[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Why a Windows 95 version?
>
>I, for one, would much rather see a version running under an established OS
>with a proven track record (like OS/2 or even Windows 3.x) than a Windows 95
>version, since I don't see my workplace switching to Win/95 for a year or
>more, and I likely won't use it at home at all.
Note, I do not work for ARDI, so I don't know for sure, but first of all, OS/2 is most
likely a planned version also. But Windows 3.1 can not be used because it doesn't use
a flat memory model. Also, Win95 is coming out before Executor 2.00, so it makes
sense to make it for an operating system that exists at the time. And, Win95 will be
the most commonly use OS in 1996, since the largest installed base is Windows 3.1, and
there will be no more programs made for 3.1 after Win95 is released.
>-Rich Steiner (rsteiner@skypoint.com is my preferred e-mail address)
>
-Dan Guisinger