Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
Flasche

Windows NT 4 performance

Recommended Posts

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@roytam

Sure :), I was pointing out only the obvious, i.e. things that at the time did not exist and could not therefore create issues.

A NT 4.00, on the hardware it was designed for was exceptionally stable (compared to later releases) possibly also because:

  1. the OS was simpler
  2. the hardware was simpler
  3. the hardware was costing a lot of money and the manufacturers wrote good, simple, tested drivers, usually "tuned" for stability (being aimed to a professional only audience)

I will remind - in case someone not familiar with NT 4.00 - how a whole install of the operating system was smaller than a current video card driver only.

In my simplicity:

Less bytes=faster

Less bytes= (maybe) less functions, but surely less probabilities of conflicts/bugs/etc.

Only issue is that I want ntfs instead of fat.

It is not a "real" issue if your source has post SP3 integrated, though you will not be able to run CHKDSK "natively" from the NT, but will need to use the workaround (and the Win2K files) mentioned in the already given links.

Consider however that a "normal" install of NT needs around 110 Mb of disk space, let's roughly double it to around 250 to stay on the safe side and to allow some space for programs, which is well within the range of FAT16 volumes, and there is no real reason, on a laptop/single user machine to have the complexity of NTFS.

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a "real" issue if your source has post SP3 integrated, though you will not be able to run CHKDSK "natively" from the NT, but will need to use the workaround (and the Win2K files) mentioned in the already given links.

Consider however that a "normal" install of NT needs around 110 Mb of disk space, let's roughly double it to around 250 to stay on the safe side and to allow some space for programs, which is well within the range of FAT16 volumes, and there is no real reason, on a laptop/single user machine to have the complexity of NTFS.

jaclaz

My disk of NT 4 has service pack one. The only reason why I want ntfs is because of the 4 gig file size issue. (I bet there is a patch for that somewhere too -_- )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My disk of NT 4 has service pack one. The only reason why I want ntfs is because of the 4 gig file size issue. (I bet there is a patch for that somewhere too -_- )

Well, if you plan to EVER access the NTFS volume from *any* later NT based system you need AT LEAST SP3 (though you should have SP6, strongly advised) installed BEFORE accessing the volume from another later NT based OS or your NT 4.00 system won't be able to boot.

You may still want to make a decently small System partition (that can - as said - be FAT16) and have a separate storage one, which can be *anything*, even if it is accidentally converted, it won't prevent form booting (and allow th einstalling of the Service Pack to be able to re-access it).

Support for bigger than 4 Gb files on a FAT16 volume is - obviously - not something of use :whistle:.

You might need to refresh your knowledge on filesystems and their maximum sizes ;):

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140365/en-us

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you plan to EVER access the NTFS volume from *any* later NT based system you need AT LEAST SP3 (though you should have SP6, strongly advised) installed BEFORE accessing the volume from another later NT based OS or your NT 4.00 system won't be able to boot.

The first thing I plan on doing is immediately updating to SP6a.

FAT16

Why Fat16 I was referring to Fat32. (In fact did fat 32 even exist during NT 4's time)

EDIT: FAT32 was introduced about a month before sp1 release of nt4 so I would guess it supports it.

Edited by Flasche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this topic is very interesting, this is making me interested of running Windows NT 4 lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...