TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: QUESTION: Win95 vs. NT 4.0 From:Maenad <Maenad -at- WORLDNET -dot- ATT -dot- NET> Date:Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:46:44 -0500
Matt Craver wrote:
> KDFisher [KDFisher -at- AOL -dot- COM] wrote:
> >Which O/S do you think is a better environment for writers? I've
> >NT performance is wonderful; i.e., faster if you're multitasking and
> >in a networking environment, but that there are some compatibility
> issues and
> >it can't run any16-bit apps. I've also heard that Win95 will fill
> >just fine most of the time.
> NT has a new kernel, that is the operating system is not built on
> various extensions of DOS, as is 95 (and 98, as well). NT also has
> better memory management and protects the hardware from direct access
> programs. These factors make NT a more stable platform for
> multi-tasking, and also means that NT is also faster. Another
> issue is security. IMNSHO, Windows 95 has no security in a networked
> But as to "it can't run any16-bit apps", this is simply not true. In
> fact, our software is a 16-bit application that runs _exclusively_ on
> NT4.0. Some applications, particularly utilities and back-up programs
> like Norton Utilities, are specific to NT or 95. Many programs work
> identically in both OS's, and those that aren't usually make versions
> for both. All-in-all, the "compatibility" issue is a bit of a
> I don't think that this should be an issue for a writer who is an
> employee of a larger company - use what everybody else in the co. does
> you'll have fewer issues with sharing files. If you are trying to
> decide what to use and you are a freelancer, use 95 if you need to use
> lots of different peripherals or want to play games on the same
> (95 has better driver support), and NT if you want to run multiple, or
> memory-intensive applications.
You are right on target with your reply. "Use what the company will
support" is the best solution though NT is hands-down the best for a
network environment. You can also run quite a few 16 bit DOS apps on NT.
The problem is predictability, some won't run but most will. There are
certain applications that simply aren't supported and will not run on
NT. For example, I have assembled a workstation for doing 3D Graphics
and video work. All my software was compatible with NT until I installed
a Perception Edit Bay video capture card. I needed this to produce
real-time animated sequences for CBT. I am convinced that this is one of
the best cards for my application but it will not allow me to run NT.
The company states that they have no intention of writing NT drivers. My
options are simple, 1) Windows 95, or 2) Windows 95 / NT dual platform.
The moral is that sometimes the end-use will dictate the operating
State Technical Institute at Memphis