>[.. Win95 vs NT]
>So... why would one use Windows 95 instead of NT? Or why use NT instead
>of Windows 95? --Darren
I am a bit reluctant to condict a discussion of this on www-talk as it
may become divergent. However, I have a WWW-centric reason for wanting
to support Win95:
My goal in developing the Windows Web server was to put the capability
to provide content to the web into the hands of the hordes of PC users
who are joining the internet. It might argued that this is not a "good
thing" as there will be a lot of junk. Well, maybe, but there'll be a
lot of good stuff in there, and like the "ransom note syndrome" that swept
the ranks of Mac users in the early days, the junk will eventually die
out.
Windows 95 will be the next personal operating system for PCs. The user
interface has undergone a total facelift, TCP/IP is built in, etc. From
a USER's perspective, Win95 is infinitely better than NT. From a SYSTEM
perspective, I heartily agree that NT is a wonderful, robust, thoroughly
modern operating system. However, Win95 has a rock-hard goal of running
on a 4MB 386, and has the UI features that will make it extremely attrac-
tive to the average user.
Bottom line: By supporting Win95, I further my goal of putting Web server
capability into the hands of the masses. Nothing in my opinion can go as
far as that to balance the "content provider" mentality of the telcos and
the media moguls. Not that I want to prevent them from doing their thing,
I just want to make sure the average joe/jane can participate in the
networked society.
Let's not start a thread about Win95 vs NT here.
-- Bob