9x users' opinion of Windows NT 4.0?

[Andrew T.]

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?

[Mijzelf]

No USB.

[arctirus]

No USB.

Think again

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

EDIT:

[*]NT's lack of FAT32 support (and 9x's lack of NTFS) make it inconvenient for the two to share a dual-boot installation;

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

Edited October 11, 2007 by arctirus

[eidenk]

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.

[awergh]

there is a systeminternals fat32 driver for nt4 out there some where.

I quite like nt4 but i still use 98se

[BenoitRen]

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.

[Andrew T.]

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.

[888]

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.

Edited October 12, 2007 by 888

[xrayer]

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...

Edited October 12, 2007 by xrayer

[Sfor]

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 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.

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?

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.

[BenoitRen]

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 newwink.gif ), or you can always assign administrator's right to every other user account on any NT operating system, so whats your point?

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.

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)

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

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?

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.

[no1none]

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 newwink.gif ), or you can always assign administrator's right to every other user account on any NT operating system, so whats your point?

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.

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)

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

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?

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

Edited October 13, 2007 by no1none

[Sfor]

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).

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.

[BenoitRen]

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?

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

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!

FAT is not proprietary and fully documented.

I repeat: Windows 9x are DOS + GUI.

No. We already went over this.

We get it - you love Win95. But please stop already with this crusade of yours, its not funny anymore.

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

[888]

I repeat: Windows 9x are DOS + GUI.

No. We already went over this.

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

There you go LOL