Last year, when Windows 95 came out, the computer writers duly filled their columns. By then, however, I had tweaked Windows 3.1 into working the way it should (the way that was promised by Microsoft when Windows first came out). It did not crash without ample warning enabling me to save any work. It ran four or five major programs at once. It had a extra menu to access often-used programs easily.
How was this possible? By adding Ramgate, Magna-Ram and Plannet (correct) Crafters’ Plug-In for Windows. Together they cost a tad more than Windows 95, but everything was working and if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I had a souped up version with triple overhead camshafts, twin SU carburettors and a fox tail on the aerial. Should I trade this in for the latest model Commodore?
I was told that if I want to get seamless Internet connection with Netscape 2.0 whether my laptop was docked or standing alone, Windows 95 was the way to go.
As more new computers appear with Windows 95 on them (you cannot buy Windows 3.1 any more so buyers of new computers get no choice), more people are wondering whether to make the change to stay compatible.
A new Microsoft operating system is a bit like an excellent red. It needs to be cellared for a year or more before it is drinkable. Windows 95 is no exception.
The theory is you put the Windows 95 CD in and hit set-up. It then wanders about checking your hardware and loading appropriate drivers and things to make it all run properly. When loaded, you can have seven or eight programs running at once and it does not crash. It would take about half and hour to load.
The practice was different. At the end of the day, I had lost the ability to print at work from the docking station or at home with the laptop standing alone. And I could not use the CD drive.
Day Two. I got the CD running, but the Encyclopedia Britainnica did not like Windows 95. Their head office in Chicago responded to my e-mail pleas very promptly.
Day Three. The boffins at work had to load a “”patch” to get the network printer to work. The Canon help desk responded with quickly to my pleas for help, telling me to uninstall all the printing software and reload it.
It took a lot of mucking about.
But it did recognise whether the laptop was docked or not. It setup two boot-up methods, docked and undocked each automatically recognising the different hardware attached. That took a lot of mucking about to get to work under Windows 3.1. Also Windows 95 did a good job with the fax modem.
Then I loaded Office for Windows 95 and filled the hard disk of 320 megabytes (even on DoubleSpace) do I had to unload Access.
Every new version of software requires more disk space and more RAM. The software and hardware merchants chase each other, each expecting too much of the other.
Windows 95 has crashed several times with not much provocation and without much warning, but it allows many more programs to be simultaneously open than plain Windows 3.1.
As for value for money, of both Windows 95 and Microsoft Office, when bought from scratch already loaded it is a reasonable decision, but to spend several hundred upgrading is another matter.
It seems we are reaching a plateau with software. The latest versions of Word and Excel, for example, are not profoundly different from the two earlier versions … certainly not different enough to warrant a large upgrade fee. A huge effort has gone into help menus, wizards and tutorials, which is fine for the first user, but of much less value to the upgrader. Menus and layout have been redesigned for the better, but once again there is not a huge change in functionality.
So, as you see more people with new computers running Windows 95 and its new software packages, do not feel obliged to shell out to catch up. They can still do with a little more cellaring.