Nobody is innocent in this arena. But if you put truth and all the past Windows 95 hype in the same room, you'd get a matter-antimatter explosion. And it isn't over yet. In fact, I've seen nothing put the Microsoft news-washing machine into the spin cycle like our reports of resource problems in Windows 95. My question is: How much detergent will it take until they come clean?
I first reported the problem when a Microsoft representative called to see how the First Look was coming along. (See "Windows 95 beta fails to meet promises," March 27, page 122.) The next day, three Windows 95 developers showed up on my doorstep ready for damage control. I hope the rest of you beta testers are getting this kind of service.
First, they were baffled. Until I did my tests, nobody had reported any resource limitations in Windows 95. Then I showed them a screen shot of Word, Excel, Paint, and four windows of Microsoft Network opened with 14 percent resources left. Oh, that resource problem. That's the fault of Microsoft Network, they said. Then I explained how I could easily run out of resources without using Microsoft Network. All I had to do was open too many folders. Oh, that resource problem. That's because we need to move the Windows class out of the 64KB User heap (a storage place for information about windows objects) into the 32-bit address space, they said. We just happen to have a version of Windows 95 right here with that fix. But by the way, you'll notice the fix causes some other bugs. Shortly after that, Microsoft admitted to our news hound that they have been aware of the resource problem since January.
But before all the high-RPM spin that is sure to result from this discovery gets you too dizzy to follow the developments, don't lose sight of this key point: This resource problem is not a bug. It's the direct result of having built Windows 95 on the shallow foundation of Windows 3.1. Windows 95 inherits the 64KB heaps from Windows 3.1 in order to strengthen backward compatibility with Windows 3.1 applications.
Microsoft can diminish the problem somewhat by moving certain resources out of the heap and into the 32-bit address space. But any departure from the original Windows 3.1 design can break compatibility and introduce new problems. And as long as the 64KB User and GDI heaps exist at all, you will always run into resource limitations no matter how much RAM you add to your machine.
I double-click until I have about 30 folders open when I notice resources have dropped to 6 percent free. That's usually when Windows 95 starts to fall apart, so I'll stop there.
Ah, but what about the "fixed" version Microsoft gave me? I install the build of Windows 95 that moves the Windows class out of the 64KB User heap and into the 32-bit address space. Then I open up Word for Windows and Excel again and load the same document into Word.
Whoa! I can get up to a whopping 40 open folders now -- 42 if I close the document in Word for Windows. Opening folders is a far cry from the kind of real-world benchmarking we do in the Test Center, but it shows how little the new build helps.
To be fair, let's look at how OS/2 compares when you push it in the same way. After all, if OS/2 has the same problem, I owe Microsoft a big apology. By the way, I'd run this test on Windows NT Workstation, too, and I'm sure it would do very well if NT had a folder-oriented desktop. But it doesn't.
Anyway, IBM is forever boasting about OS/2's multitasking, so I'm going to be especially tough on OS/2. I boot OS/2 on the same machine and open up eight OS/2 native applications -- you know, some of those productivity applications that don't exist for OS/2.
I run DeScribe Inc.'s DeScribe 5.0 word processor, Athena Design Inc.'s Mesa/2 2.0 spreadsheet, CompuServe Information Manager for OS/2 1.0, HockWare Inc.'s VisPro/C 1.0 visual development environment, and Sundial Systems Corp.'s Relish 2.2 personal information manager. Then I dial up the Internet using the IBM Internet Access Kit, and run IBM's Internet Web Explorer, Internet Gopher client, and the Internet Newsreader. Just for kicks, I open up Lotus cc:Mail Remote for DOS, WordPerfect 6.1 for Windows, an America Online for Windows 2.0. Eleven applications. That ought to do it.
Now, time to start opening folders. I open one folder. Another. Then another. And another. Every once in a while, I can hear disk swapping, but it lets me keep going. My double-clicking finger gets tired when I get to 100 folders open simultaneously. I switch between the running applications and play with them. Each program continues to perform as well as if it were the only application running.
Well, I suppose I don't owe Microsoft an apology after all, but I'll offer one anyway: I'm really sorry you folks can't seem to get Windows 95 to work as well as OS/2. Windows 95 is, after all, pretty, and it does run DOS games great.
Now there's an incentive for IS departments to upgrade their users.
Send E-mail via the Internet at nicholas_petreley@infoworld.com, MCI Mail 527-1353, or CompuServe 71333,426.