>>>I worked with the beta of VFP from beta 1. The first few
weeks trying to run it under WFW were terrible! I knew at that
time I'd have to go to a 32bit system. The question was 95 or NT. As it happened I got a copy of 95 (also in beta at that time), and until recently have been developing under that system. Last week I switched over to NT4.0 (beta version), the reason is to position myself for web server development.
INHO it really doesn't matter which 32bit system you use, but if you are going to develop using VFP, you must use a 32bit system.


>>>I totally agree with Scot! VFP is 32 bit & 95
>is
>>>32 bit -- WFW is 16 bit. I know some people who
>>>do not have anything nice to say about Win32s.
>>>True 32 bit seems to be not only faster but much
>>>more reliable.
>>>
>>>Tom
>>
>>Thank you for your reply. As I tell Scot, I am
>>worried about Win95 reliability. Have you any
>>problem with Win95? However, I think I will go on
>>with Win95. The problem I have to prove that
>Win95
>>is better and more reliable than WFW. Do you have
>>any sources that I will find information to
>inform
>>my project team.
>>
>>Pium :-)
>
>
>Pium
>
>As far as documenting I don't know. As far as I
>am concerned Win 95 is much better then WFW. The
>32 Op system is much more releiable. I used
>Win/NT 3,51 workstation. With 95 I am hooked on
>the interface and leave NT alone -- I can't go
>back! The NT 4 release will be out within the
>next few months. My 'professional buddies' are
>all waiting for NT with the 95 interface (NT 4).
>
>Anyway, I have nothing but good to say about 95 &
>DOS apps even behave better.
>
>Tom