500 MB Nyheder Direkte fra Internet 10/500 MB nyheder direkte fra internet CD 10.iso/start/progs/text/wwasc2_1.txt

Text File | 1996-01-28 | 203KB | 3,818 lines

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────





                       W  I  N  D  O  W  A  T  C  H

             The Electronic Windows Magazine of the Internet







Vol.2   No.1                                             January 1996
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
                          The Anniversary Issue
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Editorial Note:  This ascii edition would not have been possible
without Lin Sprague.  It is he who took the Word7 documents and
created this edition.  For our ascii readers we thank him. lbl


───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────page 2──
                                WHAT'S INSIDE
Vol.2  No. 1                                      January  1996
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                                     Editorial   Leonard Grossman
             Notes of Welcome   - Guest Editor   Herb Chong
                         The Anniversary Issue   Lois Laulicht
               The Best of WindoWatch Volume 1   M. Campbell
                           Windows95  Arrived!   Jon Halpern
                      On the Road to Windows95   Gregg Hommel
                               Whither Windows   Paul Kinnaly
                      Windows95 Nits and Picks   Phil Leonard
                                NT in the Home   Linda Rosenbaum
                                   Cellar 2020   Peter Neuendorffer
        Windows Aspect: A Tutorial - Part Nine   Gregg Hommel
                              A Thousand Times   Herb Chong
                  Computer Applianced Networks   Lois Laulicht
    Reflecting on the Internet and its Impacts   Jerome Laulicht
               Excel vs Lotus - and the Suites   Frank McGowan
                      A Report From the Israel   Stan Kanner
                  Reflections of a ModemJunkie   Leonard Grossman
                          The In-Touch Sampler   Lance Jones
                  A Guide to Software Revision   Derek Buchler
                             The "586" Upgrade   Paul Kinnaly
                            Herb's Art Gallery   Herb Chong
             Masterpieces from Talent Software   Jerome Laulicht



═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════page 3══
WindoWatch           The Electronic Windows Magazine of the Internet
Volume 2  No. 1                                        January  1996
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                            Take No Prisoners

                       (c)1996 by Leonard Grossman


There is a fire growing in my stomach!

Reagan's brilliant stroke must have us all tongue tied. In the face of
the most demeaning action by Congress in the history of the civil
service, we remain silent.

When they sent us home in November, I wasn't pleased, but I made the
best of it. Each day I did something special, something I couldn't have
done otherwise- -visited a friend in the hospital, spent a day with a
retired friend who had returned to the mid-west from Florida. I thought
I had a good attitude.

If this is what retirement is like, I thought, I can't wait, - so what
if I've got fourteen years to go. But this time it's different. I never
believed it would happen again. After all.. who has any thing to gain?
Won't everyone lose?

I log on the usenet and grab the clari.gov.policy.financial news every
hour... hoping for good news. I try to be adult and soph-isticated about
this, but my mood swings with each announce-ment .... and it hasn't
swung much for over a week. It just goes on and on. . .

It reminds of something I learned in my teaching days. Never make a
threat you don't want to fulfill. Here they threatened to send us
home... now they can't get out of it.

Who can give in? We are not in Japan, but so much is face.

It also reminds me of my early days as a teacher in other ways. In the
late 60's the Chicago teachers struck for the first time. It was over
quickly. Before that the mere threat of a lengthy strike made the city
quake. Then we went on a longer strike. The unthinkable occurred and yet
the city survived. After that each strike was longer. An unspoken
compact had been broken, yet the world did not end.

And the same is happening here. For years, the thought of an extended
shut down was a threat.. chaos would prevail. But now there is merely
silence...The indifference is deafening. We were pawns. Now we are less
than that -we have become ciphers.

Slowly a fire is growing in my stomach... a fire of anger!

I will never forget that Congress chose to go home and let us twist
slowly in the wind!

Regardless of how one feels about the priorities of a balanced budget,
the use of blackmail is abhorrent. Last year's revolution was not
complete. The majority party cannot yet regularly override a veto. They
do not have a mandate to dictate overwhelming change but merely the
opportunity to negotiate progress in the direction they have chosen.

This is still a democracy, whether they recognize it or not.

The idea that a failure to sign on to a fantasy long term budget plan is
a basis for shutting down the government is absurd. For the president to
cave in to short term fundamental changes in policy and funding when
more than a third of Congress has not agreed would be uncon-scionable.
Before major shifts of policy and direction occur in our democracy,
there must be a much greater consensus than now exists. That is why the
President has a veto and it takes 2/3's to override it.

The majority party has not yet made its case. If it can persuade the
voters next November, then it may have the required super majority in
congress to make the changes it desires. Until then, it should get on
with the business of governing and out of the blackmail business.

Forgive me for rambling so but there *is* a fire growing in my stomach!



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══──────────────────────page 4──
A Personal Note
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                    Editorial Comment from Herb Chong


I am quite proud, and a bit shell shocked still, by being the guest
editor for this issue of WindoWatch. As I write this, there are still
two articles outstanding and they are very important ones. Still, this
editorial has to be submitted so that Lois and Paul can do their magic
and make this loose collection of words into a complete issue.

When Lois asked me to guest edit the anniversary issue, I was delighted
and scared. I'm not one to like the limelight, but I have very firm
opinions on many things. I like to write and I like to ask myself
what-if questions. When I think about anniversaries and birthdays, I
always think both about the past and the future. I like to remember what
has happened and what might happen in the future. Speculation and then
trying to make that speculation a reality is my chance to make a
difference.

When I finally got around to asking the staff of writers for articles, I
had some definite opinions on some articles, and some half-formed ideas
on what the future articles would be. This issue is a mixture of
articles that try to understand some of what has happened to us in the
past year and what might happen to us in the next few years. The
technology itself is fascinating, but the technology in itself is
limiting. How technology, and specifically personal computer technology
in the case of WindoWatch, affects and is affected by people is part of
the râison d'étre of WindoWatch.

Oh, sure, we too, put in articles that explain how things work, and
cover some of the software and hardware we are running into today.
However, we also devote time not just in editorials but in articles
exploring how personal computers have affected us and how they might
affect us in the future. This has been my focus for this issue of
WindoWatch. As always, there will be plenty of controversy over what
some of the authors have written, but I don't expect people to think
alike. What a boring place it would be if everyone did. If, for a
moment, I've gotten you to think about what all this means, I've done my
job. - HC January 1996
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

       My Two Cents Worth!                   Lois Laulicht


It's been over a year since we hung out the WindoWatch shingle. Our
modest success is a tribute to our writers who hold down full time jobs,
have families, are short on time and don't get paid a sou for their very
professional efforts.

We at WindoWatch make waves! We are members of a professional community
where computers are our principal tool and primary interest.
Additionally we are members of an expanding and diverse community called
the Internet. And finally, we all know well, that what happens on
Capitol Hill impacts upon our industry and the many computer
professionals from both the public and private sectors.

I asked Herb Chong to oversee this important anniversary issue of the
magazine and as you will see he took a very solid whack and smacked it
out of the ball park. There is only one reprint from Vol 1 and that is
John Campbell's Getting Warped !

Our readers keep downloading the magazine and flatter us no end when
they ask when the next issue is going to be released. User groups
request use of the magazine and a few teachers have culled articles to
be used in their classrooms. It's all very gratifying.

Therefore to the Windows of all flavors users, we thank you for your
support. We dedicate this anniversary issue to those who have trekked
through obtuse configurations, out of memory messages, learning curves
of questionable ease and to those who have been in the trenches from the
very beginning of Windows! lbl



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══──────────────────────page 5──
On Getting Warped!                                   A Fable !
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                       A Trip to the Twilight Zone

                        (c)1995  by John Campbell


Looking back, it started just as any other day. If only I had known how
that day, and those to follow, would change my life. They say I can go
home soon so maybe I can make a fresh start. But I'm getting way ahead
of my story. Let me introduce myself. My name is John Campbell. I liked
to think that I was a reasonably normal person. I had a job, friends,
nice neighbors. But that was before OS/2 Warp entered my life.

The place where I worked used a lot of IBM terminal equipment. The IBM
Man, as we called him, occasionally showed up to repair something that
had quit working. Usually, we struck up a conversation particularly
since I had been bitten by the computer bug. We liked to trade notes
about the latest and greatest in technology. Now, I'm no expert,
understand, but I like to think I know enough about computers to be
dangerous.

Don, the IBM Man, always ended these encounters by asking if I had
switched to OS/2 yet. He preached OS/2 with the fervor of a born-again
Christian testifying at a tent revival meeting. I was "letting the world
pass me by," he warned. I ended these conversations by telling him I was
satisfied with Windows. At this, Don always retreated, muttering to
himself.

As time passed, I noticed that the computer magazines were doing more
articles on OS/2. The writers seemed especially impressed with the
newest incarnation - Warp. They were saying things like:

"User-friendly - easy to install - runs DOS & Windows programs
seamlessly -the Operating System of the Future."

Finally, my curiosity got the better of me. I decided to give Warp a
spin while awaiting the long-promised computing revolution from Redmond,
which, as the months passed, appeared to be more myth then reality. So,
what if there were rumors of installation headaches? I felt up to the
challenge . I sent off my order, and waited.

I spent the next day telling my friends and the local computer guru
types about the adventure I was about to undertake. The word spread like
lightning through the entire community. My friends at the local computer
consulting firm shook their heads in disbelief.

"OS/2?  Are you out of your mind, Campbell?

Aren't you getting a little too old to be asking for that kind of
trouble?" seemed to be the general consensus. Even the hackers who
frequented the local BBS were abuzz at the news. One teen commented to
another, "This Campbell must be some awesome dude, man."

While awaiting Warp, I perused the Compuserve, BBS and Usenet
conferences devoted to OS/2 in general, Warp in particular. A lot of
activity here, I soon discovered. I was troubled by some of the message
topics, such as "It ate my Computer," "How do I get rid of this thing?"
and "O Dear God, help me." Several messages even asked for the Suicide
Prevention Hotline number. I began to have doubts, but it was too late
now. I had committed myself. I quickly scanned headers, saving a message
here and there for future reference.

The UPS man showed up at my office the following day with an ordinary
looking package. I eagerly opened it, and beheld the large, white box
bearing the red OS/2 WARP logo down the side. I immediately asked for
the rest of the day off. No time to waste and I hurried home with my
treasure!


-DAY 1-

I opened the package and sorted through the contents of various manuals,
cards, and a cd-rom with two diskettes. I read some of the preliminary
stuff and then appraised my setup. I had 60 meg free on drive C, so I
decided on a dual-boot configuration, with Warp installed on C: . I had
already read through a compatibility list I retrieved from CIS, and it
appeared that I might have a problem with my Hercules Dynamite video
card, and perhaps my Sony 55E cd-rom drive, but, what the heck, it was
time to begin the installation!

I popped the first installation disk into my B: drive. And then it
struck me. This beastie has to be installed from Drive A! Muttering, I
pulled the case off my trusty Gateway 486 and began switching ribbon
connectors on the floppies. I then rebooted and made the appropriate
change in the CMOS. "There," I thought, "that wasn't so bad. Just a
minor setback!" I again slipped the first disk in my machine and
anxiously waited as the drive churned. I whooped for joy as the OS/2
Logo appeared! "Piece of cake," I smugly told myself.

I followed the on-screen instructions to change disks, and watched
various messages scroll by. It was now time to access the cd-rom to
continue. Then, BLAP! "Oh no, the dread red screen!" I had seen
references to the red screen in the online messages. Not good, Campbell.
Warp was telling me it couldn't find my cd-rom drive. Time to go back
and bone up on solutions.

I found some references to updated drivers for troublesome Sony drives
on Compuserve. I searched the OS libraries and came up with some likely
prospects, which I downloaded.

This time, no red screen! Instead, the display informed me that Warp was
examining . . .installing files . . . updating . . . configuring . . .
examining . . writing . . updating . . . "How long can this go on," I
wondered? Finally, after what seemed hours, Warp announced that it was
ready to reboot and do its thing. "Alright," I thought, "this is more
like it." The reboot proceeded, and, ... BLAP! No, not the red screen
this time, but rather a plain-jane screen proclaiming "TRAP! GOTCHA!
Write down these twenty-five cryptic numbers and call your technical
support folks!" I stared at the message in disbelief. It was now late in
the day. Call IBM? No way. I'll just reboot. The three-finger salute did
nothing... my computer was locked up tight. So I did a cold boot, and,
nothing! No familiar "Loading Ms-Dos". Instead two strange SYS something
or other symbols.

I needed some fresh air, so I decided to go out for a walk. But, as I
got up to leave, I felt a cold chill in the room. It was as though
something sinister was there with me. I looked around but saw nothing. I
shrugged and left. Uptown, I passed a bar.

Heretofore my drinking had been limited to maybe a mixed drink during
the social hour at the annual hobby convention. I now felt the need , so
I went in, sat down and ordered a Rum and Coke. That hit the spot so
well that I had another.

When I returned home rather late I was determined to recapture my
computer before calling it a night. I searched for my trusty DOS boot
disk. Aha! Found it. But wait - it's a 5 1/4 disk so I had to swap drive
letters. Cursing, I opened the case, and reversed the drives, then
changed the CMOS - again! OK, I was able to get to my DOS prompt and set
about the business of getting rid of Warp. Firing up my trusty Xtree, I
gasped at the sight of my C drive. New directories under directories,
nested under still more directories. Dozens of them - and then my eye
caught some strange files in the root directory. I stared in
bewilderment at one called EA DATA. SF. "No wonder this thing doesn't
work - these files have holes in them," I thought. Muttering, I reached
for Norton Disk Editor.

Between Xtree and Norton, I finally excised the last traces of Warp, or
so I thought. With a sigh of relief, I rebooted. BLAP! I sat stunned, as
the mysterious SYS jargon reappeared. "Surprise, I'm still here," it
proclaimed. I tried to tell myself "get hold of yourself, Campbell,
don't let this thing whip you."

Back to the conferences. Surprisingly, another 400 messages had been
posted since yesterday. I waded through the pitiful cries for help
posted by other Warp newbies. Several messages led me to believe that
Warp had tampered with my boot sector. "The nerve of this thing," I
muttered . . . I proceeded to do the recommended SYS C. But it was still
there. In desperation, I rummaged through my diagnostic disks, and
finally found a Norton Emergency disk I had prepared earlier, just in
case. No question that this qualified as an emergency, so I popped it
into my machine and told it to restore boot sector, partition tables,
everything. Success! I was able to reboot.

It was now well past midnight. Exhausted, I turned away from my
computer. "Whoa, what's that?" For a moment, I thought that I saw a
faint image in the room. And it seemed very cold again. I told myself it
was just my imagination. I had to get some sleep. I fell, exhausted,
into bed.


-DAY 2-

I had strange dreams that night- Steve Manes and a bunch of little men
wearing blue jackets hammering, sawing and using blow torches on my poor
computer. I awoke in a cold sweat. I was supposed to go to work, but I
called in sick. This Warp thing had to be tamed. So I headed straight
for my computer, armed with a new resolve. I checked the Warp
conferences for fresh insight, and was greeted by 650 new messages.
Undaunted, I began researching my problem. Time passed. I discovered
that I needed something called "Update Installation Diskettes," and a
"FixPak." It seemed that first one, then the other had to be run. But
wait, to run this FixPak thing I also needed a "kicker" disk, and had to
create disk "images?" I haunted online conferences and downloaded files
for what seemed hours. Finally, I had all of the necessary ingredients.

It was past noon, now, and I needed something to take my mind off all
this techno stuff. I went to the same bar I had visited yesterday. This
time, I ordered a whiskey - straight - and proceded to gulp several
more.

I was feeling a bit light-headed and giddy when I returned home. Several
neighbors gave me quizzical looks as I walked down the street. "What's
their problem" I wondered, "and when was that tree moved into the middle
of the sidewalk?"

Back at my computer, I made a note to replace the monitor, which had
become a little blurry. Strange, I hadn't noticed that defect before.

It was time to tackle the fixes. Lets see now, I create Corrective
Services Facility disks 1 and 2, and FixPak XR0W005 Corrective Service
disks 1, 2 and 3, being sure to label the latter three disks CSF so that
they will not be mistaken for the first two. Huh? This jargon was enough
to baffle someone who was stone, cold sober. I dutifully proceeded as
instructed and then began the install process again. The phone rang. It
was my boss, asking if I was feeling better and would be at work
tomorrow. I told him maybe, and hung up. Can't be disturbed now, I
thought. Again, Warp pondered... installed... diagnosed.... updated....
A good half-hour later, it decided it was satisfied, and rebooted. My
drives churned, then, the Warp desktop appeared! Success! Yes!

It was now evening and I hadn't eaten since morning, so I decided to
take a break. I hadn't shaved either, but no matter. I wolfed down a
hurriedly microwaved frozen something or other, and returned, excitedly,
to my computer. It was time to see what Warp was all about. As I entered
the room, I was certain that I saw a fleeting image in a corner. I
looked again, but there was nothing there. I shrugged and began studying
the strange new desktop image on the screen.

I opened the DOS folder. Five applications stared at me. But these were
not stuff I ever used. "Where are MY programs," I shouted! I looked in
the Windows folder. Only six applications had survived the migration to
Warp? "Steady Campbell," I muttered, maybe the good stuff is in this
Windows-OS/2 folder. Whew! My entire Windows desktop! It was still
alive! Time now to run my programs. I excitedly clicked and double
clicked here and there. I began to get that sinking feeling. Pipeline
couldn't find a key file, Acrobat sternly scolded me for daring to open
it in Standard Mode, Groliers couldn't find its database, Zoo Animals
claimed it didn't exist, and Myst screamed a timer initialization error
at me. As for the Windows 3.1 desktop, it merely blinked as I repeatedly
clicked it. I fled back to the DOS folder. "I've got to put some good
stuff in here, surely my trusty DOS programs will run," I thought.

Without reading the help file (that stuff's for sissies), I opened the
File Manager thingy, and proceeded to drag my DOS programs to the
desktop. Quickly, I clicked my new OzCIS icon. OZ tried to load, then
gave up the ghost, complaining that it couldn't find some file.

QmPro refused to budge. Not even a blink. Disgusted, I left, slamming
the door behind me. I headed for the bar.


-DAY 3-

It must have been the wee hours of the morning of Day 3 when I staggered
home. I don't remember anything more about that day.

I was awakened about noon by the phone ringing. It was the boss again. I
made some excuse about seeing a doctor, and hung up. Warp was now an
obsession. Surely, I can make it work. I just need to bone up a bit
more. I decided I might as well read the manual, and the online help.
Hmm, it seems programs have a "Settings Notebook," and there's a bit
more to adding programs than dragging them from a file listing. Gee,
this is getting involved. The notebook had page after page of settings.
Too much, Campbell. I decided to look in the OS/2 folder. Surely that
stuff's set up right. I decided to try the Internet Connection.
Patiently, I filled in question after question in the dialog boxes. At
last, I was ready to go online and get a user account. My modem dialed,
then tried to connect, and tried, and tried. I changed settings and
tried again. No connect. Now I was getting mad. I decided to go through
every blasted modem string the program listed, until I found one that
worked. Hours passed. I had tried thirty possibilities, and none worked.
I went to the bar.

As I returned home, I noted that several more trees had been moved into
the sidewalk, causing me to be rather badly bruised by the time I
crawled back into my house. No matter. I will tame this thing. I hated
to admit that it was time to call tech support. I called the number, and
was greeted by a menu. That menu led to another, and to still another.
By then, I wasn't sure where I was in the vast labyrinth that was IBM
tech support. Finally, I got a number for someone that handled
connection problems. It wasn't toll free, but so what. I called the
number. A voice said "hello." I asked if this was IBM. The voice cursed
and hung up on me. I went back to the bar.


-DAY 4-

Some new friends must have taken me home. When I awoke, it was midday. I
decided it was time to shave and get something to eat. I went out into
the sunlight. Neighbors gave me long and wary looks while hustling their
children back into their houses. My boss pulled up and demanded to know
what was going on. I told him to bug off. I wouldn't even think of
returning to work until I had conquered Warp. He muttered something
about everyone being expendable, and left, shaking his head. I went back
inside and headed for my computer. This time I was certain that I saw a
strange figure in the room. Whatever it was vanished as quickly as it
had appeared. I spent the rest of the day changing settings - dozens of
them. I actually got one program to run - briefly. I decided to
celebrate. I went to the bar.


-DAYS 5 - ?

Everything is beginning to run together now. I lost track of the passage
of time. Warp had become an addiction. I spent hours on end changing
parameters, following the online conferences, and haunting the bar,
which by now, was as much my home as the place where the cursed computer
lived. I got a pink slip in the mail. One day I seem to remember a
priest stopping by, offering to do an exorcism. The Warp people online
were exhorting the faithful to hang in there; that the new Windows was a
wimpy system, and that real men stayed with IBM, no matter what the
cost. Still, one poor soul pleaded with the sysop to give him Dr.
Kevorkian's phone number.

As for me, I continued to tweak, modify, and generally screw up every
application I had. Execution files took on strange new names, never to
execute again. Data files became mangled beyond belief or salvation.
There were online rumors that someone had actually gotten Myst to run
under Warp. He became an instant legend. By now I had actually gotten
several programs running - I think - as my monitor became more blurry
with every passing drink - I mean hour. Finally, my old Windows wheezed
and spurted to life on the Warp desktop. I was overjoyed! At last, I had
succeeded! I was now curious to see what would happen if I switched to
the PC Tools replacement desktop. I moved my mouse toward the icon.
Suddenly, I was again aware of a presence in the room. I could swear I
heard a chuckle.

I took a deep breath and clicked on the PC Tools icon. The new desk-top
appeared! But then, strange things began to happen. The Warp screen
began to bleed into the new one. Frantically, I began hitting keys.
Escape, Break, everything I could think of. But no use. Now, my screen
resembled a piece of Picasso art. The Warp and PC Tools screens had
become a montage of interleaved bits and pieces. And a strange hissing
noise erupted from inside my computer's case. It grew louder. I panicked
and grappled for the power off switch. Too late! My machine emitted a
final death rattle as it expired. The monitor blew, scattering pieces of
Warp and PC Tools all over the room, knocking me to the floor.


When I regained consciousness, I surveyed the wreckage that once was my
beloved computer. I began to cry. Suddenly, a ghostly figure appeared. I
rubbed my eyes and stared in amazement. The apparition looked familiar.
It was Bill Gates! "Sorry about your computer, Campbell," the ghost
began. I have been watching all along, just knowing that something like
this was going to happen.

But I am here to offer you salvation." "How did you do this?," I
sputtered. "You can't really be here. Is this some kind of Virtual
Reality trick?" Gates smiled. He replied "It's not really that hard.
Remember, we bought the Roman Catholic Church a while back. Well, now we
have access to the Vatican's Vision code. They've pretty much kept
visions all to themselves for centuries, you know. We modified it and
now call it 'Visional Reality.'"

By now, I was sobbing hysterically. " What do you want" I implored.
Gates, still smiling, held out a box. "This is your salvation, Campbell.
It's Windows 95. It's User-friendly - easy to install - runs DOS &
Windows programs seamlessly -the Operating System of the Future."

When I awoke, I was in this place. Must be a hospital, I thought. Did it
all really happen, or was it just a nightmare?

The door opened, and a man wearing a white jacket entered the room.
"Well, I see you're awake, Campbell," he said. "I'm Doctor Jones. We
were worried about you for a long time. Some people found you wandering
the streets, wild-eyed and raving. But I have every reason to believe
you can make a full recovery."

I asked if I could go home now. "Afraid not," replied the doctor. You
people who attempt to install Warp usually have to stay at least six
months. Takes a long time to recover from that experience."

I looked around. Something didn't look quite right about this place
--bars on the windows, for one thing. "Where am I?," I inquired." The
doctor smiled. "Don't worry, Campbell, we will take good care of you
here. Welcome to the FOREST HILLS SANATORIUM."


                             ***************
The best of WindoWatch Volume 1. This is the only Volume 1 article to be
reprinted in our Anniversary Issue! It first appeared in June 1995 -
Issue #5!

John M. Campbell is indeed full of all sorts of pleasant surprises. His
regular job as Manager of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Elkins,
WV doesn't appear to interfere to slow his creative bent. The whimsical
line drawings were done by Kathy Skidmore and Shauna Hambrick. John is a
regular contributor to WindoWatch.



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══──────────────────────page 6──
A Brief Windows Retrospective
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                            Windows 95 Arrived

                     Copyright 1996 Jonathan Halpern


On August 24, 1995, Microsoft's Windows 95 arrived at retail stores
following two years of delay and postponement. The official release of
Windows 95 was introduced by a massive media promotion, and the whole
process drew attention and controversy. This attention and controversy
resulted from the potential impact of the new operating system! An
operating system is the control program which runs a computer and
determines how it works and the look and feel of the screen display.
Microsoft is the dominant player in this field and its prior versions of
Windows are installed on more than 65 million personal computers. Thus
any event which might affect all of the users of these computers is
bound to be noticed. And noticed it has been! Windows 95 has spawned
books, both authorized and unauthorized, debate over its design, content
and performance, has received news coverage on TV, made the cover of
Business Week, and has gone far beyond the technical computing field.

A little history of personal computer operating systems will help
understand the events of 1995. Originally personal computers were
controlled by operating systems which were based on text. Computer users
typed in commands from a keyboard, and the computer responded
accordingly. However, research by Xerox, at its Palo Alto Research
Center showed that computer use would be easier if the computer
displayed pictures on the screen representing commands which would be
activated by pointing at them. This was called a graphical user
interface.

The first popular use of a graphical user interface was on the Apple
Macintosh computer. Microsoft, which provided the text based operating
system for the IBM class of computers, felt the need to compete and thus
in November 1983, announced Windows, to be shipped in April of 1984.
Like many complex systems, Windows 1.0 was late. It finally was released
19 months late in November 1985.

This first version of Windows was a flop, but gradually Microsoft
improved the product and the next year Microsoft released version 2 of
the system. By 1990, they were up to version 3. Version 3 was a
significant improvement, and it was a good match to the power of the
popular computers of that time. Sales took off, and the popularity of
the operating system was on its way. Even though Microsoft eventually
sold about 10 million copies of Version 3, the system had problems
running applications. It is estimated that less than half of the sold
copies were actually in use. In April, 1992, version 3.1 was released.
It cured many of the problems with Version 3, and sales soared. By 1993,
more copies of Windows were sold than any other personal computer
operating system. Most new computer systems were sold with Windows
already installed, and by 1994 over 40 million copies had been sold.

As the popularity of Windows grew, Microsoft started planning its next
generation of the operating systems. This new system was to take
advantage of the vastly improved power of the new computers, and would
be called Windows NT for New Technology. NT was first mentioned in 1991,
and it was to take advantage of the latest technology and allow more
than one application to run simul- taneously. Windows NT took two more
years in development and was ready by the spring of 1993. Although a
technical success, its sales lagged. Microsoft had miscalculated the
speed with which people would upgrade their computers. As a result, most
personal computers in use at the time of NT's release were not powerful
enough to make use of the system. Microsoft's response was to plan a
system which incorporated most of the technical features of NT, but
which would not need such a powerful computer. Thus was born a project
to make the features of NT available on less powerful machines.

We move forward to 1995. The new version of Windows is released late.
Very late. Over two years have gone by since the project had started.
1994 release dates came and went. Microsoft projected a mid-year ship
date. Competition from IBM with its rival OS/2 system, which would run
effectively on most of the computers in use, was growing. Windows 95 was
chosen as the name for the product and by March 1995 was ready for user
testing. Over the next months, Microsoft enlisted the aid of 50,000
computer users to beta test (field test for problems) Windows 95.
Problems with the system were found and problems were corrected. New
beta versions were distributed. In an unprecedented move, Microsoft
decided to seed the market by releasing a preview of the final beta
version to some 400,000 businesses and individual users.

On August 23, 1995, Microsoft held the official announcement for the
release of Windows 95. Tonight Show host Jay Leno, was master of
ceremonies for the affair and people lined up at retail stores, some of
which opened at one minute after midnight, to be the first to get
Windows 95. In the first four days, over a million copies were sold. In
October 1995, Dataquest, an industry research company, forecast sales
volume over 76 million by the end of 1996. Microsoft is projecting sales
of at least 30 million copies for 1996, and is backing that up with an
advertising budget of about $200 million, with a major emphasis on
Windows 95 and related products. To put the volume of sales in
perspective, the first weekend sales of Window 95 exceeded the first
weekend box office of such major movie hits as The Lion King and many
other major movie hits.

As with any new computer operating system, there were some problems.
Some computer components were incompatible, and some programs didn't
work properly. Enough problems occurred to cause Microsoft's technical
support line to be swamped with calls. In fact, some people couldn't get
through for days. However, on balance Windows 95 worked as advertised.
Aside from some minor hardware and software incompatibilities, the
system is more robust and stable than prior versions.

Perhaps the most significant effect of the 1995 portion of the Windows
95 saga was the widespread publicity about the product. Microsoft
presented its case for Windows 95 as the best thing since sliced bread.
Critics attacked its technical foundations. Apple called it a copy of
the 1989 version of their system. All this publicity drew the attention
of the general media, including newspapers and general news magazines.
Publications as disparate as The New York Times, Business Week, and
Rolling Stone all covered Chicago/Windows 95.

All this publicity meant that everyone became aware of the new operating
system. For the first time, interest and awareness of computing,
personal computers, and some of the technology involved, became general
news. It was not limited to computer professionals and computer junkies,
known as hackers. Now, instead of a business tool or a hobbyist's toy,
computers were taking on the role of an informa-tion appliance - a tool
for everyone: encyclopedias and games for the kids; recipes and
checkbook balancing for the household; more power and ease of use for
business. All in all, it is expected that Windows 95 will be a catalyst
for expanding everyday household use of personal computers. In fact, in
October 1995, Dataquest projected that 60% of the Windows 95 sales for
1996 would be at the consumer level, not to business.

Windows 95 is also making waves in the computer industry. Market share
for IBM compatible computers is likely to grow at the expense of Apple
computer installations. Apple has the technology to compete, but due to
chronic component supply problems has been unable to ship enough product
to meet demand. Thus Apple is not expected to be able to take advantage
of the Windows 95 teething problems. In addition, one of the features
long available to Apple users, plug and play or the ability to add
components without having to get technically involved, is now a part of
Windows 95. Thus Apple will lose another technical and marketing
advantage.

Some early business adopters will replace their existing Apple computers
with Windows 95 based equipment. These early adopters include Dow
Chemical Co., Eli Lilly and Co., and Seafirst Bank. More than 25,000
computers are involved in these companies. Many companies view the new
system as an opportunity to standardize the way their companies use
computers. On the other hand, many existing business are holding off
installing Windows 95 until some time in 1996. They are either waiting
to let other people solve the teething problems of the new system, or
are not willing to pay for the equipment upgrades required on many of
the existing machines.

Software companies which develop and produce the applications which
actually do the practical (and some not so practical) work of computers
have also been affected. Although Windows 95 will run most existing
applications, the real benefits of the new operating system are only
achieved when the applications are rewritten to take advantage of the
new features. This is a very complex task, and most developers have
limited resources. Because of the delays in the delivery date of Windows
95 they were faced with a dilemma. Should they continue to devote effort
to upgrading existing products, or should they put all their resources
in the new versions. The trade-off was not simple. As the Windows 95
delays grew longer, it became more important to add new features to
existing products. At the same time, if Windows 95 was a smash hit, it
would be necessary to have new products ready when Windows 95 shipped.
If the new product were not ready within a short time of significant
adoption of Windows 95 the product would lose market share to
competition. At the same time, many software buyers were holding off
purchasing software upgrades in anticipation of the availability of
Windows 95. As a result, the 1995 software market was depressed. For
those developers who guessed right about the timing of Windows 95, sales
recovery is at hand. Microsoft, of course, had the advantage of knowing
their schedule, and thus had major pieces of their software catalog
ready with Windows 95 versions. But there were some good guessers who
were able to have product ready by the Windows 95 ship date. The top
five applications in August were: Microsoft Plus, Norton Utilities, Soft
Ram, Norton Antivirus, and After Dark 95 Screensaver. By the end of the
year, major developers, including Corel, Quarterdeck, Symantec, Adobe,
Micrografx, McAfee, Zenographics and many others, had delivered Windows
95 versions of products.

Manufacturers of components for computers have also been affected.
Windows 95 is a larger, more complex system than the previous versions
of Windows. Although Microsoft has specified a relatively old computer
of just a year or two ago as the minimum required to run Windows 95,
such a configuration would not be a realistic choice. Such a machine
would require, at minimum, upgrades to memory and disk capacity. As a
practical matter, the recommended computer is a fast 486, with 16
megabytes or more of memory, a 1 gigabyte or larger hard disk, a high
speed video system and a 15 or 17 inch monitor. Thus the outlook for
vendors who supply these components is for increased sales.

Plug and play technology does not work with older components. Thus,
there will be a growing market for upgrade components for existing
computers, as well as for installation into new computers. To assure
compatibility, Microsoft has developed a certification program to verify
what components are compatible with Windows 95. By the first quarter of
1995, Microsoft issued a hardware catalog containing products from
ninety vendors which made the grade. By August 23 more vendors were
certified.

Another area of the industry to benefit from the adoption of Windows 95
is in training, service, and consulting. The graphical interface in
Windows 95 is different from prior versions of Windows. Even though it
only takes a short time to be able to become productive on the new
system, there are many new features. Not only does the system look
different, its methods, keystroke, and mouse functions are different.

New techniques and tricks will be needed to take advantage of the full
power of the system. The same is true of the new versions of
applications. Schools, training centers, and consultants will do a land
office business helping computer users to become more comfortable and
effective. Trouble- shooting and problem- solving will also be growth
areas. In the large corporate environment, planning the transition from
the existing environment to Windows 95, will be an extremely complex
task. Information Systems departments will require expert advice to
manage the changeover with minimal risk.

Even though many computer users do not need the power of the new
personal computers, or the features of Windows 95, some 60% or more of
the individual users and some 30% of the corporate environment will be
using the system by the end of 1996. It is expected that market share
will reach 80% by the end of 1997. The new operating system will force
producers of application software to develop their product for the new
system, and users who need the new products will have to use Windows 95.
Welcome to the technology of rapid change.


                             ***************
Jon is an independent consultant for personal computer installation
support and service, networking, and anything else that needs fixing. He
used to do this for other people until he decided that he had more fun
doing it for himself.



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══──────────────────────page 7──
Does This Route Lead to Windows95?
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                           On the Road to Win95

                      Copyright 1996 by Gregg Hommel


This is the story of one man's path to Win 95. Let me caution you right
now. The ending may not be quite what you expect!

We begin about eight months ago, with a description of my system that is
actually two computers, running a WFWG 3.11 network, at a reasonable, to
be kind, - very bare minimum.

The main machine, - mine, is a 386SX20, with 8 megs. RAM; a 210 meg.
hard drive in four partitions, all of which are DoubleSpaced to allow
some room, a STB PowerGraph Ergo non-accelerated ISA video card, with a
Sony MultiScan 15sf, fifteen inch monitor, running in 1024x768x256 mode,
an Intel EtherExpress 16 bit network card, a Microsoft mouse on Com1, a
9600 baud ZOOM internal modem on Com2, the Microsoft Sound System for
Windows audio card, a Panasonic CR562B double speed CD-ROM running on
it's own interface card since the MS Sound System doesn't provide an
interface for CD-ROM's, and an HP LaserJet IIIP printer, with the
Microsoft Printing System cartridge installed.

I know...quite a load for an old 386SX20, but, unlike what seems to be
consensus in the computer world, I don't see a few seconds of time as
being absolutely critical to performance. I work almost entirely from
home, at my own pace, and thus, a few extra seconds here or there are
not as crucial as some seem to think.

The other machine, my wife's. is a 386SX16, with 4 meg of RAM; a 110 meg
hard drive in three partitions, again, all DoubleSpaced for extra space,
a STB PowerGraph non-accelerated ISA video card, with an AAmazing 14"
monitor, running at 800x600x256, an Intel EtherExpress 16 bit network
card, a Microsoft mouse on Com1, and a 2400 baud Cardinal internal modem
on Com2. There is no audio card, CD-ROM or even printer attached to this
box even though there is a NEC 24 pin dot matrix sitting there, it isn't
hooked up.

Both machines are running WFWG 3.11 with 32 bit disk and file access
enabled, and Norton DeskTop 3.03, with my machine acting as sort of an
application and printing server, if/when such are needed. And believe it
or not, this works! My wife's machine is not very fast, but it will load
an application from my machine as quickly under WFWG 3.11 as it did
loading the same application directly from her hard drive under Win 3.1,
thanks to the 32 bit file access of WFWG 3.11.

Although it's not an ideal system, even for WFWG 3.11, it is one which
works, and works well for our methods of operation. Indeed, from photos
I had seen in various magazines, etc., we had what to all intents and
purposes, looked much like Win 95, already. Icons on the desktop, for
drives, applications, documents or whatever, and a tool bar across the
top of the desktop which could be used to access utilities, etc.

However, Win 95 was coming, and I knew that, eventually, I would have to
upgrade my trusty old WFWG 3.11, if I wanted to stay current. Based upon
those magazine articles, and on what the Win95 Preview users were saying
on the networks, I also knew that, to do so, I would need something much
better than my old, reliable 386SX20, if I wanted the upgrade to be *up*
instead of *down*.

How to do this when budgeting is tight with two almost-teen daugh-ters
and the sole income earner in a family. Buying a completely, new
computer was totally out of the question! The logical conclusion was to
upgrade the motherboard, and continue using the other peripherals that I
already had, - at least for now!

I read everything that I could on Win 95 and found not a lot of
agreement in a number of important areas between magazine sources and
those people using Win 95 whom I knew and considered expert enough to
value their opinion. One thing did seem clear: That you would need a
minimum of a 386DX to run Win 95. It could run on a 386SX, although
crawl would be a better term than run. It appeared that a 386DX was a
reasonable move, and a 386DX33 motherboard could be found used at
minimal cost. Almost perfect.

After I did the upgrade of the motherboard in one machine (mine), it
seemed the system did run noticeably faster, even with the old
peri-pherals, so I figured I was all set to upgrade. And then came the
release of Win 95!

I wasn't in a particular hurry to upgrade, so I wasn't standing in line
at midnight, Aug. 24, 1995, for one of the very first copies. Remember,
I now had a reasonably fast system, with a lot of the superficial
interface features of Win95 already in place through Norton Desktop. The
system was stable and I hadn't had a GPF which wasn't related to a beta
test I was involved in for almost two years. The system worked fine for
my needs, so I figured there was no hurry. Wait and see what the early
reports from non-Preview Win95 users looked like before jumping ship.

One thing rapidly became clear from various messages posted on the
networks, and from magazine articles which benchmarked Win 95 vs. Win3.1
and WFWG 3.11 on a 386DX33 with 8 meg of RAM. I could expect to see no
improvement in performance, or even the same performance I was getting
from my current WFWG 3.11 system. Performance was something closer to
that of Win 3.1 without 32 bit file access on the same system. In other
words, a step backwards from what I already had running.

I was willing to upgrade to Win 95 if the performance was at least the
same as what I had currently, but obviously did not want to take a
performance hit when upgrading. It makes little sense to take the
position Let's upgrade to Win 95, so we can get all these neat, gee-whiz
features which I already had under NDW, and so our system can run slower
than it is currently running!

Excuse me. what's wrong with this picture?

Investigation time, again. What assumptions had I incorrectly made some
six months ago, when I decided my most logical route to Win 95 lay in a
motherboard upgrade to a 386DX33?

It didn't take long to determine, from the same sources, that the
earlier conclusions that Win 95 would run at least as fast as WFWG 3.11
on a 386DX33 with 8 meg of RAM, were on the optimistic side, and not
supported in fact.

Virtually everyone, from the magazines, to the people on the nets, now
were saying that the practical minimum for operations equivalent to a
WFWG 3.11 system were a 486DX33 with 8 meg of RAM.

I was under-powered for Win 95, and so, I had to start all over again.
Where do we go from here and how best to prepare for the upgrade to Win
95, without breaking the bank, or forcing the kids to eat com-puter
disks for dinner, or clothes made from used computer printouts? For some
strange reason, I have not yet been able to convince them, or their
mother, that computer upgrades are a necessity of life, and come before
such luxuries as eating, having a roof over their heads, or clothes on
their backs. I'll keep trying, but so far, my progress in this area has
not been good! Obviously a personality flaw!

In any case, it was clear, that another motherboard upgrade was the
logical choice, *if* it allowed me to continue using my current
peripherals, at least, for the short run. As it turned out the real
problem were the memory chips!

I had 8 - 1 meg - 30 pin SIMMs installed on the 386DX33. If I wanted to
upgrade to a 486DX2-66 or 486DX4-100 motherboard, those SIMMs were
useless, and I would have to trade them in for 72 pin SIMMs. To do so,
however, there was a substantial cost factor to be reckoned with. My
dealer was willing to give me as much of a break as he could, but the
best that could be done was that it would cost me $10 a meg. to swap the
memory for the same thing, but in 72 pin SIMMs.

This meant that, not only did I have to spend the money for a new
motherboard, as used 486DX2-66 or 486DX4-100 mother-boards were scarce
as hen's teeth, I also had to cough up another $80 for the memory swap.
And, over here, folks, let's not forget that our various levels of
government want to get in on the act also, with their sales taxes,
adding an additional 15% to the cost of everything!

I was now looking at an upgrade cost of around $300 plus 15% in taxes,
which was unacceptable, given the current budget. The next step was to
look for some kind of used 486 motherboard which would accept my current
memory, yet still get me to an acceptable operations level under Win 95.

As luck would have it, I found two of them. One, a Micronics 486DX33 ISA
motherboard with slots for 30 pin SIMM memory, and another, an IBM
486SLC66 Blue Lightning ISA motherboard, also with slots for 30 pin SIMM
memory. Pricing was almost the same. $110 for the Micronics, $125 for
the IBM.

But which way to go? The IBM sounded like a nice deal, since it was a 66
MHz. CPU rather than the 33 MHz Micronics, but, something about this
nagged at me. I turned to the nets, the logical place to uncover the
source of that nagging concern.

I posted a question regarding the two motherboards, asking for
recommendations for best use under Win 95, on RIME, ILink, and FIDO. It
didn't take long to get some answers, and those answers began, quickly,
to confirm my reservations about the IBM mother-board.

Although a few respondents told me that they had that motherboard, and
were happy with it's performance under Win 95, the majority of responses
cautioned against it, recommending, instead, the Micronics 486DX33 as
the better alternative. The comments were consistent, stating that the
486SLC was not the equivalent of a 486DX or even a 486SX, but instead,
was actually closer to a 386SX - not even a DX of that CPU! One
gentleman even included a chart for me to study, with comparative
details on various processors. I found that chart so useful in these
explorations that I am reproducing it here for any of you who might be
able to use it.


             IBM     Intel    Intel   IBM     Intel    Intel   Intel
CPU          386SX   386SLC   386DX   486SX   486SLC2  486DX   486DX2

Internal     32bit   32bit    32bit   32bit   32bit    32bit   32bit
Data Path

External     16bit   16bit    32bit   32bit   16bit    32bit   32bit
Data Path

Write        0       2        0       4       2        4       4
Buffers

Address      24bit   24bit    32bit   32bit   24bit    32bit   32bit
Interface

Physical     16MB    16MB     4GB     4GB     16MB     4GB     4GB
Addressable
Memory

Virtual      64TB    64TB     64TB    64TB    64TB     64TB    64TB
Addressable
Memory

Math Co-     387SX   387SX    387DX   487SX   387SX    Built   Built
processor                                              In      In

ClockDou-    No      No       No      No      Yes      No      Yes
bled

It turns out that the 486SLC is little more than a 386SX CPU with two
write buffers, instead of none. It even uses a 387SX math co-processor,
just as a 386SX does. not even a 487SX math co-processor, like a 486SX
requires!

In the end, I made what appeared to really be the only choice, the
Micronics 486DX33 motherboard. This also appears to have been a good
choice, based on it's performance under WFWG 3.11 on my system. It is
speedy and reliable. In the process of having it installed, my dealer
agreed to also remove the 386SX16 motherboard from my wife's machine,
and replace it with the 386DX33 which he was removing from mine. This
gave that machine a new lease on life, albeit not a jump start to Win
95, since it still only has 4 megs of RAM. However, it's performance
under WFWG 3.11 has improved quite noticeably, and it is now one step
closer to Win 95.

I should imagine that you are now asking yourself what my opinion of the
486DX33 motherboard under Win 95 is, right?? Well, I am sorry to say
that I can't yet tell you, and this is where the surprise ending to my
saga comes in. I have not yet upgraded to Win 95, and may not do so for
a while yet. So the story continues.

You see, my first, and biggest, problem is disk space. Yes, I have a 210
meg. Hard drive which is DoubleSpaced, but it was originally set up when
DOS 5.0 was just coming out. As a result, it was partitioned into a 30
meg. C:, 75 meg. D: and E:, and 30 meg F: drive when installed. Using
DoubleSpace, these are no longer "valid" sizes, however, with only WFWG
3.11 installed on the "new" C: drive, I have around 25 megs. of free
space on that drive.

Some people tell me that, if I am very judicious about what I install
from Win 95, I may, but only may, be able to get away with just that
free space. But, from what I have so far been able to determine, Win 95
won't let you decide where to install various components, other than
under the \WIN95 directory, which means that, even if I were able to get
a bare bones Win 95 installation going, I would be missing a lot of the
applets and features of Win 95, and might not ever be able to install
them.

Therefore, before I consider installing Win 95, I suppose I should back
up my data files, re- partition the hard drive to give me a larger C:
drive either as multiple partitions, or a single, 210 meg. one, and then
apply DoubleSpace (or DriveSpace) to those partitions in order to gain
enough room for Win 95.

I could then install Win 95 over the DOS 6.22 on the system, re-install
all of my applications, and restore my backed up data files. And I
imagine that I will do this, but, this is a working machine! I use it
daily for my mail, and it runs my GHOST BBS system each night. I would
expect that the above procedure will take some fair amount of time to
perform, and do not want the machine "down" for an extensive amount of
time in certain respects (such as QWK mail and the BBS), and so, will
have to carefully plan the whole procedure before beginning.

The advantage to all of this is that doing so would help somewhat with
some other problems I have with upgrading to Win 95. The biggest of
those is the simple fact that I haven't run Program Manager under Win or
WFWG in a dog's age. Remember, I am using Norton Desktop, and Win 95
will not translate the NDW settings or QAG's. It only works with a pure
Windows set up. Apparently there is a utility available from Norton
which converts QAG's into GRP files, however, I also understand that
this is not always entirely successful. And even if I did that, since
NDW is installed on my D: drive, it wouldn't help at all with the
problem of not enough space on my C: drive. I could remove Norton
Desktop from the system which I would have to do in any case, before
upgrading to Win 95, which would give me more than enough room on my D:
drive to install Win 95, but I would face the problem of not having my
WFWG 3.11 programs carried in to Win 95, because I would not be
installing over WFWG 3.11, but in a separate directory. The only
advantage to this, over backing everything up, and starting from
scratch, is that I wouldn't face the problems reinstalling all of my
applications will bring.

What problems, you ask? Well, several of my apps are beta versions,
which require the release version to be installed, followed by, in some
cases, a patch to an interim version, and then, finally, the beta
installation. Many others, although not beta, are upgraded versions of
the original release, being upgraded by patches, and so on, from the
original release, rather than anywhere having a single installation to
restore things to their current state. And, I suppose like most people,
those patches and so on, are somewhat scattered over my office, stored
here and there in little piles of 3.5" diskettes. Some of these apps, at
least, the originals, are still on 5.25" disks, stored over there in the
corner! Sure, I'll find everything I will need to get my system back up
to where it is today, but it will take some time, and I figure I may as
well spend that time before upgrading to Win 95, rather than after doing
so.

Logically, I suppose, the best choice would be to back up my data, and
start over. This would have the side benefit of eliminating some
applications which remain on my hard drive currently, but which I don't
often use, and probably could get along quite handily without. It would
also eliminate, I am sure, a lot of DLLs and other files in my WFWG
\WINDOWS and \SYSTEM directories, which belong to applications long
since gone from my hard drive, and are doing little more than cluttering
up those directories. But this is such a daunting prospect, especially
when using floppies for backup, and in all honesty, I have yet to have
one single person tell me why, precisely, I should upgrade to Win 95,
and go through all this.

I have heard all of the technical reasons. the improved stability, the
improved multi-tasking, Plug-and-Play support, and the improved
interface, with shortcuts on the desktop to make program access easier,
and the task bar to access running or non-running programs and utilities
and so on.

But those are technical, and are nothing that in a way, I don't already
have. My system has been stable even having gone through two motherboard
changes for past two years. I can download files in the background,
while working on a word processing or spreadsheet document, which is
about as much "multi-tasking" as this old mind can handle, and my legacy
system doesn't come close to Plug-and-Play standards in any respect. My
interface is long designed to suit my needs, with drive and program
icons conveniently placed on my desktop (via NDW), drag and drop
printing through NDW tools for printers, and a tool bar at the top of my
desktop, which gives me access to utilities and applications not on the
desktop, and which is easily configured for my needs, as they may
change.

No question that this configuration works for me! I can easily access
the programs and/or utilities that I need regularly, and a single click
on the tool bar brings up my Norton main QAG. This gives me access to
other groups, including groups within groups, in a few mouse clicks,
just like using the Start button in Win 95. These same groups can be set
up in what is called tool bar mode, so that I get a small group, with
nothing but icons, right next to one another taking up very little
desktop space, yet giving me quick access to each item.

A right double click on any icon in a group, opens that group or
program, closing the one that it was called from in the process, leaving
me with a less cluttered desktop. Overall, I can get to anywhere on my
system fast and get tasks done quickly without even thinking about what
I am doing.

It is said that networking is improved in Win 95? Our WFWG 3.11 set up
does what we need, and, if not with speed at least without problems. And
let's face it. Win 95 is not without it's problems. You can read about
them on any net, or on Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy, and even, the Microsoft
Network. People having problems getting hardware recognized and/or
running properly. People with legacy software not quite working, or not
working at all. Long since acquired utilities that no longer function
under Win 95 at best, or at worst, can blow away your entire set up if
used. A definite dearth of reasonable, and viable back up software
alternatives. And unless you upgrade software to Win 95 versions, when
they are available, and at additional cost, a lot of the features of Win
95, such as long file names and the new, more powerful common dialogue
boxes.

I must mention that NDW 3.03 has the capability to allow for long file
names when saving a file, and displays them when opening it, via the NDW
enhanced common dialogues. As for dialogue boxes, these appear,
depending upon captures in magazines, to look rather a lot like the
FileAssist enhanced dialogues available to me currently under NDW 3.03.

So, let's summarize where I am currently.

1) I have an upgraded system, if not ideal for Win 95, at least, mostly
   ready for it.

2) I have a stable, reasonably fast, working environment, customized to
   suit my working methods, with quite a few features of Win 95 already
   available to me via Norton Desktop. This includes almost all of the
   Win 95 interface improvements in one variation or another.

3) I am rather productive on my system, since I know it well, and have
   custom designed various aspects of it to suit how I work.

4) My applications all run as is, many of which are either betas, or
   have been upgraded from the original release disks via patches. And,
   although I have more than enough room for WFWG 3.11, etc. I do not
   have enough for a typical Win 95 install.

5) Upgrading to Win 95 would give me, in Windows, as opposed to Norton
   Desktop, many of the features that I have currently, but in a format
   sufficiently different to destroy my current level of productivity
   while I configure Win 95 to function the way I want it to, while I
   learn the ins and outs of a new operating system.

6) Upgrading to Win 95 would likely mean taking anywhere from a day to
   multiple days to reconfigure my system so that it could handle the
   upgrade to Win 95, and the additional time spent to reinstall all of
   my applications. During that time, my productivity would not be less
   than current, it would be nil!

7) If/when I upgrade, I face possible problems with my legacy hardware
   and/or software, a complete loss of all of the utilities I currently
   rely on for system maintenance, and security, and possible upgrade
   costs for hardware and/or software, - none of which my budget can, at
   this point, allow.

8) Any or all of the above points, five through seven, result in a
   decrease in productivity ranging from minimal to maximal, in the name
   of upgrading to a new Operating System which offers me little more
   than what I have currently installed and running under my current
   Operating System. I have no assurance of an increase in system speed,
   but rather the claim that it will be no slower than that which I have
   currently installed.

Finally, I have yet to see anywhere a logical reason that would compel
me to upgrade. The technical ones and improved interface just don't cut
it because they aren't valid for me. No one has yet offered me any
compelling reason for upgrading although one fellow did come close when
he observed that the only way to play the Win 95 Pinball game is to
upgrade to Win 95!

Is it no wonder I have held off on the upgrade to Win 95 in spite of
having upgraded my hardware for it. Obviously those hardware upgrades
also serve a useful purpose under my current WFWG. The systems are
faster than they ever were before resulting in an increase in my
productivity. Nonetheless, I am in no hurry to upgrade to Win 95, and go
through all that I must go through to do it. I will when I get to the
point where I see no other choice available to me, in order to support
the software I have written, and/or advance it further than it can go
currently. In other words, until such time as Win 16 bit apps have died
out, and are replaced by users with their Win 95 versions.

Can anyone reading this offer me any substantial or compelling reasons
to upgrade? Am I a voice in the wilderness in my lack of a desire to
upgrade to Win 95, and lose what I have now for a somewhat dubious
improvement? Do others of you feel the same way? Are we perhaps, the
vast Silent Majority which has yet to be heard from??

Hello? Am I alone here? Is anyone out there?


                             ***************
Gregg Hommel writes one of the most popular columns run in WindoWatch.
He is the author of the Procomm for Windows tutorial series as well as
the author of GHOST. Gregg serves on the WindoWatch editorial board. He
can be contacted for comments, support or rebuttal via email, at the
following addresses. Internet - [e-mail]
Compuserve - 72537,552 RIME R/RO mail - route to ->118 FIDO Netmail -
(1:229/15) or via public mail in the ILink, RIME, FIDO, NANet, or
EchoNet Windows conferences, or the RIME, ILink, or NANet Procomm
conferences.



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══──────────────────────page 8──
Chicago Musings
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                             Whither Windows
                      Copyright 1996 by Paul Kinnaly


As we enter 1996, Windows95 is by name, at least, passé! So we might
well ask "Whither Windows?" Windows95 is certainly not the oper-ating
system that many thought it would be. Most home -and many business-
users of 1993/4 in reading about Chicago, Microsoft's project name for
what was to become Windows95, were users of Windows 3.1 and MS- DOS,
probably version 5 or 6.x. Scarcely one in ten could have told you what
a true 32bit operating system was, but they knew it was better than what
they already had and they wanted it! They disliked the infamous GPFs
that unexpectedly cropped up. They hated being told they were Out of
Memory when they had six megs available. Many hated that C:> and wanted
a way to avoid ever seeing it again. Chicago, they heard, would do all
that. It would do away with DOS, eliminate memory problems, allow long
file names, scrap the clunky Program Manager/File Manager interface, and
bring an end to hunger, war, ... Okay, maybe not everything we ever
wanted, but it was going to be great!

Long before Windows95 actually arrived, books about it and news of what
it did -and didn't- do started showing up. DOS, it seemed, wasn't really
gone, it was just less obviously there. - And there were still many
large chunks of older 16bit code as well. - And Explorer had its faults,
and even memory problems were not completely solved. - And there was
still a famine in Africa and war in Bosnia.

The actual release of Windows95 ameliorated some of these criticisms and
strengthened others. Very many home users quickly discovered that, while
it wasn't a panacea, it did indeed work better than Windows 3.1 had, as
long as they had at least 8 mb of memory or more. Business users, other
than those at companies involved with the beta-testing of Windows95,
generally hung back. Converting thousands of desktops to Win95, with
associated support costs and, in many cases, hardware upgrade costs was
not cost-effective; the potential gains were not seen as outweighing the
costs.

Some of Microsoft's persistent critics jump on this lack of business
acceptance as a sure sign that Windows95 has not filled the niche that
Microsoft envisioned. But has it? Or has it merely failed to fill our
expectations of becoming the Operating System?

To answer that question, and to make some educated guesses as to what
Microsoft's thinking might be, we need to look back a couple of years,
back to when the Chicago project got rolling. Most office desktop
computers were 386s, usually 33mHz machines with 4 or, perhaps, 8mb RAM.
Newly purchased PCs were 486s, again usually 33mHz, the 66mHz doubled
chip was brand new, and again with either 4meg or 8meg of RAM. The
client-server LAN was the up-and-coming thing in office computing and as
the applications were generally stored on the server, consultants
typically recommended low memory availability in desktops to keep users
from trying to open too many applications at one time. Only the server
would have 16, 32, or rarely 64mb of memory. Workgroup computing, using
peer-to-peer LANs was just taking hold, and only here would one often
find 8, 12, or even 16megs of memory on many or all of the machines.

Meanwhile, at home, the majority of users ranged from 8mb 486-66
machines through the whole gamut down to 2 meg 286s.

The available PC operating systems of the day were: DOS+Windows 3.1 (or
the new WfWG), OS/2 version 2.1, and WindowsNT 3.1, together with the
dedicated Network Operating Systems such as Netware 3.1, Lantastic, LAN
Manager, LAN Server, and the like. The LAN-specific OpSystems were
generally client-server oriented and required fast, powerful servers be
utilized; the desktop machines could be relatively dumb. Windows 3.1
itself, with its DOS base and 286-era heritage, fit this picture fairly
well too. It really couldn't fully utilize the power of newer machines.
After the divorce between Microsoft and IBM, the two newest OpSystems
had appeared: OS/2 and WindowsNT. Both were 32bit systems, but OS/2 was
designed for the desktop while NT was designed with networking in mind.
As a result, IBM could market OS/2 to the user -home or business- with a
new, powerful 486 or soon-to-be-available Pentium while NT, by its
nature, imposed demands that few users could tolerate - a minimum of
16mb RAM requirement was almost the least of its needs!

Whatever else Microsoft has been over the years, its nose for markets
has always been good. And they always know how to count! While there may
be several hundred thousand servers out there, and several million home
users, the big bucks were in the corporate desktop arena - particularly
with the way the LAN market was changing. As LANs became WANs, workgroup
computing was increasing faster than any other segment of the market.
This meant there would be a rapid growth of moderately powerful desktop
machines. Win3.1 wasn't targeted for them, WinNT wouldn't run on them,
even in its slimmed down, Workstation version. But OS/2 ... Oh- Oh!
Therefore, Windows for Workgroups was the short-term fix. Taking
advantage of the lack of easy networking for OS/2, Microsoft developed
an advanced Windows that contained built-in peer-to- peer networking.
Moreover, the WfWG machine was also an ideal client for an NT Server.
But all this was just an interim solution.

Is Windows95 the ultimate fix? Far, far from it! It is another interim
step - although perhaps the word transitional better describes it. With
its built-in networking, even smoother than that of WfWG, it fits the
same niche that WfWG does in the corporate environment, as a good
peer-to-peer system, equally at home as the client for an NT or a
Netware Server. With 32bit, protected mode drivers for most accessories,
it offers better memory management and faster data transfers across a
LAN. And, being a 32bit OpSystem, it offers at least a temporary defense
against a possible resurgence of OS/2 - which itself now offers a
peer-to-peer package.

Where then is Microsoft headed? Will Windows9x eventually merge with
WindowsNT? Perhaps, but if so, that day is far down the road.
Remembering that it is the business desktop that is Microsoft's target,
and that WindowsNT Server is their premiere product, it is then the
WindowsNT Workstation that they have targeted for this market. Right
now, the product is a long way from being viable as a widespread
business desktop OpSystem. Not only does it generally demand resources
more extensive than most business desktop systems presently have -an
absolute minimum of 12mb RAM and a 486-66 processor- but, even more
importantly, there is a dearth of true 32bit applications available for
NT. But Windows95 can serve as the bridge. Applications desiring
Microsoft's Win95 logo must -generally- also run under NT. And if one
visits any software store or peruses the mail-order catalogs, Windows95
software is literally coming out of the woodwork now with more announced
each day. Thus Windows95 is spurring the solution to one of the
principal obstacles in NT Workstation's way: available software. A
remarkable strategy!

There's one other characteristic of Windows95 that deserves mention: it
pushes users towards upgrading their hardware. We've all seen the
wording on the box: "4 meg of RAM required (8 meg recommended)" and most
of us have heard experienced users say, "Don't consider Win95 unless
you've got 8 megs, but 16 is better!" The net effect has been a terrific
rush to buy more RAM. Many (home) users -particularly those with 386SX
or DX machines- have waited for Win95's release and are using it as the
excuse to buy entirely new systems, usually high-end 486 or low- end
Pentium machines, with 8mb, 16mb, or even more RAM. Hey! Wait a minute!
Wouldn't such a machine run NT Workstation? How about that ... must be a
coincidence.

Let's look at one other consideration: a few years ago, when most
companies really started buying desktop systems, the machine one used at
the office was typically more powerful than that used at home, if one
even had a PC at home. Those machines served as part of the impetus in
getting more folks to buy a machine at home. But now, the machines folks
are buying for their homes are often more powerful than those they use
at work - and those new machines come with Windows95 installed. Now
those home users are applying pressure at the office for power, speed,
and ease of use they have come to expect from their own machines. But,
as noted earlier, businesses are resisting the switch to '95, at least
currently.

What has Microsoft to say? Well, their few press releases to date have
indicated that "Windows96" will require 8mb of RAM - with 12mb
recommended. Releases have also indicated that the next Workstation
release of NT will have the Windows95 interface and will require 8mb of
RAM - with 16 recommended. Huh? What gives? If NT and '96 will both have
virtually the same hardware and software require-ments, will they be the
same product? NO WAY!

Certainly the two products will have more similarities to one another
than their present-day counterparts, but it is not feasible - at
present, at least - for Microsoft to merge them. There are just too many
fundamental differences in how these OpSystems are built. Win95 is built
for compatibility. It allows almost unrestricted use of older DOS and
Windows 3.1 applications - including games, graphics, music, etc. To
provide that capability stability and security were sacrificed; that's
why it doesn't have NTFS and why there's still lots of 16bit code that
are needed to retain compatibility. NT, on the other hand, places its
emphasis on security and stability. Part of this is built into the NTFS
file system, part results in its refusal to allow software to directly
manipulate hardware (reasons for an almost total lack of NT games, and
little fax software - they typically try to control ports directly,
which NT will not permit!). As long as Windows9x seeks to maintain
compatibility with earlier applications, it cannot be merged with NT.

Generally, businesses do not want their users to be using software of
the types that NT doesn't support. But they do want the security and
stability that NT offers. As their workers clamor ever more loudly for
that with which they are familiar at home, there will be Microsoft,
offering them NT Workstation "4.0" (or NT96, or whatever...) This
OpSystem will be specifically designed as the client of NT Server, and
will have the same interface that their workers have used at home. It
will run on current standard baseline PCs, and will offer the security
and stability that the company needs. Workgroup computing? NT
Workstation will work peer-to-peer even better than Win9x and work
better with a WAN as well ... and Bill Gates deposits another few
billion in his bank account.

So where, you may well ask, does that leave the home user of Windows95?
What can he or she expect? Are we just pawns in Microsoft's grand
strategy? Yep! At least in my opinion, that's exactly what we are. But
that is not necessarily a totally bad thing. In the process we are
getting and using software that is (usually) faster, more stable, more
powerful, than any we have used previously. And I expect that to
continue. Admittedly, the cynical side of me notes that, while 40,000 of
us were unpaid beta-testers of Windows95 and a further 400,000 paid
Microsoft $40 to gamma-test it, currently all Windows95 users are paying
Microsoft $90 to beta-test for the future NT. The fact remains that each
of the Win95 tools (TAPI, Exchange, etc.) and most of the applications
we use are now being designed for NT as well. And if you don't think
Microsoft isn't using our Tech Support calls for this purpose, well, I
have some land (sort of) that I'll sell you in Florida...

But if this cynical perspective is true, we will continue to see more
new features in Windows9x. As it serves as the test bed for new NT
features and applications, it will get constantly more powerful and more
capable and -in many respects- grow closer to NT. However, do NOT look
for a merger of the two systems to occur, at least in the near future.
The home user doesn't need the security that NT demands and wants the
games that NT won't permit. As long as that situation remains -which
will probably be for several years, at least- Win9x will have to remain
a separate, somewhat more limited, and somewhat less stable operating
system than its big brother. But - if my vision is accurate - its
test-bed role will also mean that it will probably be a half- or
full-step ahead of NT in offering new features, something we will all
appreciate.


                             ***************
Paul Kinnaly - who still uses LAN Manager and Word 2.0 at work, when not
furloughed - has no connection with Microsoft and offers these personal
opinions without guarantee. He serves as a member of WindoWatch's
Editorial Board and as Webmaster for our Home Page.



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══──────────────────────page 9──
Windows 95 Nits
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                  What People Don't Like About Windows95

                      Copyright 1996 by Phil Leonard


1) `95 needs a way to set the default window properties for Explorer.

The Problem Explained: Windows 95 only remembers the window properties
of no more than 30 different windows in Explorer. When you open the 31st
window, Explorer takes the least recently used window's properties,
discards them and replaces them with the new window's properties. This
means that if you have placed a folder on your desktop and carefully
arranged shortcut icons on it, when you open more than 30 different
windows, the arrangement of the icons in your folder will be lost and
Explorer will revert to a default arrange- ment. You can't change the
default.

A Suggested Solution: Allow the user to set global defaults for icon
arrangement and window properties, and allow the user to configure how
many to keep track of. Also include the ability to lock a window's
properties so that it will never be lost.          Workaround: none.


2) Explorer needs a better way to handle file extensions with long
   file names.

The Problem Explained: By default, Explorer doesn't show the extensions
of files that have an association. If you receive a file which has the
extension that has been associated, but the file type is actually not
correct, you can't rename the file to have the correct extension un-less
you enable display of the extension. For example, you have Word for
Windows 95 installed on your system. You receive a file named JOE.DOC,
but it is really an ASCII text file. Explorer will show it as JOE
without the extension. If you click on the file name in Explorer and
rename it JOE.TXT, Word it won't become a .TXT file that you can load
into NotePad by double clicking on it. Word will still load it. Why? The
real name of the file is now JOE.TXT.DOC. You didn't change the
extension by typing in the name JOE.DOC.

A Suggested Solution: Unless the user types in two dots in the name of
the file, assume that anything from the last dot onwards typed by the
user is the new extension. Alternatively, have a way to change the type
of a file with a right click of the mouse.

Workaround: Always show the file extension in Explorer by changing the
View Preferences.


3) DOS 7 won't sort directories. Sort limit of 64K or 2295 files in DOS.

The Problem Explained: The new version of the command DIR does not
support grouping directories in alphabetical order. DIR will not sort
more than 64K (or 2295 files).

A Suggested Solution: Windows 95 Disk Defragmenter should sort
directories and files. DOS should have the ability to inherit these
properties. The options should be user configurable, at least, allowing
these switches with the DIR command.

Workaround: None.


4) Explorer always opens in the C:\Windows\_menus directory.

The Problem explained: Explorer, the Win 3.x File Manager replacement,
is closely integrated with Explorer, the Win 3.x Program Manager
replacement. When Windows 95 first loads, it creates the user configured
task bar based on what it finds in the C:\Windows\_menus directory.
Therefore, you must not change the default start-up of Explorer.

Suggested Solution: Let the user decide what the default start-up
directory should be and allow the option of remembering the last
position for the next start-up.

Workaround: Create a short-cut and define the start up position of
Explorer. (See tips.txt in C:\Windows for the switches) or buy a third
party utility like Norton File Manager which remembers the last position
visited.


5) Windows 95 includes a backup utility that will not do differentials.

The Problem Explained: The backup utility included with Windows 95 does
not properly copy new files added to your system since your last backup.
It compares your current system to your last full backup and only copies
changed files. Therefore, any new files must be manually added in order
to be included with subsequent backups.

A Suggested Solution: Allow the user to select from five options when
backing up using this utility: Full Backup, Full Copy, Differential,
Incremental, or Incremental Copy.

Workaround: None. Third Party Applications exist.


6) Floppy drive access randomly occurs for no reason.

The Problem Explained: Windows looks at MRU ( Most Recently Used)
documents, files, and shortcuts. Typically, a user installs a program
from the A: Drive floppy and the RUN command. This is the typical
Windows 3.x method. Windows 95 tracks every installation, so that the
next time you want to install that same program, a list shows the
installation command to be reused. Unfortunately, if the disk is not
still in the drive, the floppy can be accessed frequently and
unprovoked. This holds true for a file that was accessed and viewed off
of the floppy as well.

A Suggested Solution: Allow the MRU list as it is, with the ability to
configure the number of items and the ability to clear the MRU list.
Windows should not try to access any of these directory pointers unless
specifically asked to by the user.

Workaround: Install all programs from the Control Panel's
Add/Remove/Install button. Clear all MRUs that point to the floppy. You
can clear "Documents" from the Start Settings Menu. For the Run command
line, you will need to edit the registry with regedit (after making a
backup of user.dat and system.dat) Look in :
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curre
ntVersion\Explorer\RunMRU. If you are running Norton Navigator, there is
a patch which might help.


7) 16 Bit applications turn Windows 95 into a 16 bit operating system.

The problem Explained: Windows 95 is a 32bit, multi-threaded oper-ating
system. For downward compatibility, it also supports Windows 3.x multi-
tasking applications. As long as everything is running smoothly, the two
can coexist peacefully. But, if a Windows 3.1 application should stop or
run out of resources, the whole operating system responds as if it was a
multi-tasking system requiring a system shutdown.

A suggested solution: Protect 16bit applications from invading the 32bit
operating system.

Workaround: Eliminate all 16bit applications and replace with 32bit
applications.


8) You can not undelete in Windows 95. You can not turn off the Recycle
   Bin's delete confirmation.

The Problem Explained: Windows 95 runs in protected mode. No longer does
it depend on DOS for file operations; actually it bypasses DOS. For the
system to be secure, there are no provisions for restoring a deleted
file. There is a Recycle Bin which tracks deleted files and holds them
aside until officially deleted. Problem is, that deleting a file does
not free up any space. There is an option to delete every file
immediately without going to the recycle bin. This brings up the other
nit. You must confirm the deletion every time you delete a file.

A Suggested Solution: Allow the user to delete and recover just as
Windows 3.X and DOS 6.22 did with Undelete. Also, allow the delete
confirmation to be disabled.

Workaround: Exit to DOS, type LOCK, and use DOS 6.22's Undelete. This is
not a guarantee for as in DOS 6.22, if the sector is overwritten, the
file is not recoverable. Another workaround is to buy a third party
application like Norton Navigator's File Manager. Not only can Norton
File Manager *undelete* in Windows 95, it will keep track of files deleted
with Explorer.


9) 16 bit Winsock applications will not auto dial the network.

The Problem Explained: Windows 95 provides a 32bit Winsock driver with
compatibility for 16bit Winsock applications. A 32bit application when
run, will automatically call and dial the Windows 95 dialer. A 16bit
application will not.

A Suggested Solution: Allow 16 bit and 32 bit applications to auto dial.

Workaround: Start the Winsock connection first, dial in, connect, then
start the 16 bit application. Convert to using all 32 bit applications.


10) Long File Names get truncated with 16 bit applications.

The Problem Explained: Windows 95 allows long file names to be saved.
This makes everything easier to read. But, each long file name has an
8.3 DOS based counterpart which when converted, is actually harder to
read then when in Windows 3.x. It converts The Little Red House.txt to
thelit~1.txt.

A Suggested Solution: Provide Long File Name support for all
applications.

Workaround: There are third party applications which will do this.


11) ALT-TAB fails to bring up the Desktop as it did in Windows 3.x.

The Problem Explained: ALT-TAB in Windows 3.x always cycles every
running program including Program Manager. Windows 95 went one step
forward offering a menu of running programs and one step backwards
taking away the desktop. What is the sense of loading scraps, shortcuts
and folders on the desktop when you need to minimize all open
applications to get to them?

A Suggested Solution: Explorer is a running shell and should be included
in the ALT-TAB sequence.

Workaround: None.


12) Some Third party applications are allowed to destroy file type
    associations.

The Problem Explained: In Windows 95, file types are associated with the
programs that run them. For example, a picture file (picture.jpg) may be
associated with a viewer called Lview Pro.exe. The installation of
another viewer program, like Apple's Quick Time For Windows, will take
over the association for itself. No matter how many times you correct
the association, the offending application takes over again.

A Suggested solution: Let the user configure the association and decide
which should be the default association. Do not let a third party
application change that association.

Third party application makers must not be allowed to sell Windows 95
approved programs which depend on associating file types for them to run
properly. If two programs require the same association, only one will
run.

Workaround: In most cases, changing the association of file types in
Explorer will be a sufficient workaround. But, in some cases, as in the
case of Apple's Quick Time, it is necessary to edit a *.DLL binary file
to override the associating properties.


                             ***************
Phil Leonard is a regular contributor to WindoWatch. He is a very
knowledgeable Windows95 professional regularly providing our readers
with insight into their '95 problems. He is employed as a Comptroller
when he is not pursuing his many computer related interests.



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══─────────────────────page 10──
The NT Option
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                              NT In the Home

                    Copyright 1996 Linda L. Rosenbaum


At the beginning of 1995, we had three systems networked utilizing
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and connected using 10Base-T Ethernet. Two
of these systems were 486DX2/66 desktop systems with full multimedia and
one was a 486DX2/50 notebook. One desktop system was utilized by my
husband and one was shared between myself and my kids. The notebook was
mostly utilized by my husband. We also had two printers which were
shared via the network. We originally networked the two desktop systems
in early 1994 in order to more easily share the one printer we had at
that time as well as be able to more easily share files. We added
another printer soon after we networked and shared it across the network
too. We later added a DAT drive to my system and utilized it to backup
the entire network.

My husband does a lot of work in programs such as Word for Windows as
well as many graphical programs such as Corel Draw, MS Publisher, Print
Shop Deluxe for Windows, and Print Artist for Windows. I felt that his
486-66 was getting a bit slow for this type of work due to the CPU as
well as having only 16MB of RAM. As a result, we started exploring
either upgrading his existing system or getting a new one.

When we started to research our options in January 1995, I originally
intended to stay with WFWG 3.11 and consider Windows 95 when it was
released. However I had been reading many good things about NT 3.5 and
became more and more intrigued by it. The major reasons I was attracted
to NT 3.5 were the following: 1) Much better crash protection when an
application has a GPF; 2) Resource issues - being limited to the number
of programs that can be run at the same time in WFWG 3.11 because of a
lack of resources; and 3) the conventional memory problem: many windows
programs need some to a lot of conventional memory which can also cause
one to be limited in how many applications can be run at the same time.

With my interest in trying NT 3.5 getting stronger as the months
progressed, I decided to buy a higher end P100 and went all SCSI rather
than EIDE for the hard drive and CD-ROM drive. When we ordered our new
P100 we decided to have DOS 6.22/WFWG 3.11 and NT 3.5 pre-installed for
us. We also decided to keep both 486-66's and have a four system network
rather than just a three system network.

We fell in love with NT 3.5! The new P100 was used by my husband and his
old system went to our kids. We found, much to our surprise and delight,
that our 16bit Windows applications worked very well in NT 3.5. It was a
real pleasure to not have to worry about resources, conventional memory
or a bad application bringing down the entire system. It was a pleasure
to be able to not restart/reboot the system for days and even weeks at a
time. We also found that as long as we stuck with hardware listed in the
Hardware Compatibility List (HCL) adding hardware to NT 3.5 was quite
easy. And we found that very little customizing was needed for NT 3.5 to
perform quite well. This took some getting used to after having used
various flavors of Windows since starting with Windows 3.0 in the summer
of 1990.

Several months after we got the new P100 with NT 3.5, I decided to
install NT 3.51 on my system, still a 486-66 at the time. We also
upgraded the P100 to NT 3.51 as soon as the upgrade was available. I too
found NT 3.51 to be stable and a pleasure to use on my 486-66. However I
will admit it was slower than on the P100 and noticeably slower for some
things as compared to WFWG 3.11 on my 486-66. But the stability etc.
were well worth the loss of some speed. I cured the speed issue by
upgrading my system to a P133. I have an above average, although not
professionally oriented, midi setup and was delighted when quite a bit
of it still worked in NT 3.51.

We have put Windows 95 on both NT 3.51 systems because there are some
areas that NT 3.51 is still not as strong in as Windows 95, or for that
matter WFWG 3.11. These include the running of DOS games with sound and
multimedia windows applications. Some of my 16bit Windows front ends for
multimedia applications don't work as well in Windows NT 3.51 as they do
in Windows 95. In addition there are some other features of Windows 95
that are not available in NT 3.51 as yet and I wanted to at least remain
knowledgeable of them and how they work - TAPI for example.

Another area that I believe Windows 95 is stronger as compared to
Windows NT 3.51 is the hardware supported. There is a much broader level
of support built into Windows 95 and the fact that Windows 95 can use
real mode drivers extends this support even further. We have been very
careful to stay with supported hardware on our NT systems but this does
limit one more than I would like. In addition the hardware manufacturers
are focusing their attention on Windows 95 support to the detriment, at
least for now, of Windows NT 3.51.

We have kept Windows 95 as the only operating system on the third
desktop and the notebook because its my belief that due to the hardware
on the systems and their uses that NT 3.51 would not be practical. The
third desktop is used by my kids and their main use is multimedia CD-ROM
and hard drive based games and educational titles. For the most part
these work quite well in Windows 95 and I believe they would not work as
well in NT 3.51.

We use a wide variety of software on our various systems. These range
from Office 95 (Standard and Pro version), Publisher for Windows 95, MS
Money for Windows 95, Corel Draw 6.0, ABC Graphics Suite for Windows 95,
Quicken 4.0 for Windows, Approach 96, Procomm Plus for Windows 2.11,
CompuServe Navigator for Windows, WinCIM, Ecco Pro 3.0 to a variety of
32bit and 16bit shareware programs. Additionally, we have a wide variety
of CD-ROM based products including Encarta 96, Cinemania 96, Music
Central 96, MS Art Gallery, MS TechNet, CompuServe CD, NautilusCD, PC
Magazine CD, etc. I backup the entire network using my Sony DAT drive
and Arcada Backup Exec NT Single Server Version 6.0.

It is my belief that NT 3.51 Workstation should be given serious
consideration if one is frustrated with or constrained with Windows 3.1
or Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and also has the hardware to run it well.
The minimum amount of RAM needed is 16MB but I believe 32MB is much
better for NT. In addition a fast 486 is also adequate, but a Pentium is
better. NT will support EIDE hard drives and EIDE/IDE CD-ROM drives but
a SCSI system also is easier to get working properly in that then it is
generally only necessary to make sure the specific host adapter is
supported in NT. It is important that either the system itself or the
components making up the system are on the Hardware Compatibility List
(HCL) or have NT drivers. Microsoft updates this list regularly and it
can be obtained from CompuServe as well as the Microsoft BBS.

Some of the negatives with a switch to NT are the higher support costs,
smaller variety of hardware which is directly supported and the lack of
sophistication of the drivers for some of the hardware that is
supported. Unlike Windows 95 or Windows 3.1, there is no free support
from MS for NT 3.51 Workstation. There are two different support plans
which can be used but both do cost money. However there are other
alternatives which do not involve a lot of extra money and these include
CompuServe forums and the Internet. We have not had to call MS for help
yet on either NT system and have been able to get the support we need
via either CompuServe, other networks, or from the person who sold us
P100 system and the upgrades for my system. While things can go wrong
with NT, it has been my experience so far that once it gets installed
and set up, it will keep working with little extra effort needed.

Certain types of hardware are not as well supported in NT as they are in
Windows 95/Windows 3.1. These include sound cards, scanners, and
printers. Many printers are supported but with less capable drivers than
exist in Windows 95/Windows 3.1. However, with supported hardware, NT
3.51 does work quite well and quite reliably.

I strongly believe that the future of NT is excellent. We are delighted
to be able to get an increasing number of 32bit applications now that
Windows 95 has been released and applications are being written for it.
We look forward to increasing support for NT 3.51 with respect to
hardware as well as software.


                             ***************
Linda has been using computers at home since getting a 386-25 in March
of 1990. She fell in love with Windows 3.1 that summer and has been
upgrading ever since. She participates in several networks as well as
reading many computer magazines in her quest to stay current.



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══─────────────────────page 11──
Alice Goes Forward!
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                               Cellar 2020

                   Copyright 1996 by Peter Neuendorffer


High Above the ground, Raining hot and long - at once! People ran
around...

Alice had just fallen for the Mandatory Retirement clause in her lease,
and suddenly had free time.

She was rummaging through the cellar in the year 2020 on the theory that
it would provide the fun of a time capsule. The mission to Mars was
underway, but she was tired of watching that on DisneyNews. The Populist
party was going to run Sonny Bono and Ross Perot for co-vice presidents.
The fall fashions included revealing one-piece bathing suits with an
anti-ultraviolet sheath. She finished wolfing down her Corn patty from
Corn City, and put her auto-answer on flexible to fend off the
telemarketing horde that always hit at 3:36PM each day, and descended
the dirty steps below the earth. She had about twenty minutes of air for
this.

The first thing she found was a monochrome monitor that someone had
loaned to her in 1990. Behind that were a half-dozen circuit boards that
she had forgotten what they went to. 5¼" disks were somewhat rat-bitten.
Software titles included Tic Tac Toe, PacMan, and Agenda from Lotus.

She tripped hard over several cardboard boxes from the original packing,
and was drawn to a flashlight that was lit. Eveready batteries! Several
scrapbooks of code to some game she had started before she had her first
computer. A box of real incandescent light bulbs - she would never need
them, with the power-cell roof on her house.

A life size Barbie doll. An unopened set of Power Rangers. Apparatus for
Nintendo - from before the Holographic Imaging System (HIS), or the
Holographic Energy Recycling Stand (HERS). A life-size Ken doll next to
a set of Legos that didn't move. An 80486 66mz with a one gig drive -
from before the days of 0/1 chemical storage. A beeper, but she couldn't
find the video screen that went with it.

A lump of coal, a can of gasoline - she couldn't see what they were
meant to screw into. A remote control, certainly a world away from the
CSP (channel switch patch) she wore under her blouse.

A handgun, which she promptly turned into the Local Policia, after
taking a picture of it for the record.

There was a small tent, with a logo "camper's delight." She could not
see the point of it, as coordinate assignment would prohibit moving to
another place. And Moving Visas were backed up for the duration.

Then, a Cam, - but when she pushed the button, no scene came out. Alice
reached into her pocket, and slipped on her one-piece swimsuit with
ultraviolet sheaf, and stepped out into the steaming weather. She
contemplated cleaning out the cellar some day, and pushed the
Rearrange-The-Furniture-Mode (RTFM) to workout mode, asking aloud of her
partner "What's for supper?" As an afterthought, she dialed 9 for Thrift
Shop mode and dumped the contents of the basement. "Are you sure?" said
the Voice.


                             ***************
Peter Neuendorffer is a Windows programmer and an exciting satirist who
regularly contributes his considerable wit to WindoWatch. Alice is his
creation and she provides our readers with the tales of her unusual
adventures. Peter and Alice are regular WindoWatch contributors.



═════════════════════════════════ ww ═════════════════════════page 12══
Programming Notes                              A WindoWatch feature
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

                   Window Aspect: A Scripting Language
                  A Tutorial: Part Nine Ghost BBS v3.20

                      Copyright 1995 by Gregg Hommel

     This column is dedicated to the memory of Charles J. Roberts,
     of East Hampton, VA., a GHOST BBS sysop, and an avid GHOST
     beta tester, who died unexpectedly, Sunday December 17, 1995


Never, ever judge a book by it's cover....

Chuck wasn't a computer expert, nor was he a communications maven. If
anything, he was a prime example of the target market for GHOST BBS, a
PCP/Win user who wanted to set up a small BBS, but did not want the
hassles of a regular BBS package to do it. His first voice phone calls
to me showed me this well. He was what can best be described as a
newbie, with questions to match.

But Chuck learned quickly, and before long, he had his BBS up and
running, in the process, teaching me a few things about spots in the
GHOST documentation etc., that were in need of some work. Once Chuck got
things going, he really enjoyed himself with GHOST.

As a matter of fact, not long after he got his BBS up and running, he
called me to tell me about something that had happened. It seems a
fellow named Keith had called his BBS. Keith was a local teacher, who
was looking into setting up a small BBS for his students to use. He
figured they could learn about computers and communications while they
took down assignments and so on. I guess Keith liked what he saw on
Chuck's board, and he and Chuck began talking about the possibilities,
and whether or not GHOST BBS would work for what Keith wanted.

In the end, they decided that it would, even though Keith had to buy a
copy of PCP/Win in order to run GHOST. Chuck spent a great deal of his
own time helping Keith get set up, and running the way he wanted the BBS
to be.

In the end, both Chuck and Keith decided to become Ghost beta testers,
and that's when they began ganging up on me! Shortly after the release
of GHOST BBS 3.20, I began, as is my wont, to work on the next version.
In fairly short order, I posted a beta version for my sites to begin
testing. It wasn't much of a change, just some new code to handle
Adaptive Answer and fax calls, but it was a start.

Then Chuck and Keith got together over it...

Chuck posted a file on my BBS containing a list of about sixteen or
seventeen wish list items that he and Keith had come up with, based on
that first beta version. I read over the file, and, although the items
on the list looked like nice features to add, they also looked to
require a fair amount of coding changes to accomplish the features. I
wrote Chuck back a note explaining this, and telling him that I would
add the items to my to do list for GHOST.

Chuck accepted that response, but he didn't give up quite so easily. He
responded with a note explaining which features he and Keith thought
were the more important ones, and encouraging me to look into at least
those. Chuck was so persistent in his requests that I decided that, in
order to shut him up, I would have to look into the items carefully, and
explain to him exactly why the coding changes would be so extensive.

That's when I realized that I had fallen prey to doing what the title of
this piece says.. I had judged the book by it's cover. One item on the
top of Chuck's, was the implementation of multiple mail conferences, so
his users could post a message in an area specific to their problem or
question, rather than in one single, general conference.

I already had code in GHOST to allow for multiple bulletins, file
libraries, and DOS doors. I quickly realized that it would not take much
to adapt that code to allow for multiple mail conferences. There was, of
course, more to it than that, but the basics were already there, and all
I had to do was work out the details.

The end result was that, out of the sixteen or seventeen items on that
original wish list, about half of them fell into place fairly quickly
and easily once that first one was begun. My first impression that any
of the features requested would require a great deal of re-coding was
quite wrong, and now, those eight or nine new features from Chuck and
Keith are part of the current GHOST BBS beta.

When you are writing code, don't fall prey to the same mistake. Don't
let your first impression of how much work is involved dissuade you from
making changes to your code. Look carefully before making such
decisions.

Now... let's go back to our dear friend, George, who, when last we
looked in on him, was trying to figure out a way to write a generic
script to handle more than just a simple log on to his favorite BBS.

He hasn't had a lot of luck, so in this column we are going to give him
a hand, by showing him a trick that I developed long ago, and that was
explained in my original Wasp 1.0 tutorial on the nets. If you have read
that tutorial, you may want to skip this column, or perhaps use it to
refresh your memory. But lately, I have been getting a lot of email on
this subject, and thought that perhaps, it wouldn't hurt to cover it
again, if only for a whole new family of Wasp script writers, who
weren't around back in the good old days.

This trick was, as noted above, originally developed for Wasp 1.0
scripts, but works equally as well in Wasp 2.0 - and hopefully, Wasp
3.0, whenever we have that language to work with.

There are several ways that you can handle prompts during a log on to a
BBS. The most frequently used method is the one that the PCP/Win
recorder uses, i.e. a series of WAITFOR commands.

But these WAITFOR commands are limited in usefulness. They are
exclusive, meaning that when they are active, nothing else in the script
can continue, and they are time limited. This means that, if the time
allowed for them to remain active expires before a prompt appears on
screen, they aren't of a lot of use, since they won't be active when it
does appear.

Better than a WAITFOR, is a WHEN TARGET. These commands go active when
set, and remain active until the script author, you, explicitly de-
activates them, or the script stops executing. There is no time limit on
them, and they will catch their target whenever it appears. AND they are
asynchronous, which means that they can function even as the script
itself continues on it's merry way, doing other things.

The biggest drawback to a WHEN TARGET was that, back in Wasp 1.0, you
could only have three of them active at a given time. That is what
caused me to discover my trick, since three of these was simply not
enough to watch for every prompt in a complicated PCBoard log on. I had
to find another way to use them, without having to reset them multiple
times to do it...

The next time you log on to a PCBoard or WildCat! BBS, watch the log on
carefully. That's what I did, along with capturing multiple examples
from different systems, comparing them, and studying them over and over.
What I wanted was one or several things common to as many of the prompts
as I could find.

The problem was there wasn't a single thing that I could find. The
prompts varied from system to system, and for that matter, from log on
to log on. I was mistaken, of course, for the simple reason that I was
making the mistake of looking at the text of the prompts, which is
generally what you use in a WAITFOR or WHEN TARGET. I quit looking at
just the text, and began looking at the whole thing, and suddenly, I
found what I was looking for....

On virtually every PCBoard or WildCat! BBS that I looked at, no matter
what else the sysop had set as the text for his prompts, one thing
remained in almost every single prompt that appeared on the system.. not
text per se, but a symbol, a "?".

Such a silly, stupid little thing, but, to confirm it, I did some
further captures, and sure enough, that crazy "?" appeared in almost
every prompt on both kinds of systems, and rarely, if ever, appeared
any- where but in a prompt. That was it, I told myself ! What I must do
is watch for the "?" and when it appears, I've got a prompt. But... how
do I tell which prompt?

As it turned out, a rather simple, solution. When a prompt is sent from
a BBS, everything stops while it waits for you to respond. Not only does
everything stop, but invariably, your remote cursor is left sitting on
screen, at the end of a displayed line of text that is the prompt. All
that I had to do was get that text from the screen of my terminal
window, and check it for a key word or words that would tell me which
prompt it was, and thus, how to respond to it.

Turns out that Wasp has a simple command that can be used to get the
text onscreen in the terminal window, on a given row, from a given
column to another column. That command is TERMGETS. All that I had to do
was determine the row onscreen, and the column from and to. Again Wasp
came to the rescue with a simple way of doing this. The final command
used in my scripts to get the prompt is...

   termgets $ROW 0 prompt_str $COL

where prompt_str is a string variable that stores the text found.

So let's look at this. Remember, I said that, when a prompt string is
received, you end up with that prompt onscreen in the terminal window,
and with your cursor placed on that line, but immediately after the text
of the prompt. So, the above line uses that.. $ROW is the current row on
the terminal window screen, i.e. the row the cursor is currently on, and
$COL is the same thing, but the current column of the cursor.

Therefore, I am telling Wasp to go to onscreen ROW where the cursor is,
and to get text from the screen starting at column 0, and ending at the
column where the cursor is currently. In other words, the entire text of
the currently displayed prompt.

So let's put the two things together now...

1) We need a WHEN TARGET to watch for any prompts coming in. Those prompts
   *ALL* contain the trigger "?", so the line for that, would be

      when target 0 "?" call get_prompt

2) We need a procedure get_prompt, which starts with the TERMGETS
   command above, and then proceeds to determine which prompt is
   being displayed.

And that is where we will pick things up next month.. with the creation
of the procedure which determines which prompt is being displayed, and
then responds to it for us. Sounds simple enough, but there are a few
scripting tricks in that procedure, also.. enough that it makes a
discussion of it a worthwhile endeavor in this column...


                             ***************
Gregg Hommel is a much respected Aspect script writer and programmer. He
is well known on the various nets hosting any number of conferences. He
is applying his considerable programming talents to the construct of his
own homepage and ours. Gregg sits on our Editorial Board and is a
regular WindoWatch contributor. Gregg can be reached at
[e-mail].



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══─────────────────────page 13──
Computer Power and the Future!
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                             A Thousand Times

                        Copyright 1996 Herb Chong


Computer systems have been getting faster and faster since they were
invented. For the past ten years, computer power has been doubling at
about the rate of twice every eighteen months. Although there are limits
in sight with current and foreseeable technology, it is by no means
certain that we are going to hit a hard speed limit any time soon.
Suppose you had a system that had a thousand times more disk space, a
thousand times faster, and a thousand times more memory. What kinds of
things could you do with it that you couldn't do today?


-Disk Space-

If you had a thousand times more disk space, how much would that be?
Many people have about 1G of disk space on their systems these days.
It's nearly the standard for higher end systems and rapidly becoming the
standard for people who are upgrading their systems. A thousand times 1G
is one terabyte. What kind of things would fit in a terabyte of disk
space? Plain ordinary word processing documents won't change much, so
you won't see much of a space increase for a single document. Bitmap
images take up far too much space on most people's computers, but most
people can keep enough files on their computers to have a favorite
collection on-line. One thousand times that space would let people store
even the obscure and the never-to-be-looked-at-again.

Right now, it's impractical to store your music collection on your
computer. At normal CD-quality audio, you could put about 100,000
minutes of music on the terabyte of space. This is about 1,700 average
music CDs. I only have about 300 CDs, but some friends of mine have more
than 3,000. You could put most home CD collections on your computer, and
with a little expansion, accommodate even large home CD collections. If
you assume lousy compression, such as used in the Sony MiniDisc or
Philips digital recording systems, you can get away with between 4:1 and
2:1 compression. With this amount, you will even have room left over for
other things.

Today, no-one keeps their video collection on a computer. Even large
commercial television studios and networks don't do it yet, but they are
starting to. If we assume 640x480x24-bit 30 frames/s video, roughly
comparable to broadcast quality video, that's about 1.6GB per minute.
Since it's possible to do 10:1 to 40:1 compression without noticeably
affecting visual quality, lets assume 20:1 compression. I have made
videos at this compression ratio and have not noticed enough artifacting
without already knowing what to look for. Thus we net out at 80MB/
minute. Adding compressed audio makes almost no difference in the net
data rate. A terabyte of space allows about 12,000 minutes of on-line
video. At about 90 minutes per movie, you get about 140 full length
movies. If people continue to use their recording devices mostly for
time-shifting, a terabyte is enough room to hold many favorite movies
and recordings from the past week or two. People who are collecting
episodes of their favorite TV shows would run out of room, but then
serious collections probably would be willing to get more off-line
storage too, like traditional video tape or perhaps recordable media
like holographic memory or writable laser discs.

With a terabyte of disk space, you have enough room to store,
temp-orarily, anyway, a daily newspaper or two, and several magazines
with words, pictures, audio clips, video clips, and reference
information to where you can get more background if you wish. If you
wanted to, you could record and edit your own music and video on the
system.


-Time-

If you had a CPU, video card, and memory that was one thousand times
faster than what you have today, what could you do with it? The Pentium
100 is rapidly becoming the standard today. Some of the images that I
rendered for the article in the last issue of WindoWatch took about 9
hours to render on my Pentium 90. If it was one thousand times faster,
they would take only about 30 seconds to render. Reducing the realism of
the image reduces the time required by about a factor of 10. This still
doesn't make it possible to do flicker free realistic scene generation.

The movie "Toy Story" required between 45 minutes and 2 hours to render
a single frame. At one thousand times faster, it's possible to generate
the images at somewhere from about 3 seconds to 5 seconds. Broadcast
quality video generated in real- time is still well beyond the realm of
practical. You couldn't run a holodeck without hundreds or thousands of
these kinds of computer systems.

Speech recognition takes lots of computing power. Even with today's
technology though, it's possible to get reasonable quality and
reasonable speed for discrete and continuous voice recognition. Adding
even just ten times more computing power would make them faster and more
accurate. Somewhere between one hundred and one thousand times as much
computing power and you get enough to do continuous speech recognition.
It would become practical to speak to your computer and have it
understand what you want it to do.

The next barrier then comes in the understanding of what you want to do.
Despite naive assumptions to the contrary, it takes an extraordinary
amount of knowledge and computing power to just parse normal spoken
language into relatively unambiguous parts. After parsing comes
understanding. That takes even larger amounts of knowledge and computing
power. One thousand times as much computer power is what researchers in
the field think is needed just to be able to parse and understand a
spoken request or command in a reasonable amount of time. Doing it in
real-time like you see in Star Trek is still beyond what you might
reasonably expect. The knowledge needed to endow a computer with common
sense alone would put a sizable dent in the terabyte of disk space we
have allocated ourselves.

Needless to say, one thousand times as much CPU power means that mundane
things like spreadsheets, accounting programs, and other more
traditional uses of computers would run very quickly. So would file
management tasks and utility functions we traditionally do with personal
computers to keep them healthy.

For just about anything else people do on their computers today,
including just pure playback of video and audio, even today's Pentium
systems are adequate. Increasing the speed of computers by one thousand
times makes some things practical, but a few things that people are
talking about today are still beyond reach. However, if you settle for
real-time generation of game quality graphics, whole new vistas open for
user interface development.

Windows has both fueled and been fueled by the rapid growth in Intel x86
processor power. Imagine running Windows 95 on a 386DX-16 with 1M of
RAM. It can't be done. Even with 4MB of RAM, it can't be done except to
prove how patient you are. On the other hand, if people still used
command line and screen interfaces like those from Lotus 1-2-3 Version 1
or 2, how necessary is a high powered graphics co-processor and CPU?
Windows 95 was not even imaginable when the original PC with the 8086
came out. Running DOS 1.0 on a modern PC- compatible system today is
pointless even if it could be done.

With one thousand times more computer power available, navigating a real
office in high resolution and color rapidly and without flicker would be
possible. A mouse-like object would not be the next development either.
If you consider a 3-D office model, then holding one of the mouse like
devices with 6 axis input won't work for very long for the same reason
that light pens were discovered to be a bad idea. Holding a instrument
in the air without support for long intervals is just too tiring. It's
likely we'll navigate our computer desktop of the future using a
combination of an ordinary mouse with more than two buttons, perhaps
three or four, or combine it with a joystick-like affair and fly through
our user interface. As described earlier, spoken interfaces for general
purpose, working day use, will not happen. However, putting that kind of
interface to use for casual users of computers, such as at an ATM, would
be useful, although people like to interact in silence because of the
privacy it gives them.


-Remembering-

The standard computer shipping today in the era of Windows 95 generally
comes with 8MB of RAM. A larger system would come with 16MB. To work
with round numbers and hedge our bets, assume that one thousand times as
much memory would 10 GB of RAM on a computer. Since it is not relevant
to increase screen resolutions by a factor of one thousand but by only a
factor of ten (100dpi to 1000dpi), our user interface of the future with
high resolution would not require appreciably more memory. After all,
what is a factor of one hundred between friends. We assume for the time
being that on-line permanent storage, which I continued to call disk
space above, is still going to be cheaper than RAM and faster too. So
long as this is true, it means that a tradeoff has to be made between
using RAM for holding something and the on- line storage. It also means
that there is going to be less RAM than disk space on a typical computer
system.

If a thousand times more RAM were available along with a thousand times
more disk space, it means that the relative uses of RAM and disk would
still be about the same. RAM is volatile and so you keep temporary data,
applications you are using at the moment, and their data, in memory most
of the time. You also can afford to do much more aggressive caching.
More things from the disks would be in memory, simply because the
objects stored there are going to be larger and not everything can fit.
The notion of launching an appli-cation and changing to one that is
already running might blur though. It really makes no difference to you
if an application is on disk or in memory except for speed, and if the
system takes care of it, why do you care?

Except for video, audio, and user interfaces, most people don't really
need a thousand times as much memory. Having one thousand times as much
means that the system can do more things to make the system run faster.
The user interface can be richer and more responsive, but just how much
more detail can you add to a button or a window? It's what's in the
window that matters. For all intents and purposes then, I predict that
having a thousand times more RAM will mean a faster system and little
else to the average user. For power users doing highly memory intensive
tasks, the one thousand times means the difference between talking about
how nice it would be to solve a problem and being able solve a problem.
For people like you and I, all we'll see is even faster operation.


-Summary-

If a computer system like what we have talked about today were suddenly
to appear on your desktop, most of you would play on it with delight and
awe at the speed at which it got things done. It would enable uses which
we simply can't do today. However, there are some things which are still
beyond the reach of a mere three orders of magnitude increase in power.
Two things for sure are that user interfaces and new uses to which we
put such machines can only be guessed at today, and that tomorrow's
state of the art computer games will still not have enough to run
properly. The game box of the future will say something like "Minimum
system requirements: 25GHz x8600- compatible with 8GB memory, 400GB of
free disk space, and 3D video card supporting 16Kx16K TrueColor at 30
million polygons per second."


                             ***************
Herb Chong is a very versatile man. His talents include programming,
research, writing and teaching. His contribution to WindoWatch has been
very great. We were very pleased when he became the WindoWatch
Contributing Editor and are very proud of the fine job he did with last
assignment as Guest Editor Extraordinaire.



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══─────────────────────page 14──
ACNE Computer Applianced Network Enterprise(s)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                        Is the Future Almost Now?

                       Copyright 1996 Lois Laulicht


It's fun to diddle with the notion of owning or having access to a
powerful computer that will take care of many routine details of life.
Just as important, such a device would free up time and resources for
more interesting pursuits. In the past, when we've discussed the
computer as an appliance, we've dealt primarily with how much, -
developmental costs; when - the targeted availability; and for whom -
the market!

Although we've always had among us visionaries who can see around the
corner of time, the reality of our social norms tend to restrict our
vision to well worn paths. Cost constraints limit the goodies of
progress for the affluent, at least in the beginning. It seems that the
high costs of the infrastructure, the availability of new possibilities
for the general public, and questions of utility for those who have no
specialized experience with computers have reduced discussion to wishful
dreaming. But no more!

As more options emerge to define what a computer appliance might become,
we tend to get mired in issues of management and special interests.
Discussion deteriorates into controversy about the pros and cons of
governmental control or restriction. The reality of such far reaching
technology and how it will impact upon the economy, social institutions
and our daily lives seem to be left totally to chance.

When we think of the computer as an appliance with Hal of the film 2001
as the model, most of us think in terms of a personalized and highly
idealized Electronic Cottage. Indeed, parts of the society are already
highly computerized. Most modern hospitals have already automated
important parts of their intensive care units. We regularly read of
computerized stock transactions, automated buys and sells, and the
resulting havoc that uncontrolled automation can create in the financial
markets. Then there are the tinkerers among us who have successfully
automated all or parts of their domiciles for security, scheduling of
lighting, the pedestrian scheduling of a VCR to tape a television
program.... and much more.

If we as individuals had control over technological development we might
begin by creating three laundry lists: those trite and routine tasks
appropriate for a personal computer appliance, those not suitable or
where human judgment is required, and finally a third listing,
representing questionable areas for debate.

For instance, in my own pedestrian way, I do want an intelligent
appliance that will suck up dirt, dust, and debris in my house and then
take it all out to the trash on an as needed basis. My **ELF must clean
the silver, the stove broiler, call the local grocery store by modem
with my monthly purchase list and arrange for delivery. Also get quotes
for a new auto, arrange for financing and then deliver the sucker to the
front door with the motor running and the insurance purchased. It must
have the intelligence to comparison shop for that new Pentium v.00?
relying upon industry data to postpone the inevitable obsolescence. I do
not, however, want a device located at some central collection point
automatically monitoring my visitors, email, or telephone calls, either
data or voice, and putting its digitized input onto a tape to be called
up by a thug extorting money, a company determined to sell me goods I
don't need, or a government objecting to my politics.

Perhaps our futuristic predictions are based upon a technology that is
limited to a single computer and we have been too narrowly defining what
a computer appliance can be. Most of us understand the concept of a
network but have not expanded our dream of the future to include
multiple computers as part of a universe we can use and even control!

For example, for $300, the following device is being advertised as an
alternative to traditional Internet services and indeed has some of the
properties of a computer appliance. In their fact sheet ViewCall America
says:

      A powerful, easy-to-use information appliance that
      connects directly to the television and standard
      telephone line to deliver Internet access. With a
      built- in Netscape-compatible browser, users can surf
      the World Wide Web without a PC. WEBster is controlled
      by an infrared remote control. An optional infrared
      keyboard is also available.

      Online Services--A subscription service that enables
      `average consumers' to access services intended to be
      convenient and to deliver information. These include
      home shopping, banking, news and information,
      education, entertainment, and e-mail. Navigation is
      easy and guided by four well-marked, color buttons on
      the remote control. This device takes us several steps
      beyond the much discussed cable model because the user
      is not just a receptacle from the Internet, but will
      have access to email, messaging and the too many
      Internet choices available now! The monthly fees will
      likely determine the extent of acceptance by
      non-computer users.

The user becomes a partner, I believe, only when one can actively make
choices of Internet features from a large offering, as opposed to
pre-selected features in the cable model . In fact, many of the popular
online services like CIS and AOL, were until very recently offering a
classic cable model in their closed system approach to services.

When Joe McGarvey of Interactive Week discussed the issue of
network-centric PCs, he quoted the views of industry leaders and CEO's
who argued "that future efforts should focus on the network rather than
the PC." They went on to say that "By shifting the processing and
storage workload to powerful network servers, personal computers can
evolve into network appliances that are not only less expensive than
today's desktop machines, but easier to use." This is the controversial
dumb terminal model.

We've all come to take for granted that we take on the identity of our
Internet Service Provider (ISP) every time we get onto the Internet.
Industry leaders take the notion several steps further and take the
position that The Internet (or any large network for that matter) is the
provider and keeper of vast amounts of information for smallish clients,
thee and me and our local hard drives. Our storage devices with our
beloved data are becoming redundant. They further claim that their
network computer planned for early 1996 release, would not be tied to a
specific microprocessor but would have the advantage of having
multi-platform utility with the use of the highly touted JavaScripting.
A quite different spin to our evolving definition of the computer as an
appliance.

There are still other developers zeroing in on cheap, or less expensive
devices to help large numbers of people get online and utilize the
riches of the Internet. Sega and Sony are tooling up systems for
Internet access and Email as has Direct TV already with its "pizza" size
portable dishes. Still another departure of what many had thought as a
computer appliance.

ISDN is changing the landscape of education as we speak. More and more
in regions where the installation of fiber optics is a reality, school
children are reaping the benefits of the fast relay of pictures, video,
and onsight action in their classrooms through offerings like the
Project Ocean of Know. Plain old telephone lines or (POTS) is still the
service of necessity for most of us, but that is rapidly changing. The
implications for home schooling are pretty obvious, but the more complex
issues of a public school system mired in the politics of race and
poverty is one of the issues of an Applianced Computer Network
Enterprise that we are going to have to address as a national community.

Perhaps we must make the assumption that the future is closer at hand
than we originally thought... at least important parts of that future.

What can be delivered now or very soon:
1. Internet access for information
2. Banking
3. Online mail, telephone and faxing services
4. Library and newspaper services.
5. Shopping (from groceries to fashion)
6. Higher and secondary education complete with degrees and
   accreditation.
7. And in personal terms ISDN is rapidly coming to most major markets.
   Channel One will offer ISDN dial up services shortly after the first
   of the year for $65. per month plus the cost of specialized equipment
   at the user's end.


-Applianced Computer Network(ing) Enterprises-(ACNE):

Using the assumption that the computer appliance will be dynamic,
expanding and decreasing in scope to fit the needs of the user, then we
can sensibly assume that the Internet as we know it, will also be
dynamic. My crystal ball tells me that Microsoft is correct when they
assert that the Internet is a WAN and that OLE64 or OLE 128 will be a
crucially important tool. However, my vision sees many Internets or WANs
just as there are many television channels and many private networks.
The resources of that totality or as much of that totality that each
user opts to use is the appliance. The new president of Bell
Laboratories, Dan Stanzione, maintains a new kind of home appliance
could stimulate widespread construction of interactive broadband
networks. Perhaps we are in the process of creating another utility and
if not, should we be?

How will this impact upon the society? And to what part of the
society... and should we care?

Signs of the times:

· In 1995, the World Wide Web expanded at about 1% a day.

· Demand for personal computers for the home market represent a 22%
  increase in U.S. sales.

· Price cuts made the PC the Xmas95 present of choice with faster
  CPU's and multimedia much in demand.

· Windows 95 added to PC demand as has wide media coverage of the
  Internet.

· More people working at home requiring sophisticated sources of
  information!

· Response Analysis Corp. of Princeton, NJ in a recent survey: found
  that 60% of households with incomes of $60,000 a year or more had
  computers. They used this income level as a cut off point and did
  not interview those with lower incomes.

It seems to me, that each of the above events have put us on a track
where we react to the consequence of our collective behavior. This takes
us to the third list. An overstated and extreme example is that nuclear
proliferation created acute social, international and pollution problems
for the global community. It appears that we are again repeating the
same or similar mistakes without a backward glance. There is no
question, however, that for some people in unspecified job categories
employed by traditional and established industries, mass automation will
continue to threaten their livelihoods, decrease their economic and
social status and sharply increase existing social distance within the
national community and beyond.

Gates in his new book, "The Road Ahead," by Viking hedged his bet. The
book describes a vast menu of technological possibilities and their
potential implications. Readers are exhorted to consider the educational
and social issues that will *have* to be addressed to cope with the vast
array of social changes."

Cheap communications technology already allows millions of computers to
be linked to one another across the globe providing information services
that were unthinkable a few years ago. However, when Gates writes, that
the information superhighway is not yet a reality and won't become so
for at least another decade, he shoots himself in the foot.

Of the many bottom line conclusions asserted by computer writers, no one
has pointed out a simplistic and bare bones truth. The goodies of any
broad based universal device which provides information, entertainment,
education and enrichment, is only as good as the literacy of the clients
it serves.

Right now, the Internet provides the focus of main stream interest, the
framework, the training wheels, if you will, for information appliance
technology for large numbers of people across the globe. This will not
simply be a national revolution, but rather an international one, fueled
by the market place and creating huge economic growth *and* dislocation
in its wake. The role of human handlers must go beyond motives of glory
and profit and attempt to build into their planning, protection of
individuals, their livelihoods and freedoms.


** ELF  Electronic Lifeform Format


                             ***************
Lois Laulicht is the Publisher Editor of WindoWatch.



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══─────────────────────page 15──
There is an Internet in Your Future!
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                Reflecting on the Internet and Its Impacts

                    Copyright 1996 by Jerome Laulicht


-Personality Tests and the Internet-

The Internet reminds me of the projective tests I first encountered when
I was a budding clinical psychologist. I was meticulous about learning
the theories, tools, techniques and lingo of my future profession. It
intrigued me that people could see such a great variety of different
things when they looked at ink blots or photos. I am again intrigued
when I realize the great variety of perceptions and what people say
about the Internet. - its future impacts and effects! There are
interesting similarities between reactions to projective tests and to
the Internet. People fantasize scenarios, make up their own stories, and
project their own needs, differing hopes and expectations.

We find people drooling over the Internet as a great new advertising
medium, and as a fantastic new tool for education at all levels ranging
from kindergarten, using home schooling, through college degree
programs. Of course, there's the hope that it *is* a place to sell wares
from wine to homes and that people can be stimulated into making more
credit card purchases, despite the fact that there is not yet a reliable
way to make these transactions secure. Still others see it as a paradise
for those who want to assemble pornography collections for others to
stare at. Any day I expect to read of an Internet home page based
business at http://[e-mail]. It would allow
one to talk rather than write sex, while looking at a picture of a
gorgeous person, or perhaps considering the option of being a character
in a virtual reality film. The imagination runs wild: what viewer do you
wish to use? --with what person?-- or perhaps you prefer to *create*
your own person and a persona for yourself; And finally, what credit
card do you wish to use? Some specialists see it as an opportunity to
commit crimes with less risk from the comfort and privacy of one's home
or office.

No one can forecast with accuracy the technical potentials of the
Internet or the imaginative potential of its users. It might largely be
a question of what creative people dream up, what people *really* want
and the investment to make it so. Predicting the impacts of the Internet
is both difficult and always fascinating. It will be in part a
consequence of imagination-- linking fantasy to reality. These, too,
were important elements when developing, using and interpreting the
results of what were once my favorite tools, the Rorshach and TAT tests.

The fact is that none of us have a fix on what a dynamic Internet is but
rather have hopes, make guesses and predictions of what it might become.
People are seriously trying to formulate big statements about its
present and future functions. We should take heed and learn from the
varied conceptions of what desktop computers can best do. These have
ranged from number crunching to word processing to databases to games to
communications. As one writer recently put it: "the PC is only now
beginning to reveal its true value and greatest potential, as a
communication device that lets people share ideas freely on a global
network." This nonsense type of assertion has frequently been made about
the functions of computers, and similar simplifications have been made
about the Internet.

Computers are for all of these things. Undoubtedly still other uses will
become widespread and popular as more powerful computers invite new
uses. The Internet too can and will have a variety of functions. It is
to dance with trivia to do anything but develop for an Internet which
can meet multiple needs for multiple functions.

Another intriguing example of how varied and unpredictable is the use of
the Internet is the torturous brief history of the search for computer
security. This goal has been made more difficult, both more elusive and
more desirable, by the massive growth of the Internet. No one much cares
about the security of home pages which are essentially advertisements or
promotions. There is much concern when trying to encourage online credit
card transactions and transmitting pro- proprietary data and
information.

However, so much can be done on the Internet with little concern for
security or firewalls. One can imagine a busy and widely useful Internet
focused upon material where secrecy is of no consequence, or with issues
of security becoming defined as unimportant or, simplistically, as
non-problems.

Companies try to achieve more security by operating their own wide- area
networks. One wonders if any major effort demanding high computer
security can soon be developed on the Internet because the most skillful
culprits may well be the security mavens rather than the criminals. It
is these experts on creating security who are motivated to look for
serious flaws in the work of other security professionals and are,
indeed, the most likely to find them. It was one of them, Paul Kochner,
who came up with the idea of clocking the time to compute the secret key
as a method to break, thereby unprotecting, credit card exchanges and
Internet security software. He has also suggested that we should not
rush to deploy trusted electronic security systems.


-A Shift to Fantasy: Newspapers and Magazines on the Internet-

A fantasy has became a reality for me! I have been able to renew a
cherished habit of reading the NY Times, albeit an abbreviated version,
with my morning coffee. My other fantasy was for a serious start on
ending the nuclear arms race and this too is happening. No longer must I
wait several days for the paper to arrive by mail. Since leaving urban
America, CNN by satellite and seeing the news with breakfast is not
always pleasant. We now download the daily Times and maintain our mail
subscription. I was emphatically reminded of the change on Dec. 26 when
I received four back issues of the paper, not unusual after a major
holiday or storm.

This would be a trite way to introduce a topic in a classy magazine
except that I live in very rural West Virginia and the nearest newsstand
carrying the Times is at least thirty-five miles away. The cost for the
electronic edition is now minimal because a growing number of rural
areas now have local Internet access services for a competitive monthly
fee. The Internet has moved well beyond the cities and the Universities.
By itself, this is no big deal but is probably a prototype of what we
should expect of how many small effects occasionally add up to a large
one.

The Times in a complete version is also available from the Nexis service
and America Online. Nexis maintains a major archive of back issues which
can be searched. AOL provides access to current and quite recent issues.
Quality papers distributed nationally and quickly are needed. CNN and
USA Today are not sufficient and the TV network news offers little .
What is now available from a few sites could become more widely
accessible at low cost phone rates if other publications would create
their own variations. The approach of the Times is only one paradigm and
others have begun experimenting.

Publishers of papers and magazines could distribute full editions of
their wares commercially for a fee through their own home pages or share
revenues with online service providers who carry their publications.
Massive electronic distribution will have to wait for the day of more
efficient compression and greater bandwidth. The explosion of tools for
electronic publishing which are suitable for Internet use is opening a
new set of avenues and of authors for the distribution of information
throughout the world. With less reliance upon a single fixed price and
with special arrangements for selected users like schools or other site
licensees. Nothing new there! Bottom line costs are lower with no paper,
print or transportation costs.


-Books on the Internet-

To illustrate this better, - another step into fantasy but this time
with books! We are not talking of book publishing but rather of selling
and distributing books, and critical information about them, and the
dissemination of this information. The impact of the Internet depends
largely upon people creating meaningful ideas and operations.

I have been a book lover forever and know that books have rigid physical
properties. We are all caught up by tradition and habit but know that it
is the content which counts--not paper or bindings or size. As a matter
of preference I reject the popular book-on-tape because the actor/reader
intrudes upon my imagination and interaction with the author. The
obvious ideal is the ability to choose from up-dated selections of
current fiction and non-fiction, classics, recent best-sellers, and
catalogues of the vast number of books pub-lished in recent decades. In
other words, book distributors should have some of the characteristics
of a library with meaty abstracts and indexes. There is every reason to
believe that there will be commer-cial enterprises on the Internet
targeted at book buyers and readers with a variety of special interests
as well as libraries and schools. Commun-ities and institutions already
have budgets for new acquisitions. The only difference here is that
catalogues and ordering forms can be available online for customers.

The book clubs don't seem to have taken advantage of the Internet for
either information or marketing services. The existing traditional book
clubs, despite their knowledge of books, probably do not have the moxey
to develop such ventures or fear a too limited payoff. They may be too
bound by tradition and their habitual ways of doing business. Take the
Quality Paperback Book Club as an example. It is part of the genre of
clubs appealing to special tastes or reading interests and is a
subsidiary of the Book-of-the Month Club.

The highlights of my experience with them were an eye-opener. It is
almost impossible to establish contact through their 800 phone number
with its endless busy signals. Only an inspired call to the parent
company after two frustrating months worked! I was told that Quality, an
ironic adjective, did *not* have enough lines or enough people. Nor do
they have an Email address! My original letter had elicited an unhelpful
form response. I had been receiving the usual monthly mailings with
fairly adequate information on the few featured books and essentially
nothing on the many others listed. Apparently, no one had thought to
develop a home page with commentary on the others. You get the
picture-no connection at all between their goals and the Internet.

Since the ability to assemble, store and deliver words is a computer's
strong point, it is surprising that they have not been much used for
books. I know of only one organized example using electronic
dis-tribution. The Guttenberg Project provides to the public older
non-copyrighted works in text format. A Club operating from the Internet
could offer far more choices each month since inventory is basically
files on hard disks. Their home page could at little cost provide
adequate reviews and descriptions of many books leading to many more
choices. All it takes is disk space and good page design..

Transactions and delivery could be electronic as well, allowing quick
shipment at lower costs. This sort of enterprise could become a major
source for ill-funded and small libraries. Authors would get their
royalties and publishers make a profit. Both hard and paperback editions
would still flourish and would very likely continue to be the favored
treatment of books for a long time. Purchasers of the elec-tronic
version would get the content at much lower cost. Perhaps libraries
could create income from selling books- on-a-disk similar to books on
tape. What about an online rental library and sending those selected
books directly to your hard disk?


-Schools, Public Libraries and the Internet-

It seems to me that a browser plug-in is needed for commercial book
sellers and book clubs to use to distribute book announcements and
confirmation of orders. There is much talk of marketing on the Internet
and I am using books as a paradigm of what might be realistically
possible and in demand. I assume that those people interested in making
Internet purchases will require some sort of listing or catalogue.
Without a catalogue there is no advantage to this kind of shopping as
compared to traditional 800 numbers, discount stores, or supermarkets.
For rather obvious reasons, books are the kind of product that might
sell well on the Internet.

Using the Simtel shareware library as a model, a book server(s) calls
upon public or specialized source libraries from which every comm-unity,
library, school, individual or family could choose. Almost everyone
would then have the opportunity, as I did, notwithstanding poverty, to
have full access at no cost to the magnificent New York City Public
Library system.

Even though it's wonderful to own real books it is often impossible for
many to buy more than a few of what is perceived as a non-essential
item. Paperbacks don't make it for long-term possession as personal
treasures. Perhaps a real use could be found for those old 286's and
Apples for online reading and browsing in public places like city halls,
municipal buildings and of course, schools and libraries.

We should not get too starry-eyed and think that libraries will be able
to provide new services at the same funding level. Libraries will need
additional tables and chairs and places to plug in those old machines
for people who don't have computers at home. This is no longer fantasy
and goes beyond book clubs and book purchases. We are discussing
libraries in smaller towns and branch libraries in the poorer sections
of cities suddenly having larger book choices because they will be able
to access these developing Internet resources. Taking advantage of the
opportunity will demand going beyond technical and organizational
wizardry. Without technically competent computer staff, librarians and
teachers this is indeed a mere hope and fantasy.

Lets not drift too far from reality and get mired in the enchantment of
hype when we think about the Internet's potential. When one reads that
60% of American homes now have computers, one must also heed the
additional sentences which say that this is true just for those homes
with annual incomes over $60,000. Statements about the great potential
educational benefits of the Internet need skeptical evaluation. Think of
the technological knowledge required to merely get onto the Internet and
then use it at all well. Think of the numbers of computers required even
if students work in groups to tap this resource frequently. Then think
of other ways in which schools use computers and the sharp limits on
funding for computers. Now forget all the technical hoo-hah and ask how
schools can possibly find the financial and personnel resources to
acquire enough equipment as well as teach students first to read and
then enough about computers and software to make the Internet work for
them. It will be nearly impossible for many schools and students to
benefit much from this resource without private organizations
*interfering* to make these things happen. Governments will not provide
much of the money needed, and this is exacerbated by the demand for no
deficit and lower taxes.

As best I can see, the only chance of filling the void is to create a
much better-organized and effective way to recycle Internet ready
computers with Corporate America getting generous tax write- offs for
their contributions. "Internet Ready" is the key phrase however! We
badly need efficient agencies to publicize the need, collect and
distribute useful for the Internet computer equipment. Perhaps we can
encourage the resurgence of earlier corporate efforts to make sure that
school children had access to efficient equipment for the task. In this
case it is full access to the Internet!

With financial support and vigorous technical leadership from the
computer industry perhaps we will soon reach the point of creating an
industry foundation to provide start-up support for a number of such
local agencies. If we are serious about the positive role of computers
and in the Internet impacting upon the society positively, this is what
we will do.


                             ***************
Jerome Laulicht is Professor Emeritus from the University of Pittsburgh.
He is the author of many scholarly and research articles along with his
WindoWatch contributions.



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══─────────────────────page 16──
Excel V5 vs. Lotus V5 (Win 3.1 versions)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                       Spreadsheets and the Suites
                       Part II of the Suite Series

                     Copyright 1996 by Frank McGowan


Once again, the standard caveat lector: I approach Lotus from a
Microsoft point of view, having cut my eye teeth on Excel. My only prior
exposure to Lotus was a workshop I conducted last year that used version
2.4 for DOS. Lately I've been teaching and using Excel almost
exclusively. So I came to Lotus with my vision virtually untainted by
preconceived notions regarding its effectiveness on Windows.

So, now that we've got that out of the way . . .

Why would someone reasonably competent and comfortable with Excel want
to switch to Lotus, anyway? Well, I certainly can't come up with a good
reason, but that doesn't mean you mightn't. Certainly there must be lots
of folks agonizing, even as I type, over which one they should choose
for their home or business. If I were a neophyte in the area of
spreadsheets, I would be very tempted to choose Lotus, if only for the
outstanding tutorial that comes with it.

Normally I don't bother with tutorials packaged with software, because
my experience with them has been pretty dismal. Most of them either
start somewhere in what should be the middle of the learning curve; take
forever to get far enough along to reach anything very interesting; or
are so user-friendly they slop over into treacly cuteness like a box of
Forrest Gump chocolates. I generally don't stick around long enough to
see what's in the next chocolate.

Lotus's tutorial avoids these potholes, starting at the beginning and
moving along at a pace that all but the most cognitively-challenged
should be able to maintain. The exercises are complex enough to be
interesting and realistic but not so tricky that they are overwhelming.
When you get lost, as I managed to do a couple of times, it's easy to
backtrack and get your bearings.

On one hand, it was somewhat exhilarating to see how quickly I was able
to become conversant with the product, while on the other hand it was a
bit depressing to realize that anyone who took the time to work hir
(okay, this is my attempt to avoid a gender-specific pronoun without
resorting to "his/her") way through the tutorial would have no need for
my services as a trainer. Getting up to speed is easy on Lotus - given
that easy should always be read as compared to.

Once you're ready to do real work, things even out between Excel and
Lotus. They contain features that produce the same kinds of results and
are on a par for ease of use. For instance, Lotus offers a Fill by
Example that works like Excel's Fill, Series feature: you enter the
first of a sequence, such as a month's name, and Lotus/Excel fills in
the following blanks.

Differentiating between them is not easy. You find yourself looking at
very minor points. For example, I was at first put off by the lack of
drag handles on the Lotus cells, thinking it had to be quicker to fill
cells in Excel, by clicking the drag handle and dragging across. I
discovered that Lotus behaves much the same, but their method involves a
special chevron effect that indicates that dragging will put the cell's
contents in the other cells. This is not very significant, unless you
think style points count for more than 50% of a score.

One thing I found in Lotus that appealed is the choice of Amortize a
Loan as one of the SmartMasters you can select when opening a new
worksheet. With Excel, you have to know that the function to use is PMT,
not all that obvious, especially to a beginner. That's probably not
enough reason to prefer Lotus to Excel, but at least it's a point in its
favor.

Data manipulation, sorting, charting, etc., is a tossup: both Excel and
Lotus let you display your results in whatever form you think presents
it best; and neither has much of an edge in methodology. However, it's a
bit disconcerting that the sort buttons don't appear automatically on
the Lotus toolbar - you have to put them there yourself, via the
SmartIcons option under the Tools menu. Of course, that means you have
to know they exist, and then figure out how to get to them - a point for
Excel, I feel.

Essentially, after gaining some familiarity with Lotus, I've decided
that Lotus is to Excel as Spanish is to Italian: clearly related, but
different enough to require some learning; and similar enough to get you
into trouble if you're not careful. I speak from hard experience on the
Spanish/Italian subject. I'm a little fluent in Italian, four years of
college and a lot less in Spanish, two years high school, and three
years of street Spanish garnered in the service of my country in
Alamogordo, New Mexico.

A few years ago, Sue and I were in Guadalajara, wandering around the
Mercado. Acres and acres of all kinds of things you absolutely can't
live without. I decided to surprise my bride with a souvenir. Finally I
opted for a small hand-woven basket. The vendor's price was three
thousand pesos (tres mil). Knowing that one should always bargain or be
regarded as a cabron by the locals, I countered with an offer for two
thousand. Unfortunately, I chose the Italian word ("due") rather than
the Spanish ("dos"), which the vendor heard as English for do it. When I
objected that I hadn't gotten enough change for my five-thousand peso
note, he was understandably perturbed. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed
before the misunderstanding escalated and an international incident was
averted. It was more than an hour before I realized the mistake I'd
made. It's unlikely you'll find yourself on the verge of a fistfight
because you inadvertently mistake a Lotus function for its Excel
counterpart; but you should be careful!


                             ***************
Frank McGowan is a teacher, trainer, and computer consultant. This is
the second of his SUITES articles for 16bit Windows users. He is a
regular contributor to WindoWatch and can be reached at
[e-mail]



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══─────────────────────page 17──
A Report from Israel
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                     The Technology Focus in Israel

                      Copyright 1996 Stanley Kanner


At the recent education exhibition in Jerusalem, Israel's love affair
with technology was very evident. Every single exhibitor at the fair
dealt with technology. From computerized robots to internet connections,
there was nothing but technology to be seen. As the international
economies have been shifting more and more to high tech, the Israeli
economy has been booming.

Israel is a technology oasis, in the middle of a technological desert.
Many of the surrounding countries that it is trying to make political
peace with have poor economies. A worker for the foreign ministry in
Israel told me that a Jordanian counterpart had bragged to him that
Jordan did forty million dollars a year worth of business in computer
related industries. He went on to say that this represented about one
per cent of what Israel does in high tech business.

The differences here are vast. With peace between Jordan and Israel,
hopefully Syria and Israel, and the possibilities of peace with other
Arab countries, Israel is in the position of being the high tech
supplier to the Arab world. However there exist mammoth albeit
traditional barriers to be overcome. An observer for Peace Watch, an
inter-national organization monitoring the peace process, recently told
me that the Arabs have great distrust of the Israeli technological edge.
It was his opinion that they are concerned that if they let the Israeli
high tech business into their countries they will be economically
managed by Israel. He went on to say that at a recent technology fair in
Aman, the number of Israeli companies represented were restricted for
fear of domination of the exhibition by the Israeli exhibitors.

From this side of the Jordan river in Jerusalem, it appears that there
are many Israeli companies ready to expand their business into the
neighboring Arab countries.

In the Middle East, real life situations effect your everyday comings
and goings. I was trying to get reactions from Arabs in East Jerusalem
and Aman of the effect of peace and Israeli high tech on Arab countries,
only to find that the West Bank had been sealed off and East Jerusalem
was on strike due to the assassination in Gaza of "The Engineer."

I am planning a trip to Aman this month and will attempt to get first
hand information on the Arab perspective as it relates to these possible
technological impacts on their societies. Hopefully the West Bank will
be open.


                             ***************
Stan Kanner is a regular WindoWatch contributor who is spending a year
in Israel. He has been active on the Internet with his online high
school. He can be reached by email at [e-mail]



══════════════════════════════════ ww ════════════════════════page 18══
Are We Drifting...?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

                      Reflections of a Modem Junkie

                    Copyright 1996 by Leonard Grossman


"Think about the future," the editor said, - but nothing came to mind.
Then I thought about the immortal words of Maynard G. Krebs, who, when
asked to write an essay entitled "Whither are We Drifting?" as a high
school assignment, responded, "I don't know." Krebs was a beatnik
character on the 50's TV. show, Dobie Gillis. If you were born on the
cusp of the baby boom you will remember. Krebs got an "A."

Even though Congress has granted me excessive time to think about this
and other weighty matters, I don't know either. Whether we are talking
about the on-line world or computers in general, this is a period of
flux. Patterns and trends are hazy.

For more than 20 years I have attended the same New Years Eve party. For
the last half dozen, I have swapped computer stories all night. It was
after midnight when I realized the subject hadn't even come up. Finally
about 1:00 a.m. one of my once a year friends asked, as he always does:
"What new toys did you get this year." I realized there was nothing
exciting. Oh yes, during 1995 I did add a few meg of RAM to the pawn
shop special and I convinced NEC to replace my single speed CD ROM with
an upgrade, but other than that nothing much. I'm not counting that tape
backup I so desperately had to have and which stares at me from its bay
inducing guilt but not prompting me to take action.

But even if I had made a major upgrade, would it be that exciting. Yes,
things would be faster... and I have recently begun to download
share-ware which snootily informs me that it requires a 486 when I try
to install it. But there is nothing I need to do that I can't do right
now. In the face of the federal shut down, and the payless furloughs
expected when we do get back to work, I can't really justify any major
expenditures at the moment.

At a meeting of NICOL, The Northern Illinois Computer Owners League, the
first week of January, about 25 to 30% of the members were using Windows
95. More anticipated moving over in the near future but a few, like me,
had already deleted it from their systems. The trend seems to be
reluctant acceptance of Win95, not enthusiasm. We did watch a demo of
Word Pro from Lotus run under WIN95 on a blistering IBM ThinkPad, and
projected overhead. Even on this P150 or whatever it was with 20 meg of
RAM, things seemed slow to me,. but then I quite happily compose on Word
Perfect 5.1 for DOS. If I need to do something fancy I import the file
in WPWIN and slog on from there. Most of what I write, aside from legal
documents when the government is open, gets transported to editors, each
of whom publishes in a different format. Nothing beats ASCII for this
purpose. That way everyone can use my stuff and I don't have to remember
the preferred format of each publisher. Why compose in Windows fonts if
I am going to save it in ASCII in the end? The demonstrator did point
out that the default is now to single space rather than double space
after a period. "Sez Who?", we wanted to know. There was no answer. One
maven suggested that the difference was because Word Processing with
proportional spacing is more like print than type, but who knows.

Word Pro does offer some exciting features, but Lotus (IBM) seems to be
risking the same fate that hit Word Perfect. The new app makes
significant changes in the interface. Whether Ami Pro fans will find it
worth while to learn a new application, and if so whether the one they
choose will be Word Pro, is an open question.

The most fascinating thing about the demo was the opening WIN95 screen.
After complimenting the demonstrator on his fancy wallpaper, a sharp
eyed member of the group noticed one shortcut icon not far above the
START button. All it contained was the letters MG. Sure enough, this
tried and true Lotus demonstrator, with all the latest file management
tools at his disposal, could not bear to get along without that great
Lotus orphan, Magellan, only a single click away. Be still my beating
heart... maybe there is hope yet.

I discovered found one exciting new application in the past few days.
It's the IBM Infomarket. This internet client places a banner on your
screen which is updated with the latest Reuters headlines every few
minutes while you are on line. With this app I was able was keep up with
the latest news on the government shutdown while editing this column.
When an important headline scrolls across my screen, I can click on an
icon and the latest Reuters stories appear in my browser. This feature
led me to edit using a shareware Windows program called Textpad instead
of my trusty WP 5.1. Can't multitask in DOS. Looks like I'm being
converted to Windows inch by inch.

Like other currently free internet services, it is expected that a fee
will be charged for the Infomarket later this year.

At the same NICOL meeting a show of hands was asked with regard to CPUs.
A large percentage of the group were on Pentiums and 486s. Virtually all
of the Pentiums were running at least 16 meg of RAM. None of the 486s
ran less than 8 meg of RAM. Only a few retrogrades like me were still
running 386 machines. No one admitted using 286s any more, at least as
primary machines. Even my government office replaced 30 286 and 386/16
machines with P90s just before they locked us out. They were 486s
upgraded to P90, but that's another story. One lawyer complained that he
was one of only two in the office upgraded to only a 486. I noted that
when we laplinked his data to the new machine there was nothing
there-not a single document created by him. "Does it make a difference
whether you don't use a 486 or don't use Pentium," I asked. He seemed to
think so.

So, clearly, the trend to faster and faster and more and more RAM. Not
much new in that. Even Netscape can't escape the syndrome. As it
continues to work out the bugs in its 32 bit and 16 bit Netscape 2.x
betas, it has left behind it's simpler 1.2 version, which while no
longer a beta, and preferred by many users, still had some flaws.
Following Microsoft's bigger is better, all or nothing approach, the
software has gotten fat-and as the corporate management uses the funds
gener- ated by the amazing response to its public offering to purchase
other companies, I just hope it hasn't forgotten it's original vision
and just what made it so popular. Bill Gates has Netscape in his
sights-the next year will be interesting.

Not everyone is arguing that bigger and faster is better. The New York
Times and the Chicago Tribune recently featured stories hyping the $500
terminal connected to the Internet- happily downloading applets but
keeping its operating software on servers somewhere out there and
storing users files out there as well. On the other hand, PC Week
included a box on its cover page, week after week, in which it insisted
that the concept of the $500 machine is dead.

In my view we had the $500 machines and abandoned them because we wanted
more. And we won't be going back. Even if the software and transmission
problems could be solved, there is a greater obstacle to the dumb
terminal approach. The recent experience of Compuserve users as a result
of German censorship and AOL's embarrassing breast incident, combined
with the proposed telecommunications bill's prohibitions on indecency
raise significant issues of personal privacy.

Quite simply, I don't want my thoughts stored out there. Even more
important, I don't want my computer habits to be so easily discovered by
others. My addiction is my own business.

Last summer I said this was the Golden Age of the Internet. As
censorship and commercial interests change the way we use it, it will
never be the same. The on-line culture has changed drastically in the
past year. Now, the Newbies are the Net. What will the future bring? Why
are you asking me? Heck, I predicted Congress would never shut down the
government.


                             ***************
Leonard Grossman in an attorney who works for the government when the
government is allowed to work. He is a WindoWatch regular and has been
contributing "Reflections" for some time. Comments can be sent to
[e-mail] or [e-mail]



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══─────────────────────page 19──
A Sampling of 32 Bit Windows Software for `95
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                   The In-Touch Sampler for WindoWatch

                      Copyright 1996 by Lance Jones



Name:           File Plus
Version:        2.13
File Date:      01/13/96
Size:           429 Kb
Download Time:  Approx. 7 minutes with 14.4 modem
Developed By:   Carl Moore
Registration:   Shareware $30.00 US
File Location:  ftp://ftp.wazoo.com/pub/users/cmoore/fp213sw.zip
Windows95.com:  Category -- SHELL ENHANCEMENTS
Description:    File Plus is a very robust disk and file manipulation
program. The basic file and directory functions include Copy, Copy As,
Move, Move As, Clone,Rename, Make Directory, Delete, Find File(s),
Search File(s) and Attributes. The application also provides a
comprehensive and relatively simple interface to work with .ZIP files as
well. With one click of a button you can unzip any archive to any
directory of your choice. Similiarly, you can zip entire groups of files
and directories. There is multimedia sound support for PC's with sound
cards, and virtually every function in File Plus can have a .WAV file
sound associated with it. Another useful feature of the program is a
flexible user-button definition system for creating custom commands.

Name:           InterGo!
Version:        1.0
File Date:      12/22/95
Size:           2.7 Mb
Download Time:  Approx. 44 minutes with 14.4 modem
Developed By:   TeacherSoft, Inc.
Registration:   N/A
File Location:  ftp://ftp.teachersoft.com/ftpusers/IGO95T.EXE
Windows95.com:  Category -- INTERNET SUITES Description: InterGo is
quite simply one of the most unique Internet suites I have encountered.
The graphical "Desk Scene" appears when you first run InterGo. You use
the Desk to see tips, connect to the Internet, open the browser to see
Web pages, transfer files, open the Address Book, send and receive
electronic mail, and use telnet to use other computers. Hints describe
the active objects on the Desk (the ones you can click) as you move your
mouse over them. You click on active objects to choose what you want to
do (i.e. click the lamp to display helpful tips on using InterGo, click
the telephone to connect to the Internet, click the globe to open the
Web browser, etc.).

The "Library Scene" lets you read books arranged in graphical bookcases.
The Library starts with classic books and enhanced reference books
(dictionary,encyclopedia, thesaurus, atlas, and so forth), but also
includes history and literature volumes. When you click on a book, the
Web browser launches, taking you quickly to the related site of
interest. When you set up your interests, more books are added that link
to Web pages on the subjects you selected. You can save any page from
the Internet as a book in the Library and quickly return to the page,
and you can even look-up words you encounter on any page in the browser
or in E-mail messages.

The "Newsroom Scene" lets you arrange newsgroups, Web pages, and mailing
lists on graphical television monitors. For example, you might have a
monitor that contains all the information you've gathered about
investments. You also use the Newsroom to read the articles in
newsgroups. There are eight news monitors in the Newsroom and some
already contain sources of information on various subjects. You can add
to those sources and delete the sources if you don't need them. You can
put any sources you wish on the other monitors. There are even more
notable features of InterGo which would require several more paragraphs.
I highly recommend giving this application a try. It's wonderful!


Name:           Internet Phone
Version:        3.1 Beta
File Date:      12/13/95
Size:           944 Kb
Download Time:  Approx. 16 minute with 14.4 modem
Developed By:   VocalTec Ltd.
Registration:   Free 30-day evaluation
File Location:  ftp://ftp.vocaltec.com/pub/iphone19.exe
Windows95.com:  Category -- N/A
Description:    Internet Phone enables you to converse with other
Internet users all over the world, in a real-time, voice-activated
environment. The international or local phone calls cost nothing more
than your standard Internet connection phone charges, and this version
of Internet Phone now supports full-duplex conversations (letting you
speak and listen at the same time, just like with a real telephone, not
like a "walkie-talkie").

This particular version is also worth noting because it offers a few
simple yet significant enhancements over the previous versions of the
software. It allows you to make calls to other Internet Phone users from
within a Web browser (the feature works with Netscape's Navigator and
Microsoft's Internet Explorer -- it may not work on other browsers).
Standard hypertext links to Internet Phone users can be added to Web
pages, and when you choose such a link in a Web page, the browser
automatically runs Internet Phone, which connects to a server and starts
a call to the user. The program maintains a local HTML file (IPHONE.HTM,
located in the IPhone directory) to which you can add links to any
Internet Phone user. This file serves as a sort of private phone- book,
which you can access from within Internet Phone or from your Web
browser. Very nice!


Name:           InWatch 95
Version:        1.0
File Date:      01/06/96
Size:           347 Kb
Download Time:  Approx. 5 minutes with 14.4 modem
Developed By:   Rick Green
Registration:   Shareware $14.95 US
File Location:  http://www.mich.com/~surfin/inwtch95.zip
Windows95.com:  Category -- GENERAL UTILITIES

Description:    Inwatch or "Installation Watcher" is the program I've
been waiting for. It's an incredibly useful utility, designed to take
the stress out of installing Windows 95 applications. Typically, when
you install a new program, it will make modifications to your
configura-tion files, usually without telling you what changes it's
making. If you decide that you no longer want the application to reside
on your hard disk, simply deleting the related files will not
necessarily remove all traces of the program. Some applications will add
as many as 100 lines to your WIN.INI file, using up valuable memory
resources in the process.

Before you install an application, simply use the back-up function of
InWatch to make copies of your configuration files. After installation
is complete, you can use the compare function to check the backed-up
files against the new, possibly altered files. InWatch will create a
comparison file that you can inspect and save for later reference.
Another great feature of InWatch is its ability to inform you of all the
files or directories that have been added or updated in your root
directories, your Windows and Windows System directories, your Program
Files and your Fonts directories. Nice app!


                             ***************
Lance Jones is the owner of the In-Touch Newsletter. He provides the
best and most up to date information on newest Windows95 32bit
shareware. To receive his list on a regular basis sign up on his home
page at [e-mail]



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══─────────────────────page 20──
Software Upgrades
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                      A Guide To Software Revisions

                       Contributed by Derek Buchler


Once you start playing with software you quickly become aware that each
software package has a revision code attached to it. It is obvious that
this revision code gives the sequence of changes to the product, but in
reality there's substantially more information available through the rev
code than that. This article provides a guide for interpreting the
meaning of the revision codes and what they actually signify.

% 1.0:
Also known as "one point uh-oh", or "barely out of beta". We had to
release because the lab guys had reached a point of exhaustion and the
marketing guys were in a cold sweat of terror. We're praying that you'll
find it more functional than, say, a computer virus and that its
operation has some resemblance to that specified in the marketing copy.

% 1.1:
We fixed all the killer bugs ...

% 1.2:
Uh, we introduced a few new bugs fixing the killer bugs and so we had to
fix them, too.


% 2.0:
We did the product we really wanted to do to begin with. Mind you, it's
really not what the customer needs yet, but we're working on it.

% 2.1:
Well, not surprisingly, we broke some things in making major changes so
we had to fix them. But we did a really good job of testing this time,
so we don't think we introduced any new bugs while we were fixing these
bugs.

% 2.2:
Uh, sorry, one slipped through. One lousy typo error and you won't
believe how much trouble it caused!

% 2.3:
Some anal-retentive pain in the ass found a deep- seated bug that's been
there since 1.0 and has been raising hell until we fixed it.

% 3.0:
Hey, we finally think we've got it right! Most of the customers are
really happy with this.

% 3.1:
Of course we did break a few little things.

% 4.0:
More features. It's doubled in size now, by the way, and you'll need to
get memory and a faster processor ...

% 4.1:
Just one or two bugs this time.  Honest.

% 5.0:
We really need to go on to a new product but we have an installed base
out there to protect. We're cutting the staffing after this.

% 6.0:
We had to fix a few things we broke in 5.0. Not very many, but it's been
so long since we looked at this thing we might as well call it a major
upgrade. Oh, yeah, we added a few flashy cosmetic features so we could
justify the major upgrade number.

% 6.1:
Since I'm leaving the company and I'm the last guy left in the lab who
works on the product, I wanted to make sure that all the changes I've
made are incorporated before I go. I added some cute demos, too, since I
was getting pretty bored back here in my dark little corner (I kept
complaining about the lighting but they wouldn't do anything). They're
talking about obsolescence planning but they'll try to keep selling it
for as long as there's a buck or two to be made. I'm leaving the bits in
as good a shape as I can in case somebody has to tweak them, but it'll
be sheer luck if no one loses them.


                             ***************
Another goodie from Derek Buchler's bag of amusing stories, satire,and
plain old hardy-har-har-har! Derek is a regular WindoWatch contributor
and a system administrator.



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══─────────────────────page 21──
A "586" Hardware Note
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                            The "586" Upgrade

                      Copyright 1996 by Paul Kinnaly


Here's the scenario: You're running a 486. Perhaps it was new only a
year or two ago, but now it's dated and -when compared with the Pentium
systems that *everyone* has now- slow as molasses. No way will your
budget (or spouse?) permit you to go and buy another new system. But
-just perhaps- you might be able to upgrade your current one. And you've
seen ads touting new 586 class chips, often labeled as 5x86. Maybe...

At first glance, it makes sense. Typically these chips have a larger
internal (L1) cache than your original Intel CPU did. They contain many
of the internal features of a Pentium's architecture. Their clock speed
is usually substantially faster than your current CPU. And, they may be
able to use faster "write-back" caching -if you have a 238 pin socket-
while your original CPU only used "write-through" caching. All this
sounds like an upgrade worthy of consideration.

Well, maybe, but think a little more. Most of the "5x86 type" chips on
the market, regardless of speed, are little more than slightly enhanced
486s. As they are typically designed to replace a 486 on a mother-board
designed for a 486, they contain Pentium-style internal circuitry, but
must access the system bus, memory, etc. in 32bit rather than 64bit
chunks. Typically, 100mHz 5x86 chips are no faster in day-to-day usage
than perhaps a 66 or 75mHz Pentium - i.e., not notably faster than a
486/66. This is based on some test results like WinTune, WinBench, etc.
As such, a 5x86-133 might test out near a Pentium 90, - at best!

How come? Remember, if you are running a 486, you are running a 32bit
motherboard and a system clock speed or 25, 33, or 40mHz at best -
regardless of your CPU's speed. The slowest true Pentium runs a 60mHz,
64bit motherboard. No matter how fast or efficient the CPU is, every
time it has to go to the bus -even for memory access- it's going to do
it *much* slower.

The Norton Utilities for Windows95 System Information benchmark's
emphasis is on measuring how effectively the system uses the CPU in
combination with the computer's memory. Therefore, the benchmark does
not take into account such factors as the disk drives, the video
display, other peripherals, or the network. The program includes
re-sults from several typical systems including a 486-33 and Pentium 90.

I tested my 486-66 then a 5x86-100 as well. The results were as follows:

486-33       -  5.9
486-66       - 10.3
5x86-100     - 11.4
Pentium90    - 20.4

It is fairly obvious that the improvement of the 5x86 chip, despite a
50% faster clock speed, was only marginal in this test.

Windows Magazine's WinTune 2.0 also includes a database of test results
of their tests on many different systems. Below are the ranges of CPU
(integer) processing speeds reflected in the database (different memory
wait-states, L2 cache memory, etc. influence the results of individual
machines):

486-33         -   26 MIPS
486-66         -   55-70 MIPS
486-100        -   63-91 MIPS
486-120        -   136 MIPS
Pentium66      -   109-123 MIPS
Pentium90      -   165-167 MIPS
Pentium100     -   180-185 MIPS
Pentium120     -   220 MIPS
Pentium133     -   244-247 MIPS
Pentium166     -   303 MIPS

My 486-66 scored about 60 MIPS on this test, in line with other similar
systems. But, the 5x86-100 scored only 72 MIPS... That's a 20%
improvement in raw CPU speed, but still substantially below even the
slowest Pentium! In fact, it was much more in the range of a 486-100.

Another consideration to keep in mind: since these are non-standard
chips (i.e., not Intel), some software has trouble identifying them as
other than a 486 or perhaps even a 386. Thus some Pentium-optimized
routines used by the software - and which the CPU is probably capable of
executing- might be skipped, with the less efficient 486 or 386 routines
used instead.

In conclusion, despite the claims advertised loudly by vendors of such
chips, they cannot change a 486 system into a Pentium level machine. The
best you can expect is a slight improvement in speed. Is it worth the
price? With Pentium motherboards including a true 90mHz Pentium CPU
priced in the $500 range, you should consider whether such a chip
upgrade would really be worth the price.


                             ***************
Paul Kinnaly picked up on a thread during a discussion of the 5X86 chips
in the Ilink Win95 conference. We decided that others who are
considering an upgrade of their computers might like to see these
results. Still another piece of information which must be included in
this mix, is the well publicized expectation that there will be across
the board reductions in the Intel Pentiums CPUs in late January of 1996.

Paul is the WindoWatch home page Webmaster and serves on the editorial
board of WindoWatch.



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══─────────────────────page 22──
Herb Chong's Computer Created Art
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

                            Herb's Art Gallery

                       Copyright 1996 by Herb Chong


              [The image described below can be seen in the
               Acrobat version of this month's WindoWatch.]


"Dave's House 1: Bedroom 2", is a ray traced image created using
trueSpace 2.0.

I had purchased the Acuris CD-ROM entitled Dave's House 1 to get it's
fully textured house model for a project I am working on. Part of the
project involves flying through the bedroom of a house. This is the
bedroom that I am working on. It takes about 50MB to load the project
model and almost 80MB to render it.

This one image took just over 9 hours to render on my Pentium 90. I made
something like ten test renderings before I came up with one I liked. It
still needs some tweaking, but it's almost done. Now to put in some
animated "objects." .... Herb



───────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══─────────────────────page 23──
THE ULTIMATE SCREEN SAVER                          A Product Review
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

         GREAT ART ON YOUR DESKTOP - Trident's ArtScreen Programs

                    Copyright 1996 by Jerome Laulicht


I thought there was no special reason why anyone should care enough
about screen savers to write or read an article about them until I
stumbled on the ultimate screen saver for my large monitor.

Originally acquired for its capacity to display larger size fonts and
making reading easier, it now has a second use: to view delightful and
gorgeous pictures which invite and demand attention. This made me
realize that I must have been subconsciously searching for an ultimate
screen saver solution for myself and have found one for people with
similar tastes. Since I am not an art connoisseur nor a known art lover
my tastes are not esoteric. What we have are two sets of great paintings
chosen from Washington's National Gallery of Art and from several
European art museums.

I can also choose music to accompany my gazing and read educational
stuff about the painters and pictures in my spare time. I am seeing real
payoff from my fancy modern monitor which is, of course, too advanced to
even need a screen saver. You can get the same pleasure if you have a
256 color monitor with at least 640 x 480 resolution. Be assured that
you will also get pleasure with the standard size monitors most of us
have.

There must be something close to a genetic need for an screen saver on
one's computer which explains why new ones keep popping up. I write
this, however, to share the pleasure which started with my first glimpse
of these paintings. I was intrigued because this program provided such a
glorious and varied desktop display. It also merits comment because it
shows that a screen saver can be a happy educational and art experience
as well as a learning tool. It shows us the potentials of the display
equipment which is rapidly becoming standard on our desktops for a
variety of other purposes. I think many us have been unaware and
unschooled of what we already have.

The only important things to take into account if you are thinking of
buying any screen saver is whether you need one for the health of your
monitor; whether you can easily deal with the modest cost (Trident's
programs are available for under $27 each or both for $50); and, most
important, whether you like the pictures and won't tire of them quickly.
It is perhaps wise to get a sampling of the art before buying, perhaps
in a brochure. The technical need is arguable and depends on facts about
the monitor about which most of us have no idea. If it bothers you,
check with the place from whom you bought it.

In spite of all of the above, I kept asking myself why bother with an
article. The answer is that this screen saver is special and that I
strongly suspect people could put together still other collections of
art-paintings, sculptures, tapestries, great photos, etc.-- which would
be wonderful enough to attract buyers. By now, Trident, has likely
issued still another planned set of paintings from another large museum,
along with a collection of contemporary art.

If screen savers are to merit attention, they have to be designed by
people talented in visual design and presentation. Trident Software has
a simple and elegant solution: show the talents of the best of us. Go to
the museums and work with them to reproduce high quality computerized
versions of masterpieces with professional help on the presentation of
each one. Their first two collections were released under the rubric of
ARTSCREENS. One is called Great Masters-- masterpieces from five
European museums. Since over 60,000 copies were sold since 1993, this
was enough to justify more. The second effort is called the
Impressionists Collection.


If I ever saw a program which should be marketed as shareware, ArtScreen
is it. A good demo version would surely significantly increase the sales
of this little known original from a small company. People who do not
see themselves as art lovers may find it difficult to pay almost $30 for
a collection they believe to be beyond their ken. I wish I could say in
this review that one could at least try an abbrev-iated version of this
program before you decide whether to buy. I wish the lines between
shareware and commercial software were not so sharp in the minds of all
of us and could be redrawn so that we would think in terms of
gradations. I believe, however, that many of people who think they do
not like art would like this program for its variety of paintings and
find this a painless way to see fine art.

Museum Visits in my Home

My only other serious "criticism" of ArtScreen is the limitation of each
program to only forty paintings. This is more than adequate and very
satisfying for a screen saver but too limited for a program giving me a
chance to look at fine art at home on a good screen. I do want more
paintings. I would also like to see a try at excellent photos of
sculpture at these and other museums. Further, I want to see the next
program released with two versions: One having a limited number of
reproductions intended as a screen saver. The other version would have
many more paintings for display. Trident is indeed thinking of a CD
including all the paintings already reproduced, plus more art with
educational material. In the planning stage a few months ago, would be a
special kind of museum visit, something which I cannot get on TV and
perhaps not even on VCR tape at reasonable cost. I could visit and
revisit selected paintings at museums I may well never even see and
perhaps be able to follow up on some of the works and the museums on the
Internet.

I obviously think the Trident program worth buying and highly recommend
it WindoWatch reader.

Trident Software
ARTSCREENS Great Masters Collection
ARTSCREENS Impressionist Collection
$27.50 each or the pair for $50.
703-243-0303 for Ordering Information



─────────────────────────────═══ ww ═══──────────────────────────────────

EDITORIAL

Editor:                  Lois B. Laulicht
Contributing Editor:     Herb Chong
Home Page Editor         Paul Kinnaly
Contributing Writers:    Derek Buchler, John M. Campbell, Leonard Grossman,
                         Gregg Hommel , Stan Kanner, Jerry Laulicht,
                         Phil Leonard, Robin Mabry, Frank McGowan, Peter
                         Neuendorffer, Jim Plumb, Ben Schorr, Paul
                         Williamson

EDITORIAL BOARD

Herb Chong, Gregg Hommel, Lois Laulicht, Paul Williamson. Paul Kinnaly

SUBMISSIONS and REQUESTS

Email using Internet      [e-mail]
                          [e-mail]
                          [e-mail]
                          Editor WindoWatch
                          Valley Head, WV 26294

Submissions remain the intellectual property of the author. Manuscripts
will NOT be returned if not used.

Electronic File Access    FTP>ftp.channel1.com/pub/WindoWatch
                          FTP>oak.oakland.edu/pub3/Simtel-win3/winwatch

WindoWatch is found on Channel One in several formats by calling
617-354-3137 (28800) or 617-354-3230 (9600 and 14.400).


We publish in a Windows compatible format and in HTML on our home page.
The DOS format uses ReadRoom (*.TOC) One can also read online from the
Reader Room itself - Door 48. Non-members of Channel One can download
the latest WindoWatch issue by typing J Free from the main board prompt.
Annual shareware subscriptions at $20 per year for electronic delivery
of the ASCII or Acrobat edition. Sponsorship and contributions at
various levels.

Comments, letters, and requests can be sent to us at various locations.
Postlink to Lois Laulicht ->15 tagging the message "receiver only" and
on the Internet [e-mail]

WindoWatch (c) 1994, 1995, 1996 all rights reserved, is the property of
Lois B. Laulicht and CCC of WV Valley Head, WV 26294


                                    ww