The Cutting Edge: COMPUTING / TECHNOLOGY / INNOVATION : A Step, Not a Leap, in Microsoft’s Windows 95
For years, Microsoft has been talking about its next-generation operating system, and if all goes well, Windows 95 will finally arrive Aug. 24. Based on my tests of the latest pre-release version, it appears Microsoft should make the deadline--barring last-minute action by the Justice Department over the inclusion of the Microsoft Network software in Windows 95.
As product launches go, Windows 95 is pretty monumental. It is expected to sell tens of millions of copies and give a huge revenue boost not only to Microsoft, but to a wide range of other applications, software developers and hardware vendors. Indeed, some stock analysts say the buying cycle that many expect Windows 95 to ignite is now driving the entire stock market. Rarely has a single product of any kind had so much significance for the overall economy.
Still, all this anticipation aside, upgrading to Windows 95 will not be the right decision for everyone. When considering whether to take the plunge, potential Windows 95 users need to ask themselves, “What will Windows 95 do for me?” I’ll try to give at least some of the answers here.
For starters, be advised that Windows 95 does have some nice enhancements, but it’s not a revolutionary way to use a computer. It is a major improvement over what Windows users are running today, but there is little in Windows 95 that could be called a breakthrough, especially when compared to Macintosh and OS/2 operating systems. Even when compared to Windows 3.1, the differences, while significant, are not overwhelming.
When I moved from a typewriter to an Apple II, that was a paradigm shift. So was my transition from IBM PC to Apple Macintosh and from MS-DOS to Windows. The transition from a typewriter to a computer had a major impact on my life because it made it easy to correct my prose and it allowed me to transmit what I created to others around the world. Windows 95, however, falls short of a paradigm shift.
Although Microsoft doesn’t like the comparison, Windows 95 looks more like a Macintosh than the old Windows. Although you can still use the Program Manager, everything is kept on a desktop, Mac-style. Want access to a file or a program icon? Drag it onto the desktop. It’s easier to start programs thanks to a new “Start” button that’s on the lower left of the screen even while other programs are running. Click on the button and you can select from a menu of all your programs.
Another nice feature is file and folder “short cuts,” similar to “aliases” on the Mac. A short cut is a pointer to a folder or a file that you treat like the original. It lets you reorganize your desktop to suit your needs without having to move any actual files or directories. You can put short cuts on the desktop, stuff them within other folders or make them available on a network.
The advantages of Windows 95 over Windows 3.1 are subtle but significant. It may not be an issue for many users, but Windows 95 is much better at managing memory. Ever try to run several programs at a time under Windows 3.1? It doesn’t really matter how much memory you have, because if you run enough programs, you’ll run out of system resources long before you run out of memory. (System resources keep track of windows, icons, menus and other attributes.) Windows 95 is much more efficient in how it uses resources.
As I write this column, I’m running Word, Excel, my computer glossary, a CD-ROM database and several small programs. I’m also connected to Prodigy and to the World Wide Web, yet I still have 40% of my system resources left. Windows 3.1 would have crashed long before I loaded in this many programs. People who don’t regularly run several programs at a time may not even notice or appreciate this improvement.
Windows 95 is also better at avoiding “crashes” that require you to restart the computer if a program goes astray. So-called 32-bit programs that have been optimized to work with Windows 95 will benefit from the operating system’s “preemptive multitasking,” which means that Windows will better coordinate how programs use memory and interact with each other. If a 32-bit program crashes, it won’t, in theory, cause Windows itself and other programs to stop working. But only those programs that are written or modified to take advantage of the new operating system will offer this advantage.
Windows 95 will run other Windows and MS-DOS programs pretty much the way they run now, but it will offer extra features with new versions of programs. Microsoft, Symantec and many other companies are expected to release Windows 95 versions of their popular programs as soon as the operating system becomes available. I’ve tested the operating system with lots of hardware devices and scores of older Windows and MS-DOS programs and have found only a couple that don’t work properly.
One thing most people will appreciate is Windows 95’s ability to use long file names. One of the biggest gripes of DOS and Windows users has been the requirement that file names be no more than eight characters plus an optional period followed by three additional characters. They can’t contain spaces and there are lots of other rules to follow.
Under DOS or Windows 3.1, the file that contains this column might be named WIN95REV.DOC instead of a more descriptive name such as “Review of Windows 95.” The new operating system lets you create file names up to 256 characters. Unfortunately, you can’t save files with long names with current (16-bit) Windows applications, but only with forthcoming Windows 95 programs.
There are other advantages, such as the ability to run a CD-ROM automatically when it’s inserted. Another feature, called “Plug and Play,” will automatically configure hardware devices as soon as they’re connected to the PC. This feature, however, will not work with most existing PCs and devices.
In fact, Windows 95 itself will not work well with many existing PCs. Although Microsoft says the minimum system requirements are a 386-based PC with 4 megabytes of RAM, Windows 95 will be hopelessly slow with this kind of setup. A 486 PC with 8 megabytes of RAM is a more realistic minimum, and I’d recommend a Pentium machine with 12 megabytes if you’re buying new hardware.
