Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Flasche

Windows NT 4 performance

54 posts in this topic

Hmmmmm - I think aside from not being able to utilize Plug and Plug, DirectX (beyond v2.0), USB and some newer apps, it would be faster. It's NTFS file system was simpler than NTFS5, so maybe less overhead. It was fairly stable, but I think Windows 2000 bettered it.

I'm not sure I could go back to a Windows 95 Explorer interface now though. It's just too simple. I complained at the time about the Windows Desktop Update that accompanied IE 4, but now, it's commonplace, and hardware has well exceeded it's overhead.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And - surprisingly - the answer is "it depends". :w00t:

The biggest issues are always related to hardware and drivers, on the same machine, where proper drivers for the hardware exist or NT 4.0, 2K and XP, you will probably find that NT 4.00 is faster, with 2K closely following but using a lot more RAM

BTW NT 4.00 ruins fine on FAT16 filesystem, and remember of the issue of the automatic NTFS conversion when a NT 4.00 NTFS volume is accessed by a booted 2K (which very likely applies also to XP).

Just for the record, since the USB topic has been touched, besides alter's one there existed at the time a not-too-bad USB driver for NT 4.00 by Woodhead:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090728130436/http://geocities.com/mypublic99/

which I remember having used successfully on a couple machines.

and there is the Lenovo driver (which may or may not work on different hardware):

http://support.lenovo.com/en_US/detail.page?LegacyDocID=MIGR-4TQVCU

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USB Support does "somewhat" exist, in spite of your assertion. Do try googling occasionally.

http://alter.org.ua/en/docs/win/nt4_usb/

I do Google (besides I hate when people say "Google is your friend"; we're here to have a discussion where people help each other, instaead of saying "Go elsewhere"). Officially USB was never supported, though I understood keyboards and mice could sometimes work. And besides you're link points to an obviously buggy implementation I would never accept. I want to plug in a flash drive and have it work. Nuff said.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this very interesting indeed :w00t: . Plug and play will be an issue, but nothing that cant be over come. Stability is supposedly good so messing around a bit shouldn't hurt. The only other question I have is was there any attempt to extend 4's kernel like the kernelex project for 98/me and 2k?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure:

Officially USB was never supported, though I understood keyboards and mice could sometimes work. And besides you're link points to an obviously buggy implementation I would never accept. I want to plug in a flash drive and have it work. Nuff said.

See jaclaz above. And obviously NOT "officially supported" by... MS! It's all about the VENDOR, or are you not aware that many MS drivers are from... the Hardware Vendor. Hence, "it all depends". ;)

'Nuff said!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And - surprisingly - the answer is "it depends". :w00t:

The biggest issues are always related to hardware and drivers, on the same machine, where proper drivers for the hardware exist or NT 4.0, 2K and XP, you will probably find that NT 4.00 is faster, with 2K closely following but using a lot more RAM

BTW NT 4.00 ruins fine on FAT16 filesystem, and remember of the issue of the automatic NTFS conversion when a NT 4.00 NTFS volume is accessed by a booted 2K (which very likely applies also to XP).

Just for the record, since the USB topic has been touched, besides alter's one there existed at the time a not-too-bad USB driver for NT 4.00 by Woodhead:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090728130436/http://geocities.com/mypublic99/

which I remember having used successfully on a couple machines.

and there is the Lenovo driver (which may or may not work on different hardware):

http://support.lenovo.com/en_US/detail.page?LegacyDocID=MIGR-4TQVCU

jaclaz

Thanks I'ma try those out. I heard from around these parts that you know a lot about nt 4 (and other OS's), and If I recall properly you run one. Is there anything else important that I should know before trying this pre dinosaur OS.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naah, the only real issue is the mentioned NTFS version glitch, and yes, JFYI I have a NT 4.00 running fine since many, many years, more details are here:

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=11383

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=11383&st=3

http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/p=6560882/#6560882

(and as said results will depend greatly on the hardware you have at hand, we have all managed to live happily even without plug'n play support for years ;), so that is only a minor problem)

Happy experimenting. :)

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naah, the only real issue is the mentioned NTFS version glitch, and yes, JFYI I have a NT 4.00 running fine since many, many years, more details are here:

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=11383

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=11383&st=3

http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/p=6560882/#6560882

(and as said results will depend greatly on the hardware you have at hand, we have all managed to live happily even without plug'n play support for years ;), so that is only a minor problem)

Happy experimenting. :)

jaclaz

Good to know. The only issue I'm having now is installing the OS onto the laptop. The setup runs in the begging then it just restarts. Do you know how I can force install it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all I will say is

consider NT 4 to be win 95 era

and NT 5 (2000) a win ME era

if you already had ME on such PC, you're better off using win2000 on it that NT 4 (IMO)

Edited by vinifera
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all I will say is

consider NT 4 to be win 95 era

and NT 5 (2000) a win ME era

if you already had ME on such PC, you're better off using win2000 on it that NT 4 (IMO)

Actually I'm in the process of setting up the Windows Me install now, I finally got my hands on a spare flash drive I could use to put Me on. I now that nt is 95 era, but I never used nt 4 or 2000 before (dont hurt me :o ). So I decided to try it out on some net books I had. I expected a challenge since they are 2008 era netbooks, but something to try non the less. If nt 4 is an issue than nt 5 will come I guess. (or maybe 98 :angel )

EDIT: Me is currently installed being installed on one of my Acers. After Install is finished I will do the same with NT 4 with the link Jaclaz posted in my Me topic up top. http://www.911cd.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=16713

Edited by Flasche
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record (and strangely enough), there has been a short period of "overlapping" of NT 4.00 and 2K.

Remember that we are talking of the good ol'times where businesses/professionals used NT based OS (at leaqst on "important" workstations) and "common people" (and "lower level" workstations) used Dos based OS's.

I have had a HP desktop, it was a Vectra, in 2001, if I recall correctly, that came with BOTH NT 4.00 and 2K (OEM/Custom) install CD's as initially a lot of people in the business, did not trust much the newish Windows 2000.

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record (and strangely enough), there has been a short period of "overlapping" of NT 4.00 and 2K.

Remember that we are talking of the good ol'times where businesses/professionals used NT based OS (at leaqst on "important" workstations) and "common people" (and "lower level" workstations) used Dos based OS's.

I have had a HP desktop, it was a Vectra, in 2001, if I recall correctly, that came with BOTH NT 4.00 and 2K (OEM/Custom) install CD's as initially a lot of people in the business, did not trust much the newish Windows 2000.

jaclaz

Actually I find that hilarious. Windows 2k is regarded as the greatest windows os, and people were too afraid to use it. Yet again windows xp was disdaned when it came out. I guess that's why nt 4 has 6 (and a half) SPs.

Edited by Flasche
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I find that hilarious. Windows 2k is regarded as the greatest windows os, and people were too afraid to use it. Yet again windows xp was disdaned when it came out. I guess that's why nt 4 has 6 (and a half) SPs.

Sure :), but, just to give you an example, on the very first non-test-only install of Wndows 2000, I wanted - after having fully configured it - to change it's system drive letter (something that was if not "common", quite easy to do on NT 4.00) and got as a result an unbootable system (and had to re-start from scratch).

And, as said, the NTFS "glitch" was something that upset lots of people at the time (it was and it remains, sneaky, stupid and dangerous).

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.