Was 95 easier to use than 3.1? I think on balance, yes it was.
With Win2000, MS has a longer row to hoe. I can see it going
either way, to tell the truth. If they try to turn NT into
a rerun of Microsoft Bob in order to allay the fears of every
novice, they will fail miserably and will gain no acceptance.
If they integrate PNP into NT and solve the driver/compatibility
problem with vendors, then the acceptance level will be very
high.
The NT WS mumbo jumbo is no worse than the 95/98 mumbo jumbo
except for multiple booting (NT Server is another story). In fact,
other than PNP (and the availability of drivers), it is
very difficult for an end use to see a difference between
Win 95 and NT 4, except NT crashes a lot less. I hear that
the NT 5 beta install is much improved. In truth, the NT
4 install is not at all bad, again excepting lack of
general PNP capability. And the PCI bus makes up for
quite a bit of that, too.
In sum, don't know, good question. But on balance my guess is
the acceptance will be pretty high. We'll see in a few
quarters one way or the other. |
