Flasche Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 I've decided to pull out my old NT 4 and install it on a Netbook with the same specs as the one I'm putting ME on. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/171303-can-an-acer-aspire-one-aoa150-run-windows-me/ . The question really is how would NT 4 compare to windows 2000/XP in performance. (Left it broad for interpretation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jody Thornton Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
submix8c Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 USB Support does "somewhat" exist, in spite of your assertion. Do try googling occasionally.http://alter.org.ua/en/docs/win/nt4_usb/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) And - surprisingly - the answer is "it depends". 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-4TQVCUjaclaz Edited April 12, 2014 by jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jody Thornton Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flasche Posted April 12, 2014 Author Share Posted April 12, 2014 Well this very interesting indeed . 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
submix8c Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flasche Posted April 12, 2014 Author Share Posted April 12, 2014 And - surprisingly - the answer is "it depends". 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-4TQVCUjaclazThanks 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 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=11383http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=11383&st=3http://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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flasche Posted April 13, 2014 Author Share Posted April 13, 2014 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=11383http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=11383&st=3http://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. jaclazGood 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinifera Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) all I will say isconsider NT 4 to be win 95 eraand NT 5 (2000) a win ME eraif you already had ME on such PC, you're better off using win2000 on it that NT 4 (IMO) Edited April 13, 2014 by vinifera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flasche Posted April 13, 2014 Author Share Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) all I will say isconsider NT 4 to be win 95 eraand NT 5 (2000) a win ME eraif 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 ). 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 )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 April 13, 2014 by Flasche Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flasche Posted April 13, 2014 Author Share Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) 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.jaclazActually 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 April 13, 2014 by Flasche Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now