Much has been written about Windows 95 in the last few months. Although I can't begin to summarize everything there is to know about it here, I can give you a brief run-down on some pros and cons, and some issues to consider.
On the plus side, the user interface (the on-screen controls presented by the system to operate your computer and its programs) is more intuitive and easier to use. In fact, it's more like the Macintosh interface in a number of ways, which has always been considered more user-friendly. Current Windows 3.1 users might need a bit of time and training to get used to some of the new concepts, but once they do, computer operations should make more sense and take less time than before.
Another welcome change, and another feature that Mac users take for granted, is the ability to use long, descriptive file names instead of the current DOS formula of an eight-character file name, a period, and a three-character extension. With Windows 95 you can use up to 250 characters to give each file a name that not only makes sense now, but will make sense weeks from now when its creation is but a dim memory.
Windows 95 has what's called a 32-bit architecture, which allows your computer to do many tasks at once. With the current version of Windows, multiple programs can be running, but only the one in the foreground is actually active, while the ones in the background are suspended. Windows 95's "multitasking," as it's called, will allow you to copy important files to a floppy disk for safekeeping, while at the same time download files via modem from the Internet, while at the same time print a document, while at the same time sort your mailing list, while at the same time play your favorite game (assuming your computer has enough RAM chip memory to load that many programs in the first place.)
Speaking of RAM, now we get to one of the downsides of Windows 95 -- higher horsepower requirements. Although Microsoft's official minimum requirements for running Windows 95 are a 386DX processor and 4MB of RAM, they recommend at least a 486 with 8MB of RAM. And for industrial-strength use, most computer publications are calling for a Pentium-class computer with at least 16MB of RAM or more.
Realistically, I wouldn't even think about installing Windows 95 on anything less than a 486 with 8MB of RAM. So this means if your computer is less powerful than that, buying Windows 95 is just the tip of the iceberg -- you're also looking at a processor upgrade, a memory upgrade, or perhaps a whole new computer. And to a large company with hundreds of computers, these upgrade costs can be considerable.
Another aspect of upgrading to Windows 95 is the fact that today's Windows software won't be able to take advantage of many of the new features, like long filenames. To fully take advantage of all the benefits of Windows 95, you’ll have to upgrade all your programs to the Windows 95 versions which support all the fancy new features. So it's important to realize there can be hidden costs beyond just the purchase price of Windows 95 (which is around $90 through mail-order), and to decide whether these costs justify the value to you of the new features and capabilities you will gain by upgrading to Windows 95.
There's a lot more to know about Windows 95, and any current computer magazine can fill you in. But should you buy it? Well, IF you're not a large company and IF your computer has enough muscle and even IF you can’t afford to upgrade all your current software, I say go for it. To a home or small business user, the are enough advantages even without Windows 95-specific program upgrades. And since all new computers will soon come with Windows 95 pre-installed, today's computer users will encounter it sooner or later whether they want to or not.
K.O.P.C.Online home > table of contents > Windows 95