I'm curious: What is the opinion among other Windows 9x users of Windows NT 4.0?

It seems that people sometimes forget about this release, in between software vendors "dropping support" for the 9x line and concentrating on the newer Windows 2000/XP versions only. In any case, Windows NT 4.0 is my second-favorite version of Windows: The user interface and performance are admirably similar to that of Windows 95; there's no IE shell integration, and it's very stable.

There are a number of reasons why I'm a 95 user and not an NT4 user, however:

• No native compatibility for DOS programs;
• The complications of administrative rights and user accounts;
• No device manager or plug-and-play support, making it more difficult to configure drivers;
• The potential to "kill" the OS with incorrect drivers;
• NT's lack of FAT32 support (and 9x's lack of NTFS) make it inconvenient for the two to share a dual-boot installation;
• More open ports and targeted security vulnerabilities than Windows 9x.

Any other thoughts?

No USB.

Think again

http://www.msfn.org/board/Windows_NT4_Today_t101091.html

EDIT:



I'm pretty sure there 3d party drivers for both to see each other's fat32 or ntfs file systems.

I am not too sure about that, especially that NT4's NTFS is apparently different from the NTFS used in 2K-XP. Feel free to post links if you have some.

Also as far as I have understood, you need an additional FAT16 partition to dual boot 9x and NT4 if you want to install 9x on a FAT32 partition.

What's interesting with NT4 is that it seems to be very fast but I have only tried it in a virtual machine.

there is a systeminternals fat32 driver for nt4 out there some where.
I quite like nt4 but i still use 98se

As said, NT 4.0 is very similar to Windows 95, so it's good in my book. It has lacking DirectX support, I hear, though.

NT 4.0 uses NTFS4, while 2000 and XP use NTFS5.

The last NT 4.0-compatible version of DirectX is either 3.0 or (unofficially, in a pinch) 4.0, while Windows 95 was good all the way through DirectX 8.0.

All in all, I think it's really an apples-and-oranges comparison: For a business with standardized hardware configurations, multiple users on computers, and stability valued for days on end, Windows NT 4.0 would no doubt be a more functional choice than Windows 95 or 98. For a typical home user, however, 9x is generally more versatile.

Another thread with common misconceptions...

NT4 supports USB as much as 9x.
If you don't believe it, use search - there are plenty of threads on the subject on this forum alone.

No native compatibility for DOS programs;
if you need to use DOS programs only (or mostly), obviously you need DOS, not 9x or NT or XP or Vista.
Windows 9x is DOS with Windows GUI plus some 32-bit patchwork on top of DOS.
Windows NT is OS/2 with Windows GUI.
Apples and oranges.
You might as well complain why linux doesn't natively support DOS programs.


The complications of administrative rights and user accounts;
Its like complaining about unix, linux' or OSX root accounts.
Get over it, *normal* multiuser and more secure operating system *require* separation of full system access from user level system access.
And if you want you can run NT as Administrator all the time (thats what you actually do on Win 9x by the way, think of it ), or you can always assign administrator's right to every other user account on any NT operating system, so whats your point?


No device manager or plug-and-play support, making it more difficult to configure drivers;
I think you have never tried installing hardware on NT4. If you do have drivers, it is easier than 9x to install them.
You probably mean lack of ability to "find drivers on its own" but thats the problem every OS faces after a while (when there is more new hardware out there than it has drivers on its CD).
By the way: NT5 and newer exceed 98's plug'n'pray same as 98 exceeded NT4's p'n'p - and it is normal. Every year passing between the OS releases brings hundreds of new drivers added to newer version.
Your complain can be compared to complaining that i.e. 1968 Thunderbird didn't have airbags...



The potential to "kill" the OS with incorrect drivers;
Youre kiddin, right?
Which Windows OS cannot be killed that way????
NT ain't linux LOL



NT's lack of FAT32 support (and 9x's lack of NTFS) make it inconvenient for the two to share a dual-boot installation;
How about 9x's lack of support for NTFS filesystem?
Do you know NTFS is just *way better* filesystem than this 30 years old FAT filesystem??
(and its 'enhancements like FAT32/FAT64)
Youre complaining wrong way. Its the other way around
Correct complaint should be "why all Microsoft's OSes don't use better modern journaling filesystem?", but aside for one-time attempt in supporting HPFS on NT3, Microsoft never supported anything else - and I doubt it ever will (original Longhorn was 2nd attempt, but it is obviously too difficult for Msoft coders to go beyond FAT/NTFS and so they dropped it when they created Vista).
BTW: Msoft 'stole' HPFS from IBM and recreated it as NTFS (same as they did with IBM's OS/2 and renaming it to NT3).



More open ports and targeted security vulnerabilities than Windows 9x.
Every Windows OS come with holes here and there like a good swiss cheese.
Both 9x and NT line OSes need serious patchwork and input (settings) from user to be really secure.
Regardless of number of default open ports issue, I hope you do know 9x is much easier to exploit than NT4?



So, I call bullsh*t more or less on your arguments, sir


and yes, I use NT4, 95, 98, NT5 and whole bunch of other non-Msoft OSes.

BTW Are there some unofficial drivers for modern nVidia cards for NT4.0 SP6 like for Win9x?
With latest official forceware 77.78 my GF7600 boots in VGA mode only. I tried to force install
winxp drivers 94.xx but it failed to boot due to missing function kernel call, so drivers really are not compatible.
The last I tried was installing universal VESA VBE 3.0 driver which works in higher resolution and true colors
but it's very slow and due to crippled nvidia VBE 3.0 implementation it cannot setup higher refresh rate than 60Hz
which is a big issue on CRT...

I can not agree. Windows 9x series is much better choice than the DOS itself, if the DOS compatibility is required.

It is possible to simple stop Windows 9x system from loading WIN.COM leaving just DOS kernel working. Such a configuration is as effective as a plain DOS, but it leaves the ability to boot to GUI when needed.


As a matter of fact there are no open ports in the Windows 9x default setup. It does not have server services as NT based system do have. So, all exploits affecting 9x series do have to use browser or local LAN.

As for the local LAN security, there is almost none in the 9x. NT is much better here. But, a 9x without resource sharing enabled is quite secured. I'm not sure if there is a way to break in a 9x system without resource sharing turned on, from LAN side.

I think he meant this:


It would be better if it wasn't proprietary. I don't trust M$ to store my files how it wants.

It isn't. Check security vulnerabilities for Win9x. Then look at NT. Big difference. Not having open ports alone helps a lot. The browser is the main point of entry.

geez louise BenoitRen, you are really something man, way beyond typical 9x fanboy I guess
Just run any NT always as an administrator and you'll have same system and file access as you do on 9x, how friggin hard it is to do?
Yes YOU CAN setup NT to "work like 9x", simply don't set up any other user but the default administrator for fcuk's sake, thats all it takes, as someone else already pointed it out earlier. What are you dudes even discussing here LOL
/edit/ BTW let me point it vice versa: can you set up Win9x "to work like NT"? (to have Admin and separate limited user-level accounts) YOU CAN'T. Because obviously 9x never meant to be multiuser environment, not to mention security levels for various users.
'Scuse my language, but IMHO the person complaining that he couldnt change vital system settings without administrative priviledges is a complete id*** to me. Everyone else knows that NT4/5/6 still gives TOO MANY rights to non-administrative user level accounts when compared to Apple's OS X, all linuxes, all Sun OSes etc. There was only 1 so-lax and so-open single-user operating system in worldwide use in the past 15 years: DOS and DOS with GUIs (aka Win9x).

AND OBVIOUSLY if you "don't trust M$ to store my files how it wants" why do you even use operating system from M$ at all? Come on! Your arguments about 'superiority' (of one MS s*** over another MS s***) are really becoming thinner than mountain air every time you post. Booooooooooring!
We get it - you love Win95. But please stop already with this crusade of yours, its not funny anymore.
OK, NT have few open ports by default, so? Almost no one knows how to exploit an open port from WAN side, and those who know are in knowledge of probably many better tricks to exploit unsecured systems.
Beside, anyone running system connected to web 24/7 without any firewall - be it 9x or NT - is an id*** by his own choice (not only in my opinion).

Oh, and hell yes Win9x is more "compatible" with DOS: because IT IS DOS for crying out loud, such fanboy like you should know it better than most of us Just because you can turn off GUI in Win9x doesn't make it different operating system than DOS. I repeat: Windows 9x are DOS + GUI. NT is different operating system, thus obviously "turning off GUI" (command prompt) doesn't 'reveal' any DOS underneath, its obvious. You'd have better luck with OS/2 programs compatibility on NT than DOS, since NT stems from OS/2 not from DOS.
I dont even know why people discuss such obvious things here

Could you backup this opinion with some evidence? Since the 9x does not have any ports opened, there is no security risk with connecting it to the Internet 24/7 without a firewall, in my opinion.

It is necesary to install and run some network services software, in order to keep some ports opened 24/7 in a 9x system. So, any security holes will be related to the installed software, not for the system itself.

I'm not complaining, I'm just sharing what I heard which helped Andrew's point.

FAT is not proprietary and fully documented.

No. We already went over this.

Which crusade? This is the Win9x forum! And you're not forced to read our posts, so stop complaining.

If you were to remove completely DOS would it even boot?
There you go LOL

thats because dos is used for the bootloader

Well, this started as a civil discussion. Reply time:

I'm not here to debate whether people need native DOS program compatibility or should expect OSes to satisfy it; I'm simply making a point that still stands either way.


Maybe you're right: I have used Windows NT 4.0 less often than I have other versions, and I seldom depend on Windows 9x to find drivers on its own as-is. However, I will mention that one of my friends claims to have spent twelve hours setting up NT4 drivers on a laptop, and considered it "a pain to configure." Obviously, you need to know exactly what drivers you'll need for the best of success.

"NT5 and newer" are beside the point, in any case: My thread was started to gauge perceptions of NT 4.


Indeed: My point was simply that NT administrative rights and user accounts could add complications that might not otherwise be there; not to nitpick the degree or necessity of the complications involved.


One of my friends claims that Windows NT will crash on startup when incorrect drivers are installed, while Windows 2000 (by comparison) will simply prompt a dialog box in the same scenario.


I mentioned that in the sentence you quoted. 9x's and NT4's lack of support for each others' large hard-drive file systems are setbacks for both, if you wish to dual-boot between the two.


Personally, the hard-drive partitioning with either FAT32 or NTFS is efficient enough to hardly make the differences worth me caring about.


As 888 said, "Windows 9x is DOS with Windows GUI plus some 32-bit patchwork on top of DOS;" emphasis mine. Certainly Windows 9x has a GUI and uses DOS as its core, but technologically it's a lot more than that.



Although I primarily use Windows 95, I certainly don't hate NT 4.0; on the contrary, it's my second-favorite version of Windows. As I already mentioned Windows 9x and NT 4.0 have their own advantages and disadvantages, and I don't see why we can't just leave it at that.

If anything, it's a good thing if some of my reservations against NT4 proved to be unfounded. It's quite tiring to hear people spit venom about it, though.

I remember using NT4 a few years ago mostly for office work and CAD.

It was pretty **** good for these uses. I can't remember having too many system problems.

The fact Win2000 is built on NT technology would make me believe many of the newer features found on 2000/Xp and maybe even Vista could be ported back to NT.

Plenty out there with a quick google search.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&saf...amp;btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&saf...ver&spell=1

Had you made a relevant research you would have learned that things look a bit different.
In fact, each OS of the Win9x family includes three elements: normal Win32 plus Win16 (for compatiblity with Win3.x family) and yes! DOS (which is an essential part of those systems).
A small question (to both of you): how is this possible that we (Win9x users) can run many of the modern software on that DOS+GUI (the last stand-alone version of MS-DOS was released in 1994)?

Perhaps I should refrain from joining such conversations in the future
Apparently I see such topics different way than most of those who replied here (or in the "SOS no IE7 in my 9x" thread and such).
IMHO no Windows needs IE at all, FAT is obsolete and I wish 95+ could use NTFS instead (or any other non-Msoft journaling filesystem), having separate access rights for users and root are essential, etc etc.
Perhaps that why it may seem like I look down on 9x, but I don't. It has its uses here and there, same as NT4 and any other OS.
NT vs 9x = apples vs oranges. multiuser environment vs single user environment, 32bit OS with 16bit subsystem vs 16bit OS with 32 bit addon, and so on and on. Just can't compare them.

Great link. Thanks! I have TWO WinNT4.0 machines at home. One is an old Micron Magnum Pro 200, and the other is one I actually built myself from scratch. It is really neat - a dual core (yes, TWO CPUs) Pentium Pro 200 machine w 128 MB of RAM, dual booting Win NT 4.0 and Arch Linux.

I downloaded these Win NT USB drivers. Now, what device types do they support? For example, with Windows 98, there is some USB support, but it is fairly generic, and then you need specific USB drivers on top of the OS support, one driver for each device. Are these NT drivers the same, or for example, could I plug in a USB 1.1 compatible hard drive and just expect it to work?

I would agree in case of the Windows 3 series. But, Windows 9x is much more than that. As, the 32 bit patchwork (as you call it) has it's own kernel, which takes direct controll over all system resources just like Windows NT kernel does.

Also, the DOS sessions available when the GUI kernel is running is not 100% compatible with DOS, and are working more like DOS emulation services.

You took it out of the context.
9x *is* DOS the same way NT is OS/2, thats what I meant (but yeah I often do like to p*** 9x fanboys by calling 9x nothing but DOS + 32bit patchwork ). Think of it. Without DOS there is no Win9x, and without OS/2 there would be no NT. If you think of it you get to the conclusion that the blargest software company in the world, with its giant line of about 15 'different' ( ) operating systems, have never created even one operating system itself - all their operating systems were bought (or somewhat stolen, like IBM's O/S2) and repackaged with addition of modified GUIs at best. OTOH thats the reason why Msoft in past 8 years is struggling so much with creation of Longhorn/Vista - the old OS/2>NT code they wanted to base it on is simply showing its age, and they have nothing new to steal from / buy from...

Actually I have no idea. I've never installed the drivers myself.

Yes.

No. It still stores our files fine.

They have no place at all on a home computer. They belong on business computers where there is an administration/support team, and users.

In case you haven't notice, most of the world still goes by with just ONE computer per household (if they have any at all).
Thats where separate users belong to more than any businesses.
In most business environments thin clients or terminals are best.

I know youre trying to 'defend' Win95's use nowadays, but its stupid.
9x is a single-user's operating system and as such is not suitable for families as well as (obviously) businesses.
It is and always been operating system for ONE SINGLE USER.
Any discussion comparing it to other 'normal' operating systems is stupid, its apples and oranges.
Face it: almost all other OSes have some kind of root/admin plus other less/more restricted level users environments.
Whats there to compare LOL

That doesn't explain anything, really. No distinction is needed between family members on the computer. All they need is a separate directory for their own files. That's it.

Because they either have been developed for business use or are based on UNIX design.

I definiatly agree with this, its more convienient then logging on for each user and much better then fast user switching which just sucks up all the momory from what ive seen, also if you need to shutdown you down know what the other users are doing which is annoying. single user is much easier, multiuser is ok but fast user switching is not in my opionin, afterall your still entitled to yours.


Ever heard of Poledit, it can restrict users quite nicely on a domain, havent tried it outside a domain dont think that would work but poledit can make you have multiple users with different rights quite nicely

NT4 can use NTFS5 if you install NT4 Service pack 4 or later. that's a fact.

888 should get over this thread and move on with his life. he's not going to win an argument with Benoitren and other 9x defenders.

NT OSes are MORE memory and cpu intensive than 9x OSes. I've used both 9x and NT based systems to back my claim. I will say that NT OSes crash LESS than 9x OSes (when installing the appropriate patches)

also lacking in NT4 was built in power management (hey, at least I like using power management provided by Windows OSes like Win95/98/2k/XP/Vista). If I wanted to use an NT-based OS on a laptop I better get at least Win2k and avoid NT4.

My sentiments exactly! NT 4.0 was targeted FOR business users AND makes a LOUSY OS for the consumers/home users. 9X OSes were tailor made for consumers and home users. So you can't please everyone with a "one size fits all" OS!

And some more things about NT4: LACK of TRUE Plug and Play code [notice I used the word "TRUE"] and NO Add New Hardware Wizard to help ease the installation of hardware. If you want to setup hardware under NT4, you'll have to do it the old fashion way, install the drivers and run the setup program to configure system resources like IRQs, I/O address, etc. I'd prefer the Add New Hardware Wizard and Plug & Play anyday to simplify things.

And setting up different types of hardware under NT 4.0 is also gonna make some people's blood pressure rise!
If you want to setup a video card under NT4, use Display control panel app
To setup sound cards, joysticks, or other multimedia stuff use the MultiMedia control panel app
For setting up modems, use the Modem control panel app
For setting up SCSI or IDE hardware use SCSI Devices app

man, do we have to go all over the place to setup different kinds of hardware under NT4?

Also, setting up and installing the actual NT4 OS itself is more challenging than installing 9xME OSes. First time I had to setup NT4, I was forced to create three NT4 setup disks and have to boot with the NT4 setup disks to continue setup.

AND when it comes to multitasking, 9x OSes rule since 9x OSes use less system resources than NT4 and I can switch between programs easily and quickly with ANY 9x OS.



Oh NT4 has some DirectX support. Only DX 3.0a included in NT4 SP3-SP6.

When Windows NT 4.0 was first released, it was unstable and almost unusable. It took Microsoft at least THREE service packs to fix most of the major problems with NT4 and make it right. MS released NT4 SP3 NINE MONTHS after NT4 was released.

At least many of the weaknesses of NT4 were fixed in NT5 (Win2000).

-End of Story-

it seems that all Windows versions based on the NT kernel need at least 4-5 service packs in order to run properly

you needed to create three floppy disks? you must of just used the i386 files, you have to have the whole disk for nt4 unlike 9x there is dx5 for nt4 kind of. Id forgoton about all the stuff in weird places it gives me an idea though.

i quite like nt4 but i do prefer 98se, though i think nt4 is a nicer setup because it is much faster

I did find nt most problematic on HW support, if u did swap card locations , NT couldn't handle IRQs no longer and i ended up reinstall system (no irq sharing). W2k was much better.

To go back to the original question. My answer is to forget NT4, reasons
Sets up a 2GB partition which is to small for home use but fine in an business environment where everything is fixed. I know it can be stretched to 4GB
but its still not large enough for today's applications. To patch it is a nightmare even using the service packs and Qchain. It was still very buggy even when it was made obsolete by MS.

If you like playing with the OS try Win98SE and use this forum to update it as MS won't support it.
If you can get it go for Win 2000 SP4 its at least stable and is easily patched (well up to Jan 08 anyway when it to is to be made obsolete) if you want to share the system.
Otherwise its XP as MS will support it for 2 -3 years more.

Its down to what you want to do with your computer and the age of the applications you want to use.

Sorry, but you've put incorrect information in another thread: according to this table Windows 2000 will be support till 2010: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/sea...Filter=FilterNO
Windows XP even much longer: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/sea...Filter=FilterNO

I read Nathan Lineback's latest feature yesterday: Sick Windows Tricks 2. You can install NT4 on a FAT32 partition, though you'll need a Windows 2000 install CD. Read how.

Interesting!

I never thought that the clever filesystem driver from here:
http://ashedel.chat.ru/fat32/

Could work on the System drive.

FYI, there is no need whatsoever of installing Windows 2000, you just need the NTLDR and NTDETECT.COM from win2K or XP/2003, since the referenced page affirms that you can later delete the Wn2K install directory.

The problem might still be the FAT16 to FAT32 conversion, since not everyone has a partition manager app that can do that, and I am not sure about freeware tools that can do it, best bet is probably using method #3 here:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jeacocke/fat16to.htm
(since cvt.exe is a DOS app, it may run from a DOS bootdisk )
It seems like the ME version, strangely enough definitely works from DOS:
http://www.mdgx.com/secrets.htm
http://www.md4pc.com/questions/36.htm
or this proggie here:
http://www.unusualresearch.com/cvtfat32/cvtfat32.htm

jaclaz