• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
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

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

Honestly it does sound like your average M$ problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows NT 4 Workstation SP6a RUS running on SuperMicro X8DT6 + Intel Xeon X5670 @ 2.93 GHz

control1.gif display1.gif display2.gif everest1.gif everest2.gif everest3.gif everest4.gif sysmon1.gif system1.gif taskmgr1.gif taskmgr2.gif winmsd1.gif winmsd2.gif winmsd3.gif winmsd4.gif

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hell

I never knew NT 4 supports multi cores

which makes me wonder why did XP kinda lag with operations with only my 2 cores O_o

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well just more of a reason to get it on my second netbook.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically my view on Windows 2000 is it's Windows NT 4.0 on steroids. Now, I've tried out Windows NT 4.0 but have never used it for a main machine but from what I did with it, it was quite fast. I setup the explorer to work slightly more like Windows 98+ by having it open up just one window instead of a new window for each explorer process opened. The one and only complaint I have with using it is there is no address bar. So say I know what directory I want to go to, there's no address bar to type it in at. But then if you want a workaround, you can just use Internet Explorer itself to do that and to my knowledge I think it will work out as long as you have a newer version installed but then again, I could be wrong since I'd skip the explorer enhancements that could be installed with IE4. I've never received a blue screen using WinNT either. The bootup time is a little slow to my experience though, especially if you're like me and you turn the computer on and do something else while it's booting, but that's just because of the OS select menu which can be changed but it set to 30 seconds by default. Honestly though, I don't see the need for Internet Explorer integration in explorer.exe anyway. My personal opinion is that is what made newer OSs a little less stable. It's mainly fixed in XP onwards but I don't remember crashing explorer so easily in Windows NT. But my personal feelings is that if it does everything you need it to, why not use it? As I said once before, if Windows NT were to suit your needs just fine and had no hardware issues...why install Windows 7 or 8? It's like buying a space ship to travel three blocks to the grocery store. It just clutters up hard drive space, requires awesome computers to run well, and would basically be redundant. But then that's how I feel about it. Windows 2000 meets my needs and why originally it was never meant for gaming is beyond me. But that's what I like so that's what I run. I don't need newer. Besides, Windows NT is for real Windows users anyway. Since there's no device manager, you have to basically know what you're doing to install hardware. Now it's so easy that a child could probably do it. But as far as performance goes, it was so fast in general for me that clicking on something in explorer opened up almost instantaneously.

As for me, Windows 2000 right at this point does just about everything Windows XP can with a few exceptions so I don't see why I need to run XP at all, especially since I also hate activation even though I'm cut in on a deal that I have access to a volume license copy but it's still the principle of the matter. But heck, if Windows NT would do the things I needed it to do, you're darn right I'd use it. But the fact it doesn't run anything newer than DX3 natively, that's the big deal breaker for me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never expected that NT 4.0 can handle so easily multi cores and big amount of RAM! :w00t: But even on Virtual Box my NT 4.0 "box" lags many drivers. I'm really wondering what was/is the driver support for NT 4.0.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But my personal feelings is that if it does everything you need it to, why not use it? As I said once before, if Windows NT were to suit your needs just fine and had no hardware issues...why install Windows 7 or 8? It's like buying a space ship to travel three blocks to the grocery store. It just clutters up hard drive space, requires awesome computers to run well, and would basically be redundant. But then that's how I feel about it. Windows 2000 meets my needs and why originally it was never meant for gaming is beyond me. But that's what I like so that's what I run. I don't need newer. Besides, Windows NT is for real Windows users anyway. Since there's no device manager, you have to basically know what you're doing to install hardware. Now it's so easy that a child could probably do it. But as far as performance goes, it was so fast in general for me that clicking on something in explorer opened up almost instantaneously.

Lots of words my friend and I appreciate what you wrote. Seems like I will need a little adjusting to get used to it, but that wont be hard. I particularly quoted this part for it is so true. With windows 2000 I never tried it, and not really in the mode to try it anyway, but NT 4 I dont know what it is, but something about it is striking me. It might be the 6 and a half service packs, but there is something about it that just wants me to try it out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really wondering what was/is the driver support for NT 4.0.

Excellent (for the supported hardware ;))

Remember that at the time:

  1. there were NO SATA bus/drives, only IDE ("standard") and SCSI (very common, as they were faster, on machines with NT 4.00 installed) and very well supported (possibly also because you spent big bucks on - say - Adaptec cards and fastish 10,000 RPM Seagatye Cheetah drives) See: http://redhill.net.au/d/62.php
  2. there was NO USB bus
  3. there was NO Wi-Fi
  4. there was NO buit-in support in NT for PCMCIA/PCCARDS (but there existed third party tools for it)
  5. there was NO AGP bus
  6. video cards were simple video cards and 64 Mb or 128 Mb was the total amount of RAM you had in your whole system (as in "not 1/4 of the amount in the cheapest video card you can find ;) ")

Now, even today, if you have an issue in any NT based system, it is very likely that it is connected to a driver of one of the 6 above.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.alter's uniata driver may work. see http://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=61&p=332204#p332204

2.3rd party USB 1.1 driver available

3.some old 802.11b adapter has NT4 driver

5.isn't MS released an update for AGP?

more info: http://bearwindows.boot-land.net/winnt4.htm

Good to know that there is a sata driver.

The only thing giveing me issue is the cd so I'm going to try and do it through usb. http://www.911cd.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=16713 . Only issue is that I want ntfs instead of fat.

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.