> > I use NT at work and Windows 95 at home; my 95 machine wasn't purring
> > until I had 32M in it. Let's face it, you need as much RAM as you can
>
> Fact one: I have used NT WS 3.5 (after some tweaks) in as litlle as 8Mb
> and even runned applications as Word 6.0 with OK result (even if not
> great performance, but when is Word 6.0 great in 8Mb?).
>
> > afford for 32 bit technology. Fact two: 95 and NT will probably merge in
> > a couple of revisions and the price will come down -- probably another
> > $100 upgrade for existing 95 users.
>
> Fact two: NT and Win95 will *not* merge according to MS.
I don't think that you can take at face value what MS is saying about W95 and WinNT. It is philosophically obvious that WinNT and Win95 are heading to an
eventual merger (32 bit software is interoperable, W95 approved software needs to run on NT). When this will happen is another matter. It is to Microsoft's
interest to convince people that W95 and WNT will not merge so that to convince users (esp the corporate world) to upgrade to W95. Myself personally, I will
switch to WinNT for everyday use when I have upgraded the last of my 16bit software to 32 (Only 2-3 programs remain for me).