Duane Percox writes:
>[Denys writes:]
>>As for the few of you who are scared of moving from Windows 3.x to 95, shed
>>your fears, as they are groundless.  If you have *real* questions and issues,
>>e-mail me directly, I will do my best to help you.   But save your old wives
>>tales, I have heard them all and they are all just that, old wives tales.
>> Windows 95 is much superior to Windows 3.x, and NT 4.0 is even better.
>
>I would like to echo Denys' thoughts here. We converted to win95 about 1
>year ago and we have been absolutely delighted.

On the other hand, if you CAN'T afford downtime, don't do it. Most
upgrades go smoothly, but many don't. This is especially true if you're
using third-party networking. I have had a number of compatibility
problems -- including one that resulted in some data loss despite my
having performed what I mistakenly thought was a "full" backup. I took
Denys up on his offer of help, and though he really did try, we were
unable to do anything about the data loss, and my DeskJet printer is for
the most part unusable.

If you need to have both Win95 and Win3.1 (or some combination of 3.1, 95
and NT) on your system, the safest way to do it is with a tool called
System Commander, available from many mail order outlets. This tool
squirrels away copies of all these OSs' "secret" files, and installs the
right set at boot time once you tell it which OS you need at the moment.
It is the ONLY way I've been able to keep the three Windows versions that
are necessary to my business from attacking each other and turning my
computer into a big puddle of goo.

-- Bruce


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Toback    Tel: (602) 996-8601| My candle burns at both ends;
OPT, Inc.            (800) 858-4507| It will not last the night;
11801 N. Tatum Blvd. Ste. 142      | But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends -
Phoenix AZ 85028                   | It gives a lovely light.
[log in to unmask]                   |     -- Edna St. Vincent Millay