Windows 95

[turnbull@example.com (Stephen J. Turnbull)]

>>>>> "Yuri" == cybernet  <cybernet@example.com> writes:

    Yuri> January 28, sounds fine, I will be back in Japan. See you
    Yuri> guys.  to Craig: Windows 95 should not be a problem, I did
    Yuri> the instalation many times and was suprised that inspite of

On how many different kinds of hardware?  Windows 95 works great on
some hardware, not at all on others, as you would expect.  The problem
hardware was moderately rare, the complete failures almost none.
Microsoft's Win95 help lines were still overwhelmed by calls from
about 1 in 20 purchasers within the first 24 hours; it's not known how
many never did get through, as waiting times during that first day
were sometimes 45-120 minutes depending on which service you were
switched to.

DEC was one of the subcontractors handling those help lines (MS didn't 
man any of the first line of defense; they only handled real problem
cases).  Apparently DEC had a lot of hollow laughs over the "success"
of Win95 - that is, the success in luring in lots of people who
thought it would be the answer to all their installation problems.
("Hollow" because it doesn't matter how good or bad MS software is any
more, the lemmings will follow.  DEC never had it that good.)

I don't know about Windows 95, but my experience with MS OS's is that
they don't like to share disk space.  If you're installing to a virgin
disk, or over another MS OS, to the first primary partition, no
problem.  If you want to install the MS OS after another one in a
separate partition, you sometimes get hosed.  OS/2's bootloader is
even more famous for this.

Steve