|
| |
LEMMINGS 95? |
|
by Wayne M. Krakau - Chicago Computer Guide,
July 1995 |
|
Lemmings - "Small animals of northern latitudes
. . . noted for occasional migrations . . . many thousands of animals . . . always pushing
on until they enter the sea and are drowned." (From The Little & Ives Complete
Book of Science.) |
Lemmings 95 - Large animals (two-legged) of multiple
latitudes . . . noted for occasional mass operating system purchases . . . many thousands
of animals . . . always buying until their systems crash. (From Chairman Waynes
Little Red Book of Semi-Coherent Rave-Outs - yeah, right.) |
You dont have to read Nostradamus to predict
this upcoming disaster. Millions of users purchasing a new operating system and blindly
running the install program. Windows 95 has been the subject of what will probably become
known as the greatest marketing campaign in history. Its the Hype-Monster that ate
New Jersey! The people at that marketing juggernaut Procter & Gamble are probably
weeping in envy. |
Has everyone forgotten the old (in computer industry
terms) adage about not buying version 1.0 (even if they name it 4.0, since it is a
descendent of Windows 3.11) of any software - especially operating system software? Have
they forgotten the history of the original versions of DOS, OS/2, and Windows NT? Lest you
think that I am anti-Microsoft (or worse yet, a Luddite infiltrator within the computer
industry), let me place NetWare 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 into evidence. (Hmm - perchance
just a bit too much O.J. trial viewing?) |
Remember, that this use of initial NetWare versions
as bad examples is from a person known for being an enthusiastic (some would say rabid)
supporter of Novell. As a matter of corporate survival, Novell was forced to publish
NetWare 4.0 in spite of bugs, incompatibilities, and the last-minute removal of advertised
features. NetWare 4.01 and 4.02 consisted mainly of patches and bug fixes. It wasnt
until the issuance of NetWare 4.1 that a stable, full-featured version was available.
(This brings back memories of the NetWare 2.0 to 2.0a and NetWare 3.0 to 3.11
transitions.) On ethical grounds, I discouraged clients from jumping on the NetWare 4.0
bandwagon without giving serious consideration to its aforementioned (Oops, another
O.J.-ism.) limitations. NetWare 4.1 is, of course, another story. I have become an ardent
proponent of that network operating system. |
In Microsofts case, the companys
reputation and future enhanced profitability, rather than its survival, are at stake. (I
am convinced that Microsoft will go out in a blaze of glory when Bill Gates buys several
of the former U.S.S.R. republics, uses their remaining missiles to launch a nuclear
first-strike against Orem and Provo, Utah [Novells headquarters] and Armonk, New
York [IBMs headquarters], and is killed by an accidental retaliatory strike from
U.S. forces after a Washington bureaucrat misfiles a newly passed [strictly along party
lines, of course] bill exempting nuclear warfare from antitrust prosecution - and
retaliation.) |
Along with the obvious, absolutely gushing, free
publicity that Windows 95 is getting, much of the hype is driven by myths. The first myth
is that good ol Windows 3.1x is inherently unstable and Windows 95 is rock-solid
stable. While I will admit that it is easier to crash 3.1x than 95, the only unstable
Windows 3.1x systems that I encounter are due to the improper configuration of DOS, memory
managers, add-in cards, or Windows itself. No operating system (or for that matter
application or utility software) will run optimally by just executing the install program.
Its even worse for hardware. If you want "civilians" or computer
professionals from other arenas to install and maintain their own systems, you just have
to accept the risk that they wont do it right. Its not their fault - they just
dont have the appropriate level of systems integration knowledge. |
As to the alleged stability of Windows 95, that is
based on the belief that Windows 95 is a 100% 32-bit fully protected operating system.
Sorry, folks - its not. The only way Windows 95 could provide a relatively high
level of compatibility (though not complete) with old applications was to keep portions of
our old 16-bit friend, MS-DOS. This has been repeatedly documented in the national press
(despite denials by Microsoft), so I wont get into the technical details. Many
specific methods of crashing Windows 95 have also been published, providing practical
examples of this theoretical weakness. Please do note that even a real full 32-bit
"protected" operating system can crash, anyway! There is no magic involved. If
you live by the bug you die by the bug. (Alright, stop groaning!) |
Now, for the tricky questions. Do I believe that
Windows 95 will bulldoze the competition into the ground? Yes. Do I believe that it is the
proper successor of Windows 3.1x? Yes. Do I believe Windows 95 has valuable new features
heretofore (O.J.!) unavailable to Windows 3.1x users. Yes. |
Will I sell Windows 95 to my clients? Whoa -
thats a tough one. I would be happy to sell it to corporate types in a position that
requires them to research such products for possible future use in a production
environment. I would also be happy to sell it to developers who need to get a head start
on the upcoming market for Windows 95 applications. For everybody else, I will recommend
that they wait for a "mature" version, such as 1.1 (or at least 1.01) before
putting Windows 95 on production computers. This way, they can stand by and watch the
lemmings flounder in the sea while waiting for all of the bug fixes, hints, tips, and
tricks to be published. I will also recommend that they use latex rather than leather
gloves and then remember to dispose of them discreetly. |
|
©1995, Wayne M. Krakau |
|