I'm a bit confused by your article on Windows 95, "The Elegant Kludge" (August). The title and first two paragraphs seem to set the tone: Windows 95 is still "just" Windows. The "Windows 95: Head-to-Head" matrix (page 54) clearly shows that OS/2 Warp Connect is the superior choice. Then after lots of words describing the architecture of Windows 95, you conclude that I still should buy it because it has a slick user interface. Or worse yet, if I want a "real" 32-bit operating system, I should consider Windows NT. If Windows 95 is half-baked, why should I believe that the same cook didn't forget something in the baking of Windows NT as well? I'm not sure if it was the author's intention, but I think OS/2 Warp may be worth looking at now.
Doug Carter
dougc@clam.com
Flexible C++
Matthew Wilson
My approach to software engineering is far more pragmatic than it
is
theoretical--and no language better exemplifies this than C++.
BYTE Digest editors every month analyze and evaluate the best articles from Information Week, EE Times, Dr. Dobb's Journal, Network Computing, Sys Admin,
and dozens of other CMP publications—bringing
you critical news and information about wireless communication,
computer security, software development, embedded systems,
and more!
The Inelegant Kludge
