiries about how PCs should and could be used (including some angry
 > comments on some questions which Mr. Gates evidently did not like), the
 > interviewer comes to storage requirements of MS products; it ends with
 > the following dispute (translated by submitter; at some interesting
 > points, I added the German phrase):
 > 
 >     Focus: But it is a fact: if you buy a new version of a program to
 >         overcome faults of an old one, you unavoidably get more
 >         features and need more storage.
 >     Gates: We have strong competitors and produce only products which
 >         we believe to be able to sell. New versions are not offered
 >         to cure faults. I have never heard of a less relevant reason
 >         to bring a new version on the market.
 > 
 >     Focus: There are always bugs in programs.
 >     Gates: No. There are no essential bugs ("keine bedeutenden Fehler")
 >         in our software which a significant number fo users might
 >         wish to be removed.
 > 
 >     Focus: Hey? I get always crazy when my Macintosh Word 5.1 hides
 >         page numbers under my text.
 >     Gates: Maybe you make errors, have you ever thought about that? It
 >         often appears that machine addicts ("Maschinenstuermer")
 >         cannot use software properly. We install new features
 >         because we were asked to. Nobody would buy a new software
 >         because of bugs in an old one.
 > 
 >     Focus: If I call a hotline or a dealer and complain about a
 >         problem, I have to hear: `Get the update to version 6`.
 >         Everybody has such experiences. This is how the system
 >         works.
 >     Gates: We pay 500 million $ a year for telephone advice. Less than
 >         1% of calls which we get has to do with software bugs. Most
 >         callers wish advice. You are kindly invited to listen to the
 >         millions of calls.  You must wait for weeks until one
 >         complains about a bug.
 > 
 >     Focus: But where does this feeling of frustration come from which
 >         unites PC users? Everybody is confronted every day that
 >         programs do not work as they should?
 >     Gates: That is talking, following the motto: `yes, I also know
 >         about this bug`. I understand this as sociological
 >         phenomenon, not as technical.

I've long suspected that Gates is so insulated behine, not just a huge
managerial machine, but an army of technical people, that he may honestly not
be aware of just how damn fragile alot of Microsoft products really are.
Consider: Most likly his home machine(s), and almost certainly his office
machine(s), are installed and setup on top-of-the-line equipment by the
company's most skilled and knowledgable hardware and software people. Plus,
if he does have a problem, he gets instant support, and not from some drone
in customer support, but probably from the guy who wrote the software.

Sounds like your are just about right, I have installed 3 so far and they
took 25 hours apice...

I ran into a wild story on the last one, seem Microsoft taled to all the
video vendors and designed WIN95 around what they found out. Seems my 
video chipset was discontinued in 1993, the vendor went on to other things.
To make a long story short, 12 product lines and bunches of video are not
supported correctly-world wide. Microsoft thougth that the newer chipsets
were more efficient and ignored all the former suppliers. OUCH! That machine
is waiting for an emergency driver, I can not use any DOS apps from 
Windows on that machine.

Yeah gregc..I think you're right absolutely right

The bitching and whining about Microsoft and Gates show a lack of 
understanding about the Intel-based computer industry.

Here are some *facts* people should consider:
1) In the Intel-based market, there are literally thousands of system
   integrators. In any other market (Mac, SUN, HP, etc.) there is only
   one system integrator. MS's software for Intel-based machines has to
   run on these thousands of different machines. Apple's software has to
   run on their own Macs. 
2) These thousands of machines use motherboards from hundreds of different
   motherboard manufacturers and a handful of different chipsets and BIOSes.
3) For the Intel-based market, there are hundreds of different kinds of
   video cards.
4) For the Intel-based market, there are hundreds of different kinds of
   hard disk controllers and hard disks. 
5) For the Intel-based market, there are hundreds of different kinds of
   network cards and other peripherals.

Compare the Intel-based market described above to other markets and you will
see why it is extremely difficult to come up with a flawless, easy to 
install operating system. 

If you think Win95 is difficult to install, try installing Linux or another
unix with x-Windows on your Intel-based machine. Try OS/2 or NeXTStep. 
Try BSDI. The limitations of these operating systems will make you think
that Microsoft is sent from heaven. 

As an industry insider, sometimes I am amazed that Microsoft can create 
an operating system that works on such a wide array of machines. As an
industry insider, I also hear about the problems people have with operating
systems and software from vendors beside Microsoft and I can tell you they
are much more severe. 

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence... Until you get
to the other side and find out that it's full of weeds and your grass 
really was better. 

There is nothing wrong with fence jumping, though what you like depends
on your taste.  If you want plug & play with few installation hastles,
take a serious look at the Mac line (Or one of their clones.)  If you want
to swing with the in-crowd, have access to more software than you can
imagine, don't mind learning about your system and pulling out a few
hairs in the process, get onto the DOS/PC/Intel/Microsoft bandwagon.  
Just watch out for the junk.  There is *TONS* of it out there.  If you into
getting a PC, talk with someone like rogue at CCS.  He lives, breathes
and makes his living on knowing the PC world and can make the trip less
painful.  There arn't as many traps in the Mac \ Mac clone world. 
Either way it's not worth jumping the fence if you'r running a recent
PC / DOS system already since it would be too expensive software-wise
to justify the expense.  I run both.  Our working compute is a Mac.  My
fun machine is a PC.  (So much more to puzzel over and to try to figure
out.  Makes the Mac boaring ;-)

Re #30: Well, I run both Win95 and Linux on an Intel machine
(purchased from CCS) and did not find Win95 materially easier
to get working right--there were configuration problems with
both that took a while to solve. Linux is much easier to
install than it used to be, thanks to the existence of
distributions on CD-ROM with well-written menu-oriented
installation scripts, and thanks to kernels that are pretty
smart about detecting hardware.
   Good point about the range of hardware that Win95 must
support, but much the same thing is true of Linux, and although
Linux hasn't quite kept up with Microsoft in this department,
it's done remarkably well considering that it's almost entirely
a volunteer effort, in contrast to the millions for R&D that
Microsoft can spend. Money isn't everything.
   Once they're installed, Win95 has the greater range of
applications but Linux has better support for the kind of
software development that I do. Also, Linux seems more robust
and crash-resistant. I'd find it difficult to do without either
OS, and as to "heaven-sent", well, I guess I'm a pantheist and
am able to find bits of heaven in lots of things, as well as
decent portions of hell. Microsoft products are still of human
scale as far as I'm concerned.
   Win95 beats Win 3.1 hands down, of course.

#32: You specifically bought components which you knew or suspected would
     work with Linux. Imagine if you had gotten a "standard" system or,
     heaven forbid, a Packard Bell and tried to install Linux on it. 

     Last time I checked, operating systems like Linux and NeXTStep only
     supported a handful of video cards, hard disk controllers and network
     cards. Win95's support is much more extensive -- amazingly extensive.

  I agree that MS achieved phenomenal compatibility considering how many
different interface cards it has to work with.  It's a major accomplishment.
It ensures MS's long-term dominance in the Intel-based OS market.
 
  But while Apple doesn't have nearly the same technical hurdles to overcome,
with fewer cards to support, the end result is also a less troublesome system
configuration.  That it's "harder" for MS does not make me prefer Win95 setup
over Sys7 setup.

I also bought a system that I specifically knew would work with Linux, except
for one thing -- I was installing off CD, but I didn't have a CD-ROM drive.
To get around that I borrowed a CD-ROM drive and a SCSI controller from a
friend.  Then we found out that the Linux install program wouldn't support
the SCSI controller, and ended up having to copy the CD to a spare hard drive
and then installing off the hard drive.  It was a pain, even if the rest of
my system ran fine with Linux after I had it installed.  By contrast, I do
Windows 95 instalations all the time on lots of different systems, and have
yet to run into a really big problem with it, even on an otherwise very
problematic Packard Bell that a client had.

#34: I agree. I'm explaining to the Gates-haters who think Microsoft 
     programming is incompetent that they don't have the slightest clue
     what kind of hurdles Microsoft has to overcome to produce an operating
     system for the Intel-based market. 

     Imagine if the only Intel-based machines were, say, Compaqs. The only
     video cards were, say, ATIs. The only hard disk controllers were
     SCSI and were, say, Adaptecs. How much easier would the installation,
     configuration and operation of an operating system like Win95 be?

#35: Exactly. As a supplier, I can relate and say that the problems people
     have with Linux, BSDI, OS/2, and other OSs are much more severe and
     numerous than the problems people have with DOS, Windows, WFW, Win95
     and Win NT. 

#36: rogue {Autolycus} don't get too carried over with that ,
as far as i'm concern Intel work side by side with MS to make it easier.
Win 95 will became a de facto standard in these coming years if they can
handle about these in com patiblelity with these compatibles with Intel help
**WARNING--MS will take over the industry in 10 yers to come ,be ready
        but what the heck......
        they are getting richer 
        while making the world a better place to live
        we have to be patient with it
        A man heaven is another man hell

I read in an article that MS would probably be in danger within the next 
ten years because of the new networking programs that make all computers
capabl;e of talking to each other.

Microsoft has enough cash to buy all those networking programs, directly
or indirectly. Microsoft is steadily buying up the infrastructure
of the future.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss