  Before You Plunge:

       Windows '95 - Some Considerations for Potential Users
                     Copyright 1995 Paul Kinnaly

 As much of this issue of WindoWatch is devoted to commentary on Windows'95
 and related issues and software, Id like to mention a few points
 regarding this new Operating System that have become very apparent to me
 during the past several months that Ive used it.

 First and foremost, do not blindly accept Microsofts assurances as to
 the hardware needed to run it.  The '95 box tells you it will run on a
 386 with 4 meg of RAM.  This is not quite a lie, but it isnt quite the
 truth either. Windows95s speed and flexibility seems to be greatly
 influenced by four main factors: CPU type, available RAM, video bus, and
 disk speed. Generally, most users find that a 486DX66 with 16meg of RAM,
 a local bus, VLB or PCI, video card, and fast IDE hard disk will run
 Windows95 very nicely.  In spite of claims that a 386SX20 with 4 meg of
 RAM,  an unaccelerated 256K video card, and a slow drive will load
 Windows95,  running it on such a system is extremely painful.

 So what does the newest Windows require?   No real consensus has been
 established yet.  Although the major hard copy magazines have just begun
 the testing of the final release,  early results seem to indicate that
 virtually any 486, SX or DX, which has 8 meg of RAM will achieve
 reasonably comparable results under Windows95 when compared to Windows
 3.1/3.11 or Windows for Workgroups. Depending upon your hardware, certain
 parts of the operation might vary slightly, but overall performance will
 be roughly equal.

 Anyone who participates in the RIME or Ilink Windows conferences on their
 BBS or in the Windows-related news groups on the Internet or CompuServe
 and AOL forums will have noticed that even those who were true experts on
 Windows 3.1/WfWG are still climbing slowly through this new operating
 system.  While many features are familiar and similar, many have changed
 significantly.

 For example, tweaking the performance in '95 is drastically different
 from Win3.1.  Perhaps the greatest difficulty for new users is
 under-standing the impact Windows95 has on their autoexec.bat and
 config.sys files. Under many circumstances, they cease to exist.  A
 Windows 3.1 user might have drivers for a mouse, CD-ROM, SmartDrive, a
 memory manager like QEMM, Netroom, EMM386, and many other drivers all of
 which loaded via these DOS setup files.  If Windows95 has new protected
 mode drivers for your CD, and it does have many, none of these notations
 need to exist in either the autoexec.bat and config.sys any longer.  It
 is common to find Windows95 users who have no CONFIG.SYS whatsoever and
 whose AUTOEXEC.BAT is reduced to a one line path statement.

 There seems to be a temptation to return many of these vanished notations
 under Windows95.  Don't do it! At least not at first. While these drivers
 may be necessary in your AUTOEXEC.DOS and CONFIG.DOS files used when Win95
 boots in DOS mode,  they probably are not necessary in normal Win95
 sessions, and may in fact, slow things down.  While some users have
 reported gains from using third-party memory managers, even within
 Windows95, my advice to most would be to forego this route until new
 users have become familiar with what Win95 itself can handle.

 Many potential Windows95 users ask, "How much disk space do I need?"
 It's an understandable question; we all know that disk space fills very
 rapidly and one can never have too much.  However, there are so many
 variables and options when installing Windows95, that there is no quick
 and easy answer. The operating system is big, - thats a certainty!  If
 the greater size justifies increased performance and not merely the
 equivalent of what used to be in Windows and in DOS  I believe there is a
 solid reason to opt for the full installation.

 Should you choose to preserve your old DOS and Windows capabilities with
 the dual-boot option,  it wont delete any of the older files to free up
 space on your system.  My personal suggestion to a potential new user
 would depend upon the size and number of hard disks available. With the
 rapidly plummeting prices of 1 gig, and larger drives, I feel the ideal
 is to be able to devote a partition of at least 120mb or a separate disk
 of about that size devoted entirely to Windows95 and its related files.

 Why that much?   There are two very important considerations behind this
 suggestion. First, Windows95 uses a dynamically sized swap file; and as
 the systems needs change, so does the size of the swap file. Depending
 upon your available memory and the programs you are running
 simultaneously, the swap file might grow to 20 megs or more. Having that
 much free disk space on your Windows drive can help your system run at
 its best potential.

 Secondly, you will find that more and more new software stores at least
 some of its files in \windows\system or in common directories. Office 95,
 for example, added dozens of files to my C: drive, even though Office
 itself was installed elsewhere. So the space needed for Windows95
 although actually for other programs, but stored with Windows,  will grow
 continually.  Giving it about 120mb or more could spare you crunch
 problems later on.

 One feature of Windows95 that many folks relish is the requirement
 Microsoft has imposed,  that to gain the Win95 logo,  third party
 software must contain an uninstall capability.  Thats a big plus when
 house cleaning  a crowded hard disk.  Anyone who has tried to track down
 the orphaned files of long forgotten programs has learned this lesson
 well. But - like most new things - there is a catch.

 When uninstallable software is added to your system, you mustn't "play
 with it. Let me give you an example: You install a new program, the
 visionary VisiCalc95. It comes with a Win95 logo, so it is uninstallable.
 The setup routine, however, doesnt permit a lot of user interaction. The
 software, for reasons known only to its programmers, automatically
 installs itself in what seems to be the new standard to C:\Program Files.

 It then proceeds to add a new folder to your Start menu - including
 entries for README, WHAT'S NEW, CONVERSION NOTES, HELP, CONVERSION HELP,
 etc. - and may even plop a shortcut down on your desktop. You dont want
 it where it is, but moving it to another drive or directory is tough.  If
 you try to do that, you edit your start menu to get rid of all that
 extraneous stuff.  You might also move the shortcut for the main program
 to your already existing Spreadsheets folder.  Great. You use the program
 for a couple of months but when you get Lotus I-B-M, you fall in love wit
 it and decide to scrap VisiCalc95.  No sweat!  Simply go to the Control
 Panel, select Add/Delete Software, and you can uninstall VisiCalc. Right?
 Maybe - but probably not!

 So, you  changed things about. You moved shortcuts around, you got rid of
 start menu entries.  Nonetheless, the odds are that the uninstall script
 will bomb you out.  If it does, getting rid of the files that VisiCalc
 installed will be very difficult, - same old - same old!  Removing all
 references to the application from the Registry will be even harder!  You
 see, Win95 doesnt rely on .INI files anymore; most all the settings that
 would have been stored  in the .INIs in earlier versions of Windows are
 now in the Registry and sometimes referenced in both places.  I would not
 recommend that a novice explore those depths!  Therefore, the lesson from
 Uninstalling is to be very careful when installing !

 During the install of any application under Windows 95, think care-fully
 about the options presented, particularly that of where the program is to
 be installed.  As most software will add some additional files to your
 Windows directory, avoid - if possible - putting new software on that
 drive.  But foremost, remember that if you might decide to uninstall the
 software at a later date, moving shortcuts, changing folders, and similar
 customization may prevent effective use of Windows 95s uninstall
 abilities.

 Finally, I'd caution that, just because it's the "latest and greatest"
 doesn't mean it is the best for you. Windows95 can offer some useful
 improvements to many users right now - and has the greater potential to
 offer many more enhancements in future months and years. In fact, you may
 be wiser to stick with a smoothly running Windows 3.1 or Windows for
 Workgroups setup for now. This would be particularly true if your CPU,
 video card, or hard drives are older and slower than todays standard.
 This is a certainty if you only have 4 meg of memory. For such users,
 saving the $89 towards more memory, if the system is otherwise capable,
 or a whole new system which would probably include Windows95 as its
 default would make far better sense. Windows95 is here today, but
 there'll be a Windows96, and probably a Windows97 as well.

 Paul Kinnaly has the dubious title of Production Editor of WindoWatch.
 His talents far exceed the tasks of proofing and editing copy. He is a
 Management Analyst with the Boston Office of the Veterans Administration.



                                    ww



