9x users' opinion of Windows NT 4.0?

[awergh]

thats because dos is used for the bootloader

[Andrew T.]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think he meant this:

Also, the security is a pain in the a**. You have to have administrative rights just to set the friging clock or install a printer! Another thing that I don't like about NT is the way it keeps multiple desktops for each user. You have to be a friging expert (and have administrative rights) to make program icons available to all users. Users get angry when the icons change. In one case at my office, an NT Workstation user changed jobs and the new person insisted on using this other persons userid/password because the old user had set up a lot of shortcuts and stuff on the desktop that new user couldn't get to. They had to call me in to move the stuff between profiles. And the new user still wasn't happy because I hadn't set the same background and color scheme for them.

Actually I think there may be a way for users to share a common desktop, but I haven't had a chance to try it.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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).

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

I repeat: Windows 9x are DOS + GUI.

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.

[galahs]

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.

[arctirus]

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.

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

[rainyd]

Windows 9x is DOS with Windows GUI plus some 32-bit patchwork on top of DOS.

I repeat: Windows 9x are DOS + GUI.

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)?

[888]

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.

[mac57]

Think again

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

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?

Edited October 16, 2007 by mac57

[Sfor]

Windows 9x is DOS with Windows GUI plus some 32-bit patchwork on top of DOS.

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.

[888]

Windows 9x is DOS with Windows GUI plus some 32-bit patchwork on top of DOS.

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...

[arctirus]

Some questions

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

[BenoitRen]

no Windows needs IE at all

Yes.

FAT is obsolete

No. It still stores our files fine.

having separate access rights for users and root are essential

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

[888]

no Windows needs IE at all

Yes.

FAT is obsolete

No. It still stores our files fine.

having separate access rights for users and root are essential

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

Edited October 17, 2007 by 888

[BenoitRen]

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.

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.

Face it: almost all other OSes have some kind of root/admin plus other less/more restricted level users environments.

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

Edited October 17, 2007 by BenoitRen

[awergh]

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.

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.

Face it: almost all other OSes have some kind of root/admin plus other less/more restricted level users environments.

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

Edited October 17, 2007 by awergh

[erpdude8]

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.

I am not too sure about that, especially that NT4's NTFS is apparently different from the NTFS used in 2K-XP.

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

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.

Edited October 29, 2007 by erpdude8