888

One of my very old laptops is still running NT (12 years!) I use it in my bedroom for MSN Messenger and as an alarm clock ;-) Here is current uptime: Uptime-Project.org Still running great

Yes, it is nice light version too, but it doesn't install on 2000 and I'm sure it won't install on NT4 either. It's for XP or 2003 only.

Same here, last week I added 1TB drive to my W2K box, no problems (as expected). But if you are going to install fresh W2K on such drive, you have to modify your install CD. I think original W2K CD have 137GB drive size limit (I'm not sure - I haven't use my original CD for years, but considering it came out in 1999 I think I'm correct). Of course we're talking NTFS (except for very few scenarios there is no point to use FAT32 with any NT OS anyways lol)

I hate bloat garbage like "Live" Messenger with passion, my favorite MSN Messenger is version 7 (the last one for w2k). But I have tried this Patched Messenger 5 on Windows XP and I install it on my Windows 2003 R2 desktop, and guess what - it runs fine! So I'm changing this thread's subject to "MSN Messenger 5 for Windows NT4/2000/XP/2003" If anyone needs *lite* Messenger version, with ability to chat/talk - but without junk bloatware that comes with stupid "Live" Messengers for XP+, well - go for it, official MSN Messenger 5.0.0544 for NT4 installs fine on Windows 2000, XP, 2003 Server and the Patch works fine on all of them too On 2003 you even get the "store .net passport" prompt:

Works fine! Yes, Miranda is nice, but lack of voice conversation is really a huge drawback. aMSN is too heavy (just the way it is written unfortunately). For hotmail/msn/live really there is no replacement but real MSN client Just a note MSN_Messenger_5_NT4_Patch_2009 installer says version 5.0.0544.2009 but the msnmsgr.exe file says version 5.0.0544.fake.8.1 :? oh, and there is this picture inside the executable saying "MSN Live Messenger for Windows NT4" :? this one:

Just on the OT note regarding my previous post and few messages I didn't reply to (and I'm not going to): Fellow readers, please don't PM/mail me asking for my W2K ISO! You have the list of ingredients so make it yourself, at most it'll take you ~2hrs (if you have to download all files from scratch). I don't want to sound like some insensitive jerk, but really it is not my problem if you "just can't do it" yourself, is it? If I would make "just this one" exception for you I might as well make it public on ftp or share over some p2p and such - and wait for Msoft lawyers to hand me the papers and make me bancrupt for the rest of my life. I mean really, what makes some of you think of yourself so highly and so special that someone else - me in this case - should take risk and just fedex you the **** disc?! WTF... Sheesh some people... Can't make your own updated ISO? Just install your W2K as is and GO HERE, its so simple. Ultimately dig on the web, I've seen quite few modified ISOs floating around. Do whatever - just don't ask me, please.

I have most of their server content for NT and 2K backed up since last year. Tonight I'll make sure I have evreything in NT40 branch just in case. If (or actually - when) it disappears from MS server I'll make it available of course, no problem.

Like what? both pidgin or trillian or miranda fit awesomely for example ability to invoke NetMeeting, which I often use to access client machines. You have no idea how difficult it is for many people to do start/run and type conf.exe on XP machines

So its official then - MS dropped support for MSN Messenger 5 indeed. ****. I knew this day will come. Few mths ago I quit using Skype because v.1.4 did same thing. Now MSN. I guess it is really time to move on and leave NT4 behind Such a fine OS, what a shame.

submix8c for those requiring "genuine" simply download genuinecheck from WU on any 2K/XP system, run it and copy the "code" it gave you. OP Since you're somewhat new to W2K coming back from XP, I'd say go to vorck.com He is a bit chaotic and his paranoid hate to IE is so annoying even when he is right, BUT don't be discouraged. Read up. IMHO it is one of most resourceful pages for customizing 2K if you have never did it before. As submix8c said gather your updates according to someone's list (since you don't have your own). i.e. erpdude (aka erpman) usually had it updated (because Old Borg quit updating couple years ago and moved completely to penguin IIRC). I don't remember link, but he always host it on tripod so google it up with site:tripod.com I don't know what you want to nlite there - but, if you want to just update your W2K ISO then I strongly suggest using hfslip instead of nlite (you get better results), if you want to remove some stuff I'd go with nlite. Below is my "additions" list (because there is more than just updates/hotfixes) from my latest 2K ISO build I made in January 2009. Works perfect Service Pack 4 for Windows 2000 Internet Explorer 6 SP1 (6.0.2800.1106) IE5/6 Add-on: WebAccessories IE5/6 Add-on: PowerTweaks IE5/6 GoogleToolbar 4 (4.0.1601.4978) Outlook Express 6 SP1 (6.00.2800.1106) DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904) Update Rollup 1 for Windows 2000 SP4 MSXML 2.0 Sercive Pack 6 MSXML 4.0 Service Pack 2 MSXML 6.0 Service Pack 1 (6.10.1129.0) Windows Media Player 6 Update (6.4.06.1129) Windows Media 9 series (9.0.0.3354) Windows Media Player 9 codecs Windows Media 10 codecs Windows Script 5.6 (5.6.0.8825) Windows Update Agent 2.0 Microsoft Update 3.0 Roots Certificate Update v.11.0.2195.0 Windows Malicious Software v.2.6 (January 2009) MDAC_TYP.EXE MDAC281-KB927779-x86-ENU.exe msxml2.msi msxml2sp6-kb887606-x86-enu.exe KB832414_MSXML2.5_x86.exe msxml4-KB941833-enu.exe msxml4-KB954430-enu.exe msxml6-KB933579-enu-x86.exe msxml6-KB954459-enu-x86.exe Windows2000-KB842773-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB891861-v2-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB893756-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB896358-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB896423-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB899587-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB899589-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB899591-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB900725-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB901017-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB901214-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB905414-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB905749-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB908506-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB908519-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB908531-v2-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB911280-v2-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB913580-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB914388-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB914389-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB917008-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB917537-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB918118-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB920213-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB920670-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB920683-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB920685-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB921398-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB922582-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB923191-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB923414-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB923689-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB923810-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB923980-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB924270-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB924667-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB925902-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB926122-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB926247-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB926436-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB927891-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB928843-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB930178-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB931784-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB933729-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB935839-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB935840-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB936021-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB937894-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB938827-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB941569-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB941644-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB941693-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB942831-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB943055-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB943485-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB944338-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB945553-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB948590-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB948745-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB950749-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB950760-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB950974-x86-ENU Windows2000-KB951698-v2-DX9-ENU.exe Windows2000-KB951748-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB952954-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB954211-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB955069-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB956391-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB956802-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB957095-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB957097-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB958644-x86-ENU.EXE Windows2000-KB958687-x86-ENU Windows2000-WindowsMedia-KB952069-x86-ENU.exe WindowsInstaller-KB893803-v2-x86.exe Windows-KB833407-x86-enu.exe windows-kb890830-v2.0.exe windows-kb890830-v2.6.exe Windows-KB909520-v1.000-x86-ENU.exe WindowsMedia41-KB832359-ENU.exe WindowsMedia64-KB954600-x86-ENU.exe WindowsMedia6-KB925398-v2-x86-ENU.exe WindowsMedia9-KB891122-x86-Global-ENU.exe WindowsMedia9-KB936782-x86-ENU.exe WindowsMedia-KB911564-x86-ENU.exe WindowsRightsManagementServicesSP2-KB917275-Client-ENU-x86.exe WindowsUpdateAgent30-x86.exe IE6.0sp1-KB905495-Windows2000-x86-ENU.exe IE6.0sp1-KB918439-Windows-2000-XP-x86-ENU.exe IE6.0sp1-KB938127-Windows2000-x86-ENU.exe IE6.0sp1-KB938464-Windows2000-x86-ENU.exe IE6.0sp1-KB947864-Windows2000-x86-ENU.exe IE6.0sp1-KB948881-Windows2000-x86-ENU.exe IE6.0sp1-KB950759-Windows2000-x86-ENU.exe IE6.0sp1-KB958215-Windows2000-x86-ENU.exe IE6.0sp1-KB960714-Windows2000-x86-ENU.exe OE6.0sp1-KB941202-Windows2000-x86-ENU.exe OE6.0sp1-KB951066-Windows2000-x86-ENU.exe Default Colors XP-alike2K Scheme Large LBA fix CopyTo shell extension MoveTo shell extension EXPLORER.exe patched replacement PDH.dll (5.00.2195.6660) MSCOMCTL.ocx (6.01.95.45) StartUp 2.8 control panel extension DirectX 9.0c control panel extension Microsoft Configuration Utility Tool (5.1.2600.0) Time Zones 2009 Update patch for Windows 2000 SP4 (No1None_v6) VisualBasic 1.0 runtime (1.02) VisualBasic 2.0 runtime (2.00.0908) VisualBasic 3.0 runtime (3.00.0538) VisualBasic 4.0 16-bit runtime (4.00.2422) VisualBasic 4.0 32-bit runtime (4.00.2924) VisualBasic 6.0 SP6 runtime (6.00.9782) Media Player Classic 6.4 (6.4.9.0) replacement for mplayer2.exe System Tools Set v.DS-NT-080809_silent_NOshortcuts TweakUI 2000 (1.33) User Profile Hive Cleanup Service VoiceClock 1.2 (1.2.2008) Windows Rights Management Client Backwards Compatibility SP2 XPicons (v.2) Compatibility Layer with Windows 95-98-NT4 Adaptec ASPI Layer 4.71.2 DOS Box 0.72 CDBOOT1.IMG update CDBOOT1.IMG update and bunch of small unlisted files, like - don't forget that one - TXTSETUP.SIF and possibly UNATTEND if you use it. if you want to add ,NET you'd also need: dotnetfx11 NetFx20SP1_x86 and their updates: NDP1.1sp1-KB867460-X86 NDP1.1sp1-KB928366-X86 NDP1.1sp1-KB947742-X86 NDP20SP1-KB947748-x86 but I never add .NET to my ISOs (I keep them as EXEs in separate folder on disc and install "manually" when needed on a given system) so I'm not sure how it'll work with .NET updates; probably it won't Beside .NET I also keep bunch of installers for codecs (xvid, ffdshow, h264), last QT 7.0.200 (last for W2K), RealcrapPlayer 10.5, PowerDVD6, SAPI 5.1, Sun Java 1.4.2_17, WinRAR and few more I can't remember. edit/ - doh! all DRIVERS! Anyways If youre lazy go to erpman's page for list of whats newer/replaced since January, if you want to do it really exactly up to your own liking/customizations then make just SP4+UR1+IE6 image/ISO and install it first, run WU, update it and copy list of everything what was updated (you'd do it 2-3 times because some updates won't be available until previous updates are installed), and then re-do your ISO "right" again. IMHO only this way you can create completely up-to-date image. HTH

Just go to microsoft website's search and type the hotfix names or KB numbers. With very few exceptions you'll find all executables there no sweat and without need for any "downloaders". Thats what I do for years and keep them handy. Real pain is when its been few months or more since you made last updated ISO and you have to search what changes happened since (actually real pain in the a** are the hotfixes that supplanted any previous ones, thats where you can slip and include outdated patch by mistake).

Thx. Yes, we can use quite few other clients using MSN protocols that work fine on NT4 (my recommendation goes to miranda-im.org), but there are few things about MSN Mess 5 that I still prefer Anyways, since it seems no one else uses it, could anyone please TRY IT on your NT4, please? http://messenger.msn.com/Download/OS.aspx at the bottom there is NT4 version edit: dnld it here directly I have just reinstalled twice with full uninstall and cleanup but it didn't make any difference, I get the same "must upgrade or you can't login" message. I would think MS would not quit supporting it without removing downloads to this version first, thus I think it is just my system, but then again it is Microsoft - anything is possible.

Thread subject changed because solution is available below, and it works on Windows NT4/2000/XP/2003 I haven't used MSN Messenger on my old NT4 laptop for few weeks and today when I try to log in I get dreaded "must update to newer version" msg popping up. I have of course the "latest" client version for NT4 (5.0.0544 IIRC) for years, so it either means that Msoft have really finally dropped support for NT4's MSN Messenger 5 clients in the past recent week or two, or - hopefuly - it is just some problem with my system (I've been playing with it a lot in past month, including plenty of tests with "transplanting" files from 2K/XP so it might be just my problem). I'd love to hear has anyone else get same pop up or not ('coz I won't have another NT4 box to check it out until Friday when I get back home) TIA!

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

And what VGA chip you had? FW 77.78 supports up to 6800 + 7800 but not 7300/7600. Before I had 6600GT this drivers works. BTW the missing call in nv4_mini.sys from 2k/xp driver was ZwPowerInformation (NTOSKRNL.EXE). It couldn't be really needed, maybe it could be patched to not use this func and then may work... Youre right, I check and I found out the card was based on much older chipset of 5000 series.

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...

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.

No. We already went over this. If you were to remove completely DOS would it even boot? There you go LOL

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.

Excuse me, sir, no offense, but you are a moron who obviously made opinions about things you have no clue whatsoever Almost every sentence of your post is wrong or at best uninformed wrong assumption. What a hilarious post and subject I have been cited a forum rules violation because of above quoted post I guess its because of using a word "moron"? Lets see: Well, although I do not think of legacykeeper as 'mildly retarded' or a 'very stupid person' since I don't know him at all, I do believe his post contained completely foolish and stupid misinformations. Let me explain to you mister legacykeeper: Windows 98/ME is 'officially dead' for long time, thus 'officially' you can't 'keep it alive' anymore, sir. Its a zombie at best Also, even if someone was able to "graft IE7 onto Win 98/ME", it would immediately call for adapting those 50 or so patches related to IE7 as well for Win 98/ME; you wouldn't want to install IE7 and keep your system "updated" with its sleuth of new holes and exploits "grafted onto your system" in the same time, right? SO youre not asking for way(s) of "grafting IE7 onto WIn 98/ME" but youre actually asking for the whole support that Microsoft himself abandoned years ago, if you come to think about it... Furthermore Windows 98 as it is can work *great* with other browsers (my best example is K-Meleon on 98). And if you read just this board, you'll find there are ways to get rid of IE from Win 9x... Thus announcing "death of Win 98/ME" just on a basis of lack of/inability to use latest Microsoft's browser is in my opinion very foolish announcement, if not outright stupid. And as I pointed out in my earlier reply, and showed you in this extended reply: Almost every sentence of your post is wrong or at best uninformed wrong assumption. I don't know you, legacykeeper, thus I agree I had no right to generalize in my previous reply, and I apologize for not specifyng that I meant your post - not you as a person - was stupid (in my opinion). edit: I quoted theasurus definition of term "moron" because I was surprised to learn it is considered offensive. In my area this term is a part of common language (ie "don't be a moron" and such) and its more akin to "are you kiddin me" or "quit fooling". Hence I was surprised to receive PM from board admin citing forum rules violation. Again: I didn't mean any personal insult, but the merit of legacykeeper's post to which I replied to.

Excuse me, sir, no offense, but you are a moron who obviously made opinions about things you have no clue whatsoever Almost every sentence of your post is wrong or at best uninformed wrong assumption. What a hilarious post and subject

It would also be nice if you have posted the registry location for other people

not only 'appear' but they ARE faster. There is no DRMs built-in into the code of W2K (as opposed to XP). Thats the sole reason why. Interesting , do you have any link with some details and data? (I used "appears" as I have no exact comparison/test data to show the amount of lag you have under XP.) jaclaz I don't, and IMHO no link will ever exist until Windows code is publicly known (apparently never). Some smarter than me people came to this conclusion in the past, and I believe this explanation to be correct, because testing i.e. exactly same computer with same pendrives but different OSes always is faster on W2K (test it for yourself, dont take my word for it). What other possible reason in WinXP OS could slow it down when compared to 2K?

not only 'appear' but they ARE faster. There is no DRMs built-in into the code of W2K (as opposed to XP). Thats the sole reason why. Interesting , do you have any link with some details and data? (I used "appears" as I have no exact comparison/test data to show the amount of lag you have under XP.) jaclaz no link will ever exist until Windows code is publicly known (apparently never). Some smarter than me people came to this conclusion in the past, and I believe this explanation to be correct, because testing i.e. exactly same computer with same pendrives but different OSes always is faster on W2K (test it for yourself, dont take my word for it). What other possible reason in WinXP OS could slow it down when compared to 2K - we do know the major difference between NT5.0 (W2K) and NT5.1 (XP) are basically built-in DRMs into the WinXP OS code (and few other things like GUI, which won't matter in this case). edit: Pls. don't say the XP drivers are 'slower'