--------------------------- Begin X.400 Bodypart 1 --------------------------
David,
I can help you out with Windows 95, but I do not have any hands on
experience with Windows NT so "take the NT information with a grain of
salt".
WIN 95 benefits:
"a better look and feel"
Micorsoft has corrected a number of the difficult user problems related
to the overall user interface. There is no longer a separate Program
Manager and File Manager Windows.
Files can be given real English names!!! Instead of truncated ones (i.e.,
ipctech.txt)
There is a Start Menu that is continuously accessible that allows you to
start any of the application that you frequently use. In addition there
is a task bar that shows you all of the applications that you are
currently running, and switch rapidly between them.
"better operating system"
Windows 95 allows true multitasking without frequent lock-ups (I think
this is also true for Windows NT). With Wndows 95 you can actually RUN
multiple operations in the background without significantly compromising
the performance of other applications.
"plug and play"
Windows 95 can detect and configure add on hardware (i.e., modem and
video cards) without requiring you to modify config.sys files or change
jumper settings.
Yes there are drawbacks....more memory. Microsoft recommends 8MB. I
would feel better with 16MB.
Hope this helped.
Kevin
[log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
=================
========== On Sun, 3 Sept 1995 - ipc!ipc.org!technet-request wrote:
==========
To: technet @ ipc.org at EXTERNAL@CCMAIL
cc: (bcc: Kevin Sheehan/SMC)
From: ipc!ipc.org!technet-request @ wwa.com at EXTERNAL@CCMAIL
Date: 09/03/95 11:11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Windows, Windows and more Windows
--------------------------- Begin X.400 Bodypart 2 --------------------------
<<To whom ---
Could someone please explain, in laymen's terms, the differences
among Windows 3.1, Windows NT and Windows 95. I asked this
question
last week and received no response. Either no one knew, or more
likely the case, I screwed up--operator error. I'll try again.
Thanks in advance. >>
Bob,
It would help to narrow the answer If you could be more specific. What type
of tasks are you performing? What are your hardware specifics? Can I assume
you are currently using DOS?
David Pizzoferrato
[log in to unmask]
--------------------------- Begin X.400 Bodypart 3 --------------------------
RFC-822-Headers:
Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from mail.smc.com by open400.smc.com (5.65/1.35)
id AA13324; Sun, 3 Sep 95 15:11:42 GMT
Received: from miso.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by mail.smc.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA09360; Sun, 3 Sep 1995 11:09:30 -0400
Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 11:09:30 -0400
Received: from ipc by miso.wwa.com with uucp
(Smail3.1.28.1 #8) id m0spGgH-000FejC; Sun, 3 Sep 95 10:09 CDT
Received: by ipchq.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0spG01-0000GpC; Sun, 3 Sep 95 09:26 CDT
Old-Return-Path: <miso!aol.com!MacLab>
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 04:12:39 -0400
Resent-Message-Id: <"YA4c13.0.PH9.6iRIm"@ipc>
Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/1023
X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
----------------------------- End X.400 Bodyparts ----------------------------
|
