Thus, this document, which answers a question that's more interesting to many of you: Should you get Windows95? Is it worth plunking down $ 89.95 at your local computer superstore?

Let's look at some Windows95 claims in as dispassionate a manner as possible, ignoring both the fanatical cries of both sides.

Does Windows95 really multi-task?

In their advertising, Microsoft says yes; they pain a compelling picture of you, with your shiny new Windows95 computer, running several applications at once and having fewer problems with them.

Real world testing presents a mixed picture:

• Compiling a Visual Basic 3.0 program. If you have Visual Basic 3.0, and you want to compile a large program, the system will grind to a complete and literal halt. Nothing but the compilation will run until it's finished; you will not be able to access the start button. If you are using a Windows95 web server, such as O'Reilly's Website, you will find that it will not process requests during this time.

• Routine operation of a VB program. You can still operate other programs while a Visual Basic or other program is waiting for input. When a VB program is processing something, your entire system will grind to a halt.

• What about Visual Basic 4.0? Okay, Microsoft doesn't really claim that mulitasking will work on 16-bit applications, and that's all VB 3.0 can produce. What about 32-bit applications and the new VB 4.0? For my answers, see my review of Visual Basic 4, an unmitigated software disaster.

• Windows95 networking and other processes. Windows95 networking actually does work. You can run networking processes such as long FTP sessions in the background, and do most things in the foreground, and everything will work fairly well.

Microsoft tries its best to do a run around the fact that multitasking of 16-bit applications doesn't work. If you read their fine print closely enough, you will see that they will admit that it doesn't. However, at the same time, they are making loud claims that multi-tasking will help you, clearly implying that you should be able to multi-task all applications, including 16-bit ones.

Don't be deceived. You cannot do this. Microsoft isn't lying, if you want the literal truth, but they are performing the moral equivalent; if you don't read the fine print, you will get a completely false impression of what Windows95 can do.

Okay, David, we know your experiences with 16-bit applications weren't so hot. What about the brave new world of 32-bit applications?

As has already been mentioned (see the link to my review above), Visual Basic 4 was an unmitigated disaster. I'm not the only person who thinks this, either: the VB newsgroups are buzzing with nasty comments about 4.0 from formerly loyal VB customers. Among other things, it's apparently about 15-33% slower than the previous version, even with the 32-bit stuff.

The new Corel Draw 6.0 for Windows95, a full 32-bit application, crashes several times a day when I use it intensively. It doesn't seem to run terribly fast either, on my Pentium 75 with 16MB RAM.

Netscape Navigator 2.0 Beta crashes much more frequently on Windows95 than it does on my Sun system.

Microsoft Internet Explorer, so far, has worked fine.

So far, then, it looks like the new 32-bit products that are struggling into the market now are no more reliable than their old Windows 3.1 versions. The only benchmarks I know of are for VB, which is much slower in the new 32-bit version than in the old 16-bit one.

What the folks over at the VB newsgroups are saying is that Microsoft is relying heavily on its sluggish, high-overhead OLE technology. Because of this, many old VB programs can no longer work under the new regime, and those that do will be much, much slower.

Finally, we have the good news. The user interface improvements are real and represent a gigantic step forward from Windows 3.1:

• The 'Start' button. Those giant Start buttons probablylook like nothing but a marketing metaphor to you, particularly when they bought a eight-page insert in the Wall Street Journal and used two of those pages for a gigantic, newspaper-page-sized "Start".

  But what 'Start' does is pretty neat. Instead of having lots of icons on the desktop, as in Windows 3.1, they have a single start button that brings up a cascading set of menus, one per program group. So if you want to bring up Microsoft Word, you press Start, select Programs, select Microsoft Office and select Microsoft Word. That sounds clumsy, but the procedure is incredibly smooth and neat. Once you use it, you'll never want to bring up a big, sluggish-loading screen of icons and program groups again.

• The Taskbar is a list on the bottom line of the screen that shows every program currently running. To select a program, just click on its little button (holding an icon and as much of the contents of the title bar as will fit) and it springs up. As you start running more applications, the buttons on the taskbar get thinner and thinner. Quite honestly, this is a feature I wish I had on my Sun. Silicon Graphics workstations, which start at about $ 6,500 (with a truly usable system costing around $ 15,000) has an even better system called desks; unfortunately, most of the world cannot afford a Silicon Graphics workstation.

In my experience, no. It's still Windows, and the Windows system was developed with many painfully shoddy compromises that prevent Windows95 from satisfying its potential.

If you're running other systems:

If you have any Unix workstation or PC running Unix, stick with what you have; Windows95 is no threat to your system's easy superiority.

If you have a Macintosh, congratulate yourself on an excellent graphical interface decision. Windows95 may be the pretty kid on the block, but I think you'll still be happier with what you have - especially since prices for the new PowerPC macs are comparable or even a little lower than the equivalent PC.

If you're currently running Windows 3.1 or Windows for Workgroups

If you run a lot of applications at the same time, Windows95's improved user interface will save you a lot of time and aggrivation. So if you always hated the Windows user interface, but tolerated it for the sake of cheap computing power, you'll probably like the new version much more.

If you're trying to connect to the Internet and have a lot of trouble with it, you'll appreciate Windows95's ease of setup. Note that if you're happy with your present setup, you should probably stick with Windows 3.1.

If you're hoping for better performance through 32-bit applications, don't bother. It's not there, at least not with the produts I've sampled.

If you're looking for a more reliable system, forget it; it's not significantly different from Windows 3.1.