Two-thirds of our survey respondents say Windows 95 will be very or somewhat important to them in 1995 (compared to 34 percent last year). Almost one-third plan to upgrade within one month of the release of Windows 95, while another 29 percent say they'll wait six months. Ten percent will hop on the bandwagon in the first year, while 7 percent report that they will wait a year or more. Still, a lot of you expressed caution--one-quarter of our respondents haven't committed to upgrading yet.

It seems the more you know about Windows 3.x, the sooner you will commit to the new operating system. Seventy-eight percent of power users and 65 percent of advanced users say they'll move to Win95 in the first six months, compared to 43 percent of intermediate users and 33 percent of novice users.

Companies will be much slower to upgrade, our survey shows. Only 9 percent will move over in the first month after Win95 ships, with another 22 percent following over the next six months. One-fifth will load Windows 95 by the OS's first birthday and another 13 percent will sign on sometime after one year. One-third of the companies surveyed haven't made an upgrade plan yet.

Many of you are aware of your company's position--but that doesn't mean you want to wait. "Most companies are very reluctant

to make changes on their computers if it's going to involve a lot of training," acknowledges Linda Barrick, a system administrator with Bruce and Bruce Co., Lake Bluff, Ill.

"I'll probably get a copy of Windows 95 for myself and see how user- friendly it is. I have a Pentium and am hoping to utilize it more fully."

Once Win95 is widely available, 32-bit apps that take advantage of the new architecture will also gain importance. Seventy two percent of our respondents cite 32-bit applications as very or somewhat important technologies. Users are also looking for better multimedia, more Web browsers and increased document imaging capabilities. Windows NT will also become increasingly important, according to one-third of respondents. Other gee-whiz technologies (such as wireless/infrared, telephony and social interfaces) were rated less important.

Interestingly, every type of technology we asked about--from 32-bit applications to video conferencing--was rated more important this year than last. When asked to indicate which technologies were very important, respondents checked off a larger number of categories on average than they did last year. The upshot? Windows users want it all.

Word processors took first prize when we asked you which product category improved most over the past year. Twenty-five percent of you have seen significant changes for the better in your word processing program. "I am able to do actual desktop publishing with my word processor because of the improved capabilities," reports Gail Peterson, who does desktop publishing at Norman W. Edmund in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.

The categories of spreadsheets, databases and suites have also made strides. Each was mentioned as most-improved category by about 10 percent of the respondents. Interestingly, while databases won kudos, many readers said there's still room for improvement--when asked which products needed the most help, readers put databases at the top of the list. Other contenders for a makeover include e-mail, communications, remote access and OCR software.

Despite complaints about communications and database products, about one-quarter of those surveyed plan to buy software in these categories in the next year. Word processing, personal finance and spreadsheet programs are equally high on your shopping lists, with about one-quarter of you reporting plans to buy. On the other hand, few of you (about 4 percent) plan to invest in integrated works programs.

Traffic is building on the information highway. More than half of those surveyed have connected to the Internet and of those who haven't, 60 percent plan to start using the Internet in the next six months. The mean time spent cruising in a given week is about three hours, and the mean number of connects falls at just under seven. However, readers cite expense as the biggest roadblock in getting up and running on the Net. "I've been avoiding the Internet, but I guess I'm going to have to start thinking about it," says Richard LaFranchise, senior CAD/CAM application engineer at Pratt & Whitney in East Hartford, Conn. "I probably would have gotten onto it through CompuServe or Prodigy, but I didn't want to get hooked into the high-priced toll calls."

The busiest on-ramps to the Internet are consumer online services like CompuServe and America Online, with 63 percent of those surveyed accessing information this way. SLIP (Serial Line Internet Protocol) providers are used by one-fifth of the Internet-savvy. Surprisingly, only 18 percent use e-mail as their only on-ramp to the Net.

Despite the plethora of fun and frivolous information available on the I-way, it's business as usual for most people. Fifty-nine percent use the Internet for correspondence, while 52 percent use it to access news. Education (52 percent), hobbies (29 percent) and finance (20 percent) are hot topics among Internet surfers. Only 18 percent use it to access games or entertainment.

That's what you see in your crystal ball for the near future. Now let's take a moment to recognize your favorite software products.

Word maintained its top-dog status for the fourth straight year, sweeping the word processing category with 61 percent of the votes. WordPerfect followed with 25 percent, while Ami Pro came in third with 13 percent. As a group, these programs had a lock on the category--fully 99 percent of our respondents cast their ballots for one of the so-called Big Three. For the most part, users reported satisfaction with their word processor's capabilities, with only 4 percent singling out word processing software as "most in need of improvement" among Windows apps. Power users were least likely to grouse--only 1 percent said their word processor needed souping up.

$339 (street). Microsoft Corp., 800-426-9400, 206-882-8080.

A clear winner once again, Microsoft Excel took the spreadsheet category for the fourth year in a row, claiming more than two-thirds of the votes. Lotus 1-2-3 and Quattro Pro tied for the second spot. No other product garnered a significant number of mentions. About one-quarter of the respondents reported that they plan to invest in spreadsheet software in the coming year, with novice users about twice as likely to buy as their more advanced cohorts.

$339 (street). Microsoft Corp., 800-426-9400, 206-882-8080.

Last year's winner, Microsoft Access, reclaimed the top spot and grabbed an even larger slice of the voting pie. More than half the votes went to this Microsoft database, compared to about one-third in 1994. Half a dozen databases (Paradox, Approach, FoxPro, dBASE, Superbase and Alpha Five) gathered single-digit support. Some database users are less than thrilled with what the market has to offer. Twelve percent said database products were more in need of an overhaul than any other application. Veteran database users voiced just as much discontent as their less-experienced counterparts.

$339 (street). Microsoft Corp., 800-426-9400, 206-882-8080.

Considering Microsoft's sweep of the business application categories, it's no surprise that Microsoft Office led the suite category with 65 percent of the votes. Almost three out of four power users (73 percent) preferred Microsoft Office, while about half of the self-proclaimed novice users chose it as their favorite. Beginners were least likely to express a preference in this arena, while Windows gurus proved extremely opinionated--90 percent said they have a brand preference.

Standard Edition, $499 (street); Professional Edition, $599 (street).

Microsoft Corp., 800-426-9400, 206-882-8080.

This category's runaway leader proved to be Microsoft Works, which earned 44 percent of the mentions. Fully half the survey respondents, however, had no preference at all.

$99.95 (street). Microsoft Corp., 800-426-9400,

206-882-8080.

Publisher joined PageMaker (the two-year favorite) as the pet DTP package on today's market. Corel Ventura and QuarkXPress were next in line, but lagged by a considerable margin. About 16 percent of those polled plan to purchase desktop publishing apps in the coming year.

Publisher, $99.95 (street). Microsoft Corp., 800-426-9400, 206-882-8080.

PageMaker, $895. Adobe Systems, 800-628-2320, 206-622-5500.

After sharing the spotlight for the past two years with Borland C++, Microsoft Visual Basic stands alone as this year's favorite graphical user interface (GUI) programming tool, capturing a commanding 29 percent of the total votes cast. Together, Microsoft's three development environments--Visual Basic, Visual C++ and Microsoft C--claimed 41 percent of the mentions. Borland, which offers Borland C++, Turbo Pascal and ObjectVision PRO, captured 13 percent. Experienced users were slightly more likely to use C++ applications (either Borland or Microsoft) than those at the novice or intermediate experience levels.

$109 (street). Microsoft Corp., 800-426-9400, 206-882-8080.

One-third of e-mail users chose Microsoft Mail as their preferred method of delivery. Lotus' cc: Mail and Novell's PerfectOffice were close behind in second and third place, respectively. The votes remained split the same way regardless of the company size and whether or not the e-mail user was connected to the Internet.

$469 (street). Microsoft Corp., 800-426-9400, 206-882-8080.

Procomm Plus remained the clear favorite for the third year in a row, grabbing 46 percent of the votes. The new kid on the block was WinComm Pro. It received twice as many mentions as Crosstalk, which moved from last-year's second place to third in this contest. Communications software, in general, could use some sprucing up, respondents said. Ten percent of those surveyed think comm software has more room for improvement than other software categories.

$179. Datastorm Technologies, 314-443-3282, fax 314-875-0595.

For the second year in a row, pcAnywhere was the hands-down favorite of those trying to connect to their PCs from afar. The program received seven times as many votes as the next closest competitor, Carbon Copy from Microcom. Many users haven't caught on to this type of software yet: Only 61 percent of those surveyed voiced any preference in this category. Novice users were much less likely to voice an opinion in this software group, with only 30 percent casting a vote.

$129 (street). Symantec Corp., 800-441-7234, 503-334-6054.

Quicken Intuit captured this category with close to three-quarters of the total votes. Sixty-eight percent of users voted for Quicken, while 10 percent chose TurboTax as their favorite. Users profess to be quite happy with this category's programs and their features. In fact, only 4 percent of those queried cited this category as most in need of improvement.

$39.99 (street). Intuit, 800-816-8025, 415-322-0573.

Intuit's QuickBooks raked in 25 percent of the votes. (The company's payroll program, QuickPay, received 4 percent.) Ten percent of the mentions went to Peachtree Accounting, while Microsoft netted 7 percent of the votes for Money and Profit combined. QuickBooks grabbed the most attention from organizations with less than 100 employees, receiving 36 percent of the votes from this group.

$99 (street). Intuit, 800-816-8025, 415-322-0573.

Microsoft PowerPoint commanded a lion's share (46 percent) of the ballots in the presentation graphics category, as it did last year. Freelance Graphics, Harvard Graphics and WordPerfect Presentations were neck and neck in second place, each receiving about 10 percent of the votes. PowerPoint was the top choice of almost half the power users polled and about one-third of novice users.

$339 (street). Microsoft Corp., 800-426-9400, 206-882-8080.

A four-time winner, CorelDRAW claimed the top spot with 40 percent of the vote. Shapeware (with Visio), Adobe (with Illustrator and Photoshop) and Micrografx (with Designer, Draw and ABC FlowCharter) each earned about 10 percent of the votes. One-fifth of those surveyed plan to buy paint and draw software in the next year.

Diskettes and CD-ROM, $895; CD-ROM, $695. Corel Corp., 800-772-6735, 613-728-8200.

Norton Desktop, winner for the past two years, was forced to share the limelight with siblings Norton Utilities and PC Tools this year. Symantec claimed 63 percent of the total ballots with its products. This category was heavily splintered. In addition to the three leaders, seven other products received mentions.

Norton Desktop, $129 (street). Symantec Corp., 800-441-7234, 503-334-6054.

Norton Utilities, $129 (street). Symantec Corp.

PC Tools, $99.95 (street). Symantec Corp.

OmniPage Professional led the pack with one-third of the votes in this year's new group. WordScan Plus proved second most popular with 12 percent. Only about half of those surveyed cast a vote in this area, and expert users were significantly more likely to have an opinion than those with less know-how.

$695. Caere Corp., 800-535-SCAN, 408-395-7000.

These three products tied as the favorite PIM. Eight other products received single-digit mentions. Fledgling Windows users were most likely to choose Act and Sidekick and least likely to choose Organizer.

Act, $279.95 (street). Symantec Corp., 800-441-7234, 503-334-6054.

Organizer, $99 (street). Lotus Development Corp., 800-343-5414, 617-577-8500.

Sidekick, $49.95 (street). Starfish Software, 800-765-7839, 408-461-5000.

In the fax software category, two-time winner WinFax PRO again came in tops, commanding 65 percent of the votes. Other competitors received negligible scores, as they did last year. Twenty-two percent of expert users surveyed expect to buy fax software in the coming year, and half as many tenderfoot users reported plans to purchase.

$75 (street). Delrina Corp. 800-268-6082, 408-363-2345.

Not everyone needs an SMP server. In some cases, a single processor system may be your best solution, especially if you use a better algorithm to help the CPU deal more effectively with the workload. In addition, work can be spread over local or wide area networks--or even among many machines on the Internet. The trouble is that most parallel algorithms require interaction among the various CPUs, so the speed achieved using multiple machines is limited by the network bandwidth. And, even though processor speeds have typically been doubling every 18 months, there are always calculations and other tasks that single processor systems can't do quickly enough.

SMP servers perform many tasks at once, serve many users at once and process many disk access requests at once. The individual processors in an SMP system are identical and interchangeable. They are linked at bus speed, which often exceeds 100MB per second compared to network speeds that can be as low as 10Mb per second. In addition, each CPU often has its own SRAM cache--up to several megabytes--to reduce the amount of time a given CPU has to wait for access to common memory.

Although a few companies (such as Sequent Computer Systems) build large SMP servers with dozens of CPUs for enterprise use, typical SMP computers have two to four CPUs. These systems contain a minimum of 32MB of RAM, and some can go up to 256MB. SMP computers generally use Fast/Wide SCSI-2 disks, often arranged in fault-tolerant Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID) with capacities measured in gigabytes or tens of gigabytes. Most often, Windows NT or some flavor of UNIX will be the OS of choice.

Of course, SMP and single processor systems are not the only options. For example, some specialized applications may require massively parallel supercomputers or asymmetric multiprocessor machines, which bear very little resemblance to SMP computers architecturally.

Massively parallel systems, such as The Connection Machine from Thinking Machines Corp., use hundreds or even thousands of processors and require specialized programming. Unlike SMP machines, they don't run ordinary operating systems and off-the-shelf programs.

Asymmetric multiprocessor machines use a variety of specialized CPUs and controllers to handle various tasks. For example, a vector processor might speed specialized floating- point calculations. A digital signal processor (DSP) might perform the sort of fixed-point calculations you need to work with waveforms. Neural network hardware might accelerate decision making, simulation and digital filtering. A small CPU might be dedicated to controlling I/O processing, while a larger CPU might handle general computation. Breaking up the work among specialized processors gives the asymmetric model significant performance benefits. The downside is that it doesn't scale easily, so upgrades are a complex issue.

Is SMP the solution you need? If you have a single-CPU server that shows significant CPU loading, SMP might be a viable option. On the other hand, it might not be the miracle cure you expect. The decision depends on a number of things.

Software is one determining factor. Not every operating system supports multiple processors. If you run DOS and Windows, for example, additional CPUs will provide no benefit. Likewise, SMP hardware will add nothing to a standard NetWare server. On the other hand, if you use an operating system with built-in multiprocessor support--Windows NT, for example, or one of several versions of UNIX--it's possible that you will benefit from SMP hardware.

But there are no guarantees. Even if your OS supports SMP, you'll see no benefit if you run a single task on a single thread because a thread can run on only one CPU at a time. You may enjoy moderate benefits if your server runs multiple tasks or if some task runs multiple threads. However, double CPUs don't promise double performance.

In an ideal world, two threads running on two CPUs would each operate at full speed, and scaling would be a linear process. In the real world, scaling is sublinear. In other words, two CPUs might only be 20.95, or about 1.93, times as fast as one CPU. When SMP vendors talk about their CPU scaling factor, they usually quote the power--in this example, 0.95, which is considered good.

As you increase the number of CPUs, the scaling factor quickly becomes noticeable--640.95 is about 52. The factor typically begins a downward slide as you run more CPUs, because it gets harder to avoid contention for common resources between threads, and each thread needs more time to synchronize.

Even worse, synchronization issues are not limited to software. Hardware issues also pose problems. For example, each CPU board in a typical SMP system has its own memory cache. That way, processors don't have to go out onto the system bus and contend for access to common memory. A good-sized memory cache might avoid 99 percent of RAM accesses as a thread runs. But what happens when a piece of common memory is cached by more than one CPU?

Efficient cache synchronization helps solve this problem. When cache is divided into "lines," a synchronization update event occurs. You may get a message that says "Somebody wrote into a piece of memory you have a copy of, so your cached value is no longer valid." The event causes one cache line to flush. Each cache line flush causes the cache hit rate to drop to zero temporarily for that line, as the next few thousand accesses fill the cache.

It's difficult to create threaded software that doesn't cause periodic cache flushes and periodic synchronization waits. Even one frequently accessed global variable in a thread function can destroy your cache hit rate. As much as you try to keep all of a thread's working storage on its stack, it just isn't always possible. At some point, the threads have to synch up. That's where delays occur.

Scheduling is another factor. Windows NT and other operating systems that manage SMP hardware go to some pains to keep a thread running on one processor rather than constantly rotating it among different processors. This method maximizes the processors' cache hit rate. At the same time, the system is obligated to give CPU time to all runnable threads on some timer interval. A problem arises: The fastest throughput for a single thread occurs when it is allowed to run to completion on a single processor, but the design of multitasking operating systems requires running threads to yield to other threads. The best that system designers can do is make the scheduling interval long by the computer's standards and short by human standards--typically between 10 and 100 milliseconds.

When can an SMP server actually help you? It's rare that SMP will provide much of an advantage for a print server. And multiple processors won't significantly boost performance on a file server. On the other hand, SMP makes sense for a server that is used heavily for printing and file access. It makes even more sense as an application server, but only if the applications themselves use threads effectively and have been thoroughly tested and tuned on SMP hardware. Two of the few applications currently available that meet these criteria are Microsoft's SQL Server 6.0 and Lotus Notes Server for Windows NT.

Even if you think SMP is a viable option, you should research carefully before you buy. Remember the alternatives: a single server with a very fast CPU (perhaps the latest RISC processor) and a fast disk array, or multiple inexpensive servers. Each of these solutions makes sense in certain situations.

SMP may very well be the best alternative if you need a heavy-duty database server for a large number of simultaneous users, for instance. On the other hand, a single, very fast CPU might prove more effective for a server that needs to crunch numbers for long calculations.

Maybe you've already got an SMP system, and you're not happy with the way things are running. Let's consider a few scenarios to help you decide exactly what's ailing your current setup. We'll assume you have an SMP system running Windows NT to take advantage of its built-in diagnostics.

The Performance Monitor can be found in the Administrative Tools program group of Windows NT. Suppose you run Performance Monitor and find that, during peak load situations, all the CPUs in the system are running near 100 percent of capacity. Most likely, you need another CPU to handle the load, or you need to upgrade all your CPUs to faster models. But wait! Don't order that upgrade yet.

Perhaps the problem is RAM. You may find that the system's committed memory is running near the total amount of RAM in the system, and that memory page faults are running at several hundred per second. That means you probably need more system RAM. You may also have a rogue, RAM-hogging application, in which case adding RAM will only postpone the inevitable memory snafus.

You may not have to look any further than RAM shortage for the answer to what's bogging down your CPU. Processing a lot of page faults takes CPU time and also exercises the disk. Before you decide to add a CPU, get enough memory in your system and see if the problem persists.

You should also take a look at the performance of your disk. If your physical disk activity is running near 100 percent of capacity, a slow hard disk may be causing the problem. However, insufficient RAM may be the culprit here as well. RAM is automatically used for disk cache, so if you don't have enough of it, your disk activity will be slowed no matter what your hard disk speed. In other cases, boosting the speed of the CPU on a server did nothing at all. The system was disk-bound until older and slower ESDI disks and controllers were replaced by SCSI disks and controllers to speed disk access.

If none of the above solutions answers your basic problem, keep looking. Check out your network next. Are the NetBEUI or IPX bytes per second running high? Perhaps the best cure would be another network interface card (NIC), or at least a faster card than you currently have in the server.

No matter what the problem, start by running diagnostics. Don't buy anything until you've investigated every potential problem. Only a long, hard look at your system will tell you what you need.