Well, now that you mention it, Bill, no. I'm not getting any more Windows 95 betas. At least not since we printed the First Look at what Microsoft calls the final beta of Windows 95, aka Beta 3, aka M8, aka Build 347. (See March 27, page 122.)
To be fair, I did get one more build just before the First Look went to print. David Cole, general manager of Microsoft's personal systems division, flew down to our San Mateo, Calif., offices with two of his cronies (all unannounced and uninvited) in response to problems I was having with the M8 "final" beta. That's when he hand-delivered Build 430, which moves the Windows class out of the 64KB User heap that Windows 95 inherited from Windows 3.1. This alleviates, but does not eliminate, the tendency for Windows 95 to run out of resources when you run too many 32-bit applications -- particularly if they are heavily multithreaded applications.
David also left me with the promise that I would receive all following weekly builds, so I could track Microsoft's progress in eliminating the side effects of this fundamental change to the way the OS handles resources and print the good news if I found any.
If it ain't broke, fix it
Two weeks later, I've asked why the betas haven't been forthcoming, and I've been told that all bets are off. The way one press contact put it, "We're not distributing weekly builds to the press anymore, because we haven't been getting the kind of press coverage we wanted."
Wait, there's more, but hang on. I'm trying to write this column using IBM's Voice Type Dictation product for OS/2, a really cool speech recognition system, and it gets confused when I start laughing too hard.
OK, so as I was saying, I wasn't satisfied with this response, particularly because my contacts at other publications are still receiving betas. So I pursued it further. In response, another representative said Microsoft won't be sending us any weekly builds because the bugs and compatibility problems "could mislead the press about the progress they are making with Windows 95."
Ow, ow, my side is beginning to hurt. Wait, it gets even better, but I've got to turn off this microphone and go back to the keyboard.
Okay, so the rep goes on to acknowledge that the so-called "fix" to the resource problem could be breaking other things in the OS. And he recommends that we use and write about the older M8 beta from now on. But the M8 beta has severe resource problems, I say. No it doesn't, he objects. Nobody has reported any resource problems in the M8 beta, he insists (despite the admissions from other Microsoft representatives to the contrary).
Ah, I get it. You don't want us to see the interim betas because you haven't finished patching up all the side effects that resulted from the "fix" to the problems that do not exist. And to further prove the problems do not exist, Microsoft is demanding that the Microsoft Network developers yank many of the threads out of the Microsoft Network software, because they eat too many of the resources nobody is in danger of depleting.
Oh, heavens, I wish I could write material like this.
After 20 minutes of haggling, the representative finally suggested that Microsoft may -- and the operative word here is may -- put together a monthly beta especially for the press -- one they think has a better chance of standing up to our scrutiny. I'll believe it when it hits my desk.
I'm a yanking doodle dandy
Speaking of yanking threads, now that I think of it, I notice that whenever I find a problem in Windows 95, something gets yanked. Some time ago, I pointed out how easily you can demonstrate how poorly Windows 95 multitasks by running any Windows 16-bit program (I used Borland's Quattro Pro for Windows) and Microsoft's Winbez demo application, which starts a number of graphical threads. Winbez slows to a crawl even if the 16-bit application is idle and in the background.
Microsoft fixed that problem. They yanked the Winbez demo application out of the following beta.
Then I reported that shortcuts will reattach to the wrong files when you move the original files they point to. They fixed that problem, too. They yanked the code that assumes the search gets a valid "hit" and automatically reattaches the shortcut to a file it thinks is the original. Now Windows 95 never assumes. It always asks your permission before reattaching the shortcut to the wrong file. What a fix.
I don't know what code they yanked to address the problems I had getting cc:Mail Remote for DOS to exchange messages as a background task. But they'd be better off putting it back. In Build 430, cc:Mail Remote can now exchange the messages in the background, but the performance of any foreground application is so severely afflicted, I'm not sure it's worth it.
On the upside, if they keep yanking the bad parts out of Windows 95, they're going to save a fortune in disks. Maybe they'll pass on the savings to the consumer.
Don't yank your letters
The reader response to our recent news items, First Look, and Windows 95 coverage has been overwhelming, and I apologize that I haven't been able to answer every letter. We received a few flames, but the vast majority of you praised us for our bold and eye-opening coverage of Windows 95, and many of you have been kind enough to corroborate our findings. Thanks to all of you, and keep those letters coming.
You know, it's a good thing doctors don't solve problems as Microsoft does.
Hey, Charlie, let's yank out this liver and see if the patient's condition gets any better. Send E-mail via the Internet to nicholas_petreley@infoworld.com, MCI Mail 527-1353, or CompuServe 71333,426.