   There's a lot of hype that you'll find in the market today.  Depending on
what you read, you'll find that (1) Windows is the best thing since sliced
bread, (2) Microsoft Word for Windows is the best word processor you can find,
(3) OS/2 is the best operating system ever, and (4) Intel has an i486SX upgrade
that's the absolute greatest.  And I bet you thought there were only three big
lies, including the check's in the mail!  Well, let's blow away some myths and
separate some fact from fiction.  This is a difficult task in today's market
hype, but the following will attempt to address each of the above four points.
   From what I can tell, many people have discovered that Windows 3.0 isn't as
easy as everyone thought it was supposed to be.  It can be tricky to configure,
and many people have found that it's quite easy to lose data because of the
infamous Unrecoverable Application Errors (UAEs) which plague it.  From what
I've seen, many large companies have not yet "converted" to Windows because it's
expensive.  That includes the cost of new hardware, such as memory and larger
hard drives (see HARD-DRV.ZIP on this board), new or upgraded software that is
Windows-specific, training time for users, and a lot of extra time required by
the technical support groups (assuming you can ever get a phone call through to
them).
   While it's true that Windows 3.0 will run on an 8088-based system with 640 K
of memory and a CGA display, I don't recommend it.  She ain't gonna run well,
and she ain't gonna be either pretty or smart!  Windows will also run on an
80286-based system in standard mode, but I don't recommend that either.  Even
if you have a fast hard drive, bringing up DOS and Windows (not to mention the
speed of an application) is quite slow on those systems, plus you can't really
take advantage of many Window's features like multitasking.  Although an 80286-
based system does allow multitasking for Windows applications, that CPU is still
too slow.  If you want to run Windows, I still recommend a fast 80386DX system.
Although you can get the advantage of running the 386 enhanced mode on an
80386SX system, they are generally too slow because their bus width is 16 bits
and their clock speeds are not as fast as the DX systems.
   It's interesting to note that something like over eight million copies of
Windows 3.0 have been sold, but I haven't seen too many people use Windows much
because its too damn slow.  And, if you really want to take full advantage of
Windows, you also need to spend some additional money for Windows applications.
I've also observed that Windows doesn't run very well in the recommended
minimum of 2 MB of memory on a 386 system, and I recommend an absolute minimum
of 4 MB.
   If you use Windows, you probably know that Microsoft released Windows 3.1 on
April 6th this year.  This release was supposed to have a considerable number
of enhancements, including improved response speed, but WHAT A JOKE!  I've
found Windows 3.1 to be a major disappointment.  Microsoft has publically
stated that a major goal was for all Windows 3.0 applications to run under
Windows 3.1 with no changes.  They weren't even close so far as I'm concerned!
The WordPerfect 5.1 UPGRADE for Windows is listed in the Windows 3.1 help
system as having problems with this new version.  Would you believe that even
Microsoft's own Word for Windows 1.1 is also listed as having problems running
under this new Windows version?  Of course, none of these upgrades necessary to
make the programs Windows 3.1 compliant is free, adding to the considerable
all-in cost of running Windows in the first place.
   From what I can tell, Microsoft didn't come close to their goal because of
all the Windows applications out there that are on the Windows 3.1 "hit" list.
Word processors include Lotus AmiPro, WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows, and Word for
Windows 1.1, as I just mentioned.  Aside from Word, Microsoft has three other
of their own products with problems co-existing with Windows 3.1:  Bookshelf
for Windows, PowerPoint 2.0e, and the MS Productivity Pack 1.0.  There must
have been some REAL major changes in Windows 3.1, because Microsoft's own
relatively current applications apparently have problems with this new version.
Other applications with problems with Windows 3.1 include:  Central Point's
PCTOOLS, Harvard Graphics for Windows, and WordStar for Windows (assuming any-
body still uses WordStar anymore).  These are just a few of the 30-odd program
applications listed on the new Windows 3.1 help screen as problems.  My guess
is that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and there will be lots more fall-
out from Windows 3.1 before the dust settles.
   This kind of problem also makes it especially difficult for software vendors,
not to mention us poor end-users.  Just when we thought that Windows was
relatively stable, at least in terms of the new software that we had to buy,
Microsoft changed the rules and reneged.  As an end-user, I really don't
appreciate that, even though I have some understanding of the technical
difficulties involved.  From a business perspective, I suspect that a number of
software vendors are at least a little exasperated with Microsoft since they
must now figure out a way to get their existing software to work under the new
Windows version (read this as REWRITE THE PROGRAM).  Then you get the privilege
of paying up again for another upgrade to make the Windows application work
with Windows 3.1!  This whole can of worms just adds some more costs that will
inevitably be passed on to us users in some way or another, and that's directly
Microsoft's fault as far as I'm concerned.  But there is one point about this
new version of Windows that is not obvious.
   Regardless of the fact that version 3.x of Windows has sold ten zillion
copies, Windows is still in its infancy.  So are the software programs that run
under it.  Microsoft is trying desperately to stabilize Windows, which is
certainly difficult to do given the varied types and configurations of hardware
out there that it must run on.  Software vendors have focused considerable
resources on trying to develop reliable applications, but Windows is still so
new that many of the damn rules keep changing.  Does this sound familiar?  Of
course it does (I said it earlier).
   In the early days of DOS-based micro-computers, application software
frequently locked up the computers which occasionally required a power-off
reset.  CTRL-ALT-DEL wouldn't touch recover from a hard freeze.  I remember
working with an old version of MultiMate on an original IBM PC (before XTs were
released) that locked up on me about once every hour in the middle of working
with it.  Now that's frustrating, and Windows has maintained the same tradition,
even though the new version has recovery features that version 3.0 didn't have.
(The UAE's are still there, pal; they just aren't called that anymore).
   As it so happens though, there is one other problem with Windows 3.1 that I
really haven't seen much written about yet, probably because its not something
that at least a few people want to hear.  Simply stated, Windows 3.1 will not
run in the REAL mode on ANY system, which means taht it won't run on an 8088
system period.  If you are planning on using Windows and a lot of Windows-based
program applications, then I will continue to recommend at least a 33 MHz 80386
system.  Of course Windows 3.1 will continue to run on an 80286 CPU in the
Standard mode.  If you have at least an 80386, you can run Windows in the 386
Enhanced mode as well as the Standard mode.  But there is one other point if
you are considering buying a new computer to use with Windows.
   Perhaps you've heard about the new 32-bit Windows, which is also called
Winodws NT (New Technology).  If you like Windows, don't even consider buying
any computer with less than an 80386 CPU, and an 80486 is better.  The whole
reasons for that is that Windows NT will not even run on an 80286 because this
new Windows version will require at least an 80386 with 32-bit bus through-put
capacity.
   There are those who refer to Windows generally as an operating system.  Well,
as a graphical interface, yes I'll accept that.  But as an operating system?
Whether or not Windows is an operating system depens on your point of view.
DOS, OS/2, and DR DOS are clearly operating systems, and some kind of operating
system is clearly required to "start" or boot a computer.  However, the
distinction between the operating system and the Windows environment becomes
kind of blurred and indistinct because of some of the capabilities that Windows
has.  Let's take a look at some of the features that make it difficult to tell
where the "real" operating system stops and the Windows environment begins.
   Consider what Windows does.  When you boot DOS (that may also include device
drivers), the operating system basically handles all of the hardware fuctions
such as the CPU memory, serial/parallel ports (including a mouse), CRT/video
board, accessing disk drives and files, other I/O ports (e.g. the keyboard),
and working with application software.  But, when Windows is running in
protected mode (for either Standard mode or 386 Enhanced mode), it takes over
many of the DOS functions and many other functions that were previously
performed by applications.  That includes the CPU and memory management, video
display (Windows has device drivers of its own for that, thank you), device
drivers for special functions (e.g. SmartDrive caching), and all I/O ports,
including standard serial and parallel ports (mouse, communications progs, etc).
About the only thing DOS does at this point is whimper when Windows sends its
"requests" for disk/file access, although DOS will still run the non-Windows
device drivers and other such stuff.  In other words, Windows basically TAKES
OVER all the system hardware, so there really isn't much left for DOS to do.
So it's not too far off the mark to think of Windows as some kind of piggy
operating system, even though it really isn't just now (give it time, though --
wait until you get DOS UAE's on some future version of MS-DOS!).
   Actually, it probably won't be too long before Windows will become directly
bootable from a disk, to the point you won't even see a DOS command prompt!  In
fact, if Microsoft forces its considerable will down upon us, I won't be
surprised to see the DOS command prompt disappear entirely, which is another
reason I recommend at least a fast 80386 system.
   Windows is a large, complexx program that is still not quite as stable as
you might expect given the number of years it has been available.  And its only
been recently--in the last year or so--that popular applications have begun to
be available for Windows.  Sure, some Windows applications have been around for
years, but so has your grandmother.  I'm talking about popular applications
like WordPerfect and Harvard Graphics.  Despite the length of time that Windows
has been available in some version or other, its only been since the release of
3.0 that it has really been popular with most users.  And users are just now
beginning to really buy these applications for their systems in earnest.  Word
Perfect and Harvard Graphics are now available, although neither one of these
software applications was ever intended to be a Windows application (and both
software development companies bitched screaming about the force of end-user
demand to bring them out!).  Of course, Word for Windows has been available for
some time now.  And speaking of Word for Windows...
   The battle lines are drawn, the artillery is poised and ready, and the
bombers are ready for combat.  It you think that seems a little out of place in
this diatribe about Windows, perhaps you haven't seen the latest advertisements
for Microsoft Word 2.0 and WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows.  The battle has indeed
been joined, and both companies have managed to do more than just fire shots
across the bow of their competitor.  Even though Microsoft fired the first
salvo, WordPerfect has come back with some multi-megaton bombs.  At this point,
it looks like this battle will be even better than Dell vs. Compaq.  Here's
what's going on...
   InfoWorld ad starts out with the bold declaration that "No wonder WordPerfect
users prefer Word for Windows.  It has easy written all over it."  Goes on to
mention that nearly eight out of ten WordPerfect for DOS users preferred
Microsoft Word for Windows 2.0 over WordPerfect for Windows.  The whole gist of
the copy is that Word for Windows is much easier to use than WordPerfect for
Windows.
   Not to be outdone, the usually mild-mannered WordPerfect Corp. has fired
back with a two-page PC-Week ad.  Underneath a yellow, diamond-shaped traffic
sign in "FOG", the statement "If You're Moving To Windows, Beware of Advertis-
ing."  This advertisement suggests that you proceed with caution, which I've
always thought was true of any advertising.  The major gist of the copy here is
that a competitor confined his test to just eight text-formatting functions and
limited his test to a "national sample" of just 24 people.  The ad suggests:
"Which Windows word processor do eight out of ten people -- or four out of five
dentists -- recommend?  It all depends on which eight people you ask, and how
you phrase the questions."  This ad is particularly interesting because nowhere
it is is either Microsoft or Word for Windows mentioned.  Perhaps this is a
gentle hint that name-calling should not be condoned in an election year.
   Not often amused by ads, I look forward to the next installment in the battle
of the word processors.  Microsoft has tried for years to unseat the number one
selling WordPerfect, and this new campaign really calls it out.  We'll see if
Microsoft can beat WordPerfect into the dirt the way it did IBM.
   And IBM is apparently really going to push OS/2 version 2.0.  Depending on
what I saw at the Chicago Consumer Electronics Show, IBM can't even successfully
GIVE AWAY OS/2 version 2.0! (except on their own computers).  They apparently
tried to get other computer manufacturers to bundle OS/2 with microcomputers,
but the story seems to be that most manufacturers have an agreement with (you
guessed it) Microsoft to pay a royalty on each computer that rolls off the
assembly line.  And these manufacturers are paying a royalty for DOS anyway, so
it's difficult to believe that they will add an additional cost to their
product by including OS/2.
   But there are those who will tell you that OS/2 is the best operating system
ever invented.  Keep in mind that OS/2 is now pretty much an IBM product that
Microsoft has forsaken in favor of Windows.  What that really means is that the
latest version of OS/2 has been developed by IBM without any help from Micro-
soft.  The same software developers who gave us the buggiest DOS of all -- ver
4.x!  I should also note that OS/2 was originally released in 1987, and you can
judge for yourself how popular it is.  Basically, OS/2 has been available for
something like five years.  How many people do you know who use OS/2?
   There may be another reason for that.  Now that IBM has essentially taken
over the OS/2 development, it's not difficult to predict that users will be
especially wary of that operating system, no matter how good it is.  From a
user perspective, I would suggest that their future in software will be
consistent with their past sotware successes.  By the way, waht ever happened
to TopView and OfficeVision?  If you didn't get trapped by the bugs in DOS 4.0
then maybe you remember the bugs in DOS 2.0.  Not to mention the previous
versions of OS/2 itself!  Unless something has drastically changed, its really
difficult to see how OS/2 can possibly succeed.
   And there is another factor:  How many applications do you know of that will
run under OS/2?  Although there are certainly some, you'll have considerable
difficulty finding a complete set of popular applications that include word
processing, graphics, spreadsheet, and data base.  For example, I don't know of
any version of a popular word processor (e.g. WordPerfect, Word, or WordStar)
that is available in a version that runs directly under OS/2's Presentation
Manager.  That's a real killer because word processing is the most common
application by far.  What about a spreadsheet?  Does Quattro Pro or 1-2-3 run
directly under Presentation Manager?  What about an OS/2 version of a popular
data base or a graphics program?  Sure, you can find one or two, but what about
something powerful like Harvard Graphics that runs in OS/2 native mode?  Forget
it!  Yes, you can run this stuff in a DOS box, but what good is OS/2 for that?
Face it, if you don't have OS/2-specific applications, you really lose much of
the advantage of that operating system.  And lots of luck finding device drivers
that will co-exist with the OS/2 operating system for lots of DOS apps!
   There is one other major point about OS/2 2.0 that's interesting.  Initial
reports are that it runs "native" OS/2 applications as well as Windows and DOS
programs.  Given the amount of disk space that OS/2 2.0 requires (on the order
of a mere 18 MB or so), it is likely that any Windows applications will be
noticeably slower under OS/2 Presentation Manager than in the already-slow
Windows environment, if for no other reason than because OS/2 is a much bigger
"pig" than even Windows is!  To be fair to IBM, OS/2 is undoubtedly a rather
remarkable technical achievement in getting all that stuff working together
under the OS/2 title.  I guess you can tell I still have some major reservations
about it.
   OS/2 still does have one major advantage over Windows.  Windows can do multi-
tasking, but it's a real kludge because DOS was never designed to do multi-
tasking, and Windows has not been able to overcome some of the DOS limitations
in that area.  On the other hand, OS/2 does a MUCH better job of memory manage-
ment, among a few other things, than does Windows.  Even with its technical
advantages in some areas, however, OS/2 is not running away with any popularity
awards.
   Until and unless these is more popular software that runs under OS/2 in the
native mode, this sucker is a dead bird.  It's big and slow, and not likely to
overtake Windows in our lifetime.  In fact, it's going to be real difficult for
any product to compete with Windows, with all those copies already out.  A
successful OS/2 would require a so-called "killer app", like waht Lotus 1-2-3
was for the IBM Personal Computer.  Is that likely today?  Possibly.  We may
also discover the secret to perpetual life on earth, but I doubt it.  If OS/2
makes it at all, don't expect it to make it in any big way.  I personally don't
plan to spend any further time looking at it.  If anything is current, Windows
3.1 with all its disappointing shortcomings is still the prettiest (if not the
dumbest) lady on the block for now.
   A friend once told me that a boat is a hole in the water which you pour
money into.  Computer systems are similar in many ways.  Software upgrades and
hardware upgrades seem to be an almost constant fact of life.  If you want to
use the latest and greatest software, it is almost certain that you will also
need to upgrade your hardware too.  Gone are the days that you could simply
fork over the cash for a software upgrade and be done with it.  Sometimes you
need more memory, other time you need a larger hard drive, and you may even
find you need a higher resolution CRT because some of today's software doesn't
work very well (if at all) on anything less than an EGA video system.  But now
there's a real twist in the hardware.
   Every once in a while I see an ad that really pisses me off!  Perhaps you've
seen the Intel version:  "Something's waiting inside the 486SX computer."
Something's waiting all right.  There's a little bastard from Intel in there
with his hand out, demanding you take advantage of the opportunity to grease it
with hundreds of dollars for an upgrade!  Ah yes, a computer IS a black hole
that seemingly absorbs endless amounts of money.  What's this all about?
   Well, one of the major differences between the 80386 CPU and the 80486 CPU
is the fact that the 80486 CPU has a "built-in" numeric coprocessor.  And
perhaps you know that the 80386 CPU uses a 32-bit bus while the 80386SX CPU
uses a 16-bit bus.  As the story goes, the "SX" designation for the 386 was
taken from the word SiXteen.  So far as the 80486 and i486SX CPUs are concerned,
the bus width of both chips is the same -- 32 bits.
   Despite its origins, one of the major differences between the 80486 CPU
(sometimes called the 80486DX) and the 80486SX is that the i486SX does NOT have
the built-in numeric coprocessor.  And if you check out the Intel ad, you'll
see a "VACANCY" arrow pointing to an empty socket next to an i486SX CPU.
According to Intel, that socket is for an "upgrade processor" which will double
basic CPU performance with an overall system performance increase of up to 70%.
This additional chip will also include a numeric coprocessor, and Intel plans
to make it available right away.  Although there's no hint of how much it'll
cost you, you can bet it will be at least as pricey as a numeric coprocessor.
That probably means that a system with the i486SX and the upgrade processor
will end up costing you more than a standard 80486DX (with all the capabilities)
does right now.  And it may be slower than a -DX too!  Consider this...
   Many of the current i486SX systems have a 20 MHz clock speed, while the
80486DX systems generally have at least a 33 MHz clock speed, and a 50 MHz
80486DX chip is available already on some systems.  All other things being
equal (which they aren't, of course), such as the chip architecture in this
case, an increase in clock speed will proportionately increase the speed of the
CPU, and that will (of course) increase the speed of your overall system.  For
example, a 33 MHz 80386DX is already 65% faster than an 20 MHz i486SX, and a
50 MHz DX is 250% faster than a 20 MHz i486SX.
   Even though systems with an i486SX are considerably less expensive in the
short term, it is quite likely that the addition of the upgrade processor will
cause the system to be more expensive in the long run than a standard DX-based
system would be in the first place.  For that reason, I don't believe that a
slower system with an SX CPU is a good investment, in terms of either all-in
cost or overall performance.
   If you really need a fast system for graphics, CAD, or heavy-duty math in a
monster spreadsheet, a DX is a far better investment even though its initial
hit (to your wallet) is higher.  Also, remember that CPU speed isn't the fix
for everything, such as improving the speed of Windows.  Although a faster CPU
will help you, you will also need to have a high-performance video card with
lots of video memory for best response.
   As you can probably tell, the Intel ad for an i486SX bothers me somewhat
because it only tells a small part of the true story.  While it is true that
the SX configuration is quite sufficient to improve performance for a lot of
software, I recommend a considerable amount of skepticism on these things
because the DX version is already available and it is two and a half times
faster than the most common 20 MHz i486SX.

