Why Windows NT based operating systems are so much better than piece o

[Daemonforce]

If I just plug in a hard disk drive, even when I can use it and it detected it properly, it wants me to reboot!

It wants me to reboot again if it sees an added hard disk drive, even when it can be used.

It basically wants me to reboot twice, with every hard disk drive detection!

Windows 95 setup wanted to do what exactly?

It has a tendency to take RAM for itself more than a Windows 95-based Windows would!

Windows 95 is what I would call a "hardware manipulation" operating system. That's why I liked it. It deserves to be a local connection gateway. Then again, I remember what caused my first bluescreen and why I should stick to IP Cop. =/

On one PC, even with at least 256 MB of RAM, (that's kind of small) the HDD was cranking more under Windows 2000 than when under Windows 98 SE while running Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban.

Unsupported.

The hard disk drive was working less hard when running the same game under Windows 98 SE!

I keep a virtual disk of Windows 95/98 around whenever I want a legacy/non-English game to run. Windows 95 emulation for XP isn't enough for these legacy applications.

Also, I doubt that people gonna want to get 4 GB of RAM just for Windows!

I have been fighting several images this evening on the technician computer(512MB PC4000). I want 8GB! o_O

Also, Windows NT-based Windows versions seem to force virtual memory (page file) on users that don't require virtual memory! Or they at least try to force virtual memory on users.

Don't like it? Turn it off and watch your terminal operate as slow as a Win2K box with 32MB ram. Better get that /INRAM switch ready.

Also, it appears that Windows Vista, which hasn't been released don't like legacy hardware at all!

Why is my ASUSTeK P5A-B Super 7 "Pentium" board still on the setup manifest? o_O

This means that motherboards manufactured in 2002 or later probably are required!

I like boards made after 2002 because it ensures that it supports El Torito. You wouldn't believe how much garbage comes into the shop. AT-Compatible...AT-Compatible...AT-Compatible...AT-Compatible...Oh hey an ATX! O_o

AT-Compatible...AT-Compatible...AT-Compatible...WTF? Take any combination of these units and you can bet that booting a CD will be an issue. The reason I like this is because it forces users to stop using crap.

I was just at a computer store and the manager said that it is flat out retarded to buy new hardware and use POS Windows 98/ME on it!! He said he had a customer hwo wanted to do this, and wouldn't help them because of how ignorant doing such a thing would be.

Agreed.

...............

Every time this thread pops up it feels like I'm talking to Gene Ray. O_o

nice to have Microsoft "stealed" technology from OS/2 here as Windows NT, with NT Based Kernel not DOS Based Kernel

I don't like Windows NT. I support it as a last ditch effort to get rid of 9X. Everything I would expect to work on NT4, doesn't. I wish I started with Windows NT back in 2001 instead of Windows 95. It came prepackaged with everything I liked and even came with my favorite build of Internet Explorer.

and how about ReactOS anyone heard it?

Don't get me started on that crap. It's a team of people with half-assed attempts at reverse-engineering Windows NT 4.0 and 5.0. They need to stop that. Reverse engineer something people can actually use like Windows XP. Also, I'm able to fix a lot of crap that they're having trouble with right now. I took one look at this garbage and within 1 minute I understood exactly what it was and decided that I don't want it. The lacking file system support and network just instantly killed the point of it. It may be based on linux binaries, but then again so is DARCIE. I'm still in the process of making that and the difference is that it already doesn't suck. RIP Linux is probably the only thing that comes remotely close to it. I don't want another linux distro that can do next to nothing like every other linux I've touched. Natively supporting Win32s is great, but I would like to be able to do everything I want. If I have to go in and fix everything for the ROS Team myself, that's discouraging because I already have a Windows that I can rely on 100%.

www.reactos.org , it's claimed as 1/2 Windows and 1/2 Linux, an operating system desain to be compatible with Windows NT 4 (maybe later with Win2k and up), some of Windows programs have reported to works. and maybe 5-10 years later this os will be the free alternative to M$ Windows (gee its when everybody got Vista on their desktop pc)

It was an Alpha 4 years ago and it's an Alpha now.

Edited March 18, 2006 by Daemonforce

[Link21]

I just got through with my first true experience of playing NHL 2006 and NBA Live 2006. The performance was so much better than any previous versions of EA Sports games ever released. Much of it has to do with the fact that they are not compatible with POS Windows 98/ME.

Finally Windows 2000/XP only games from EA have become a reality!! It was about darn time!!

[jaclaz]

@daemonforce

I am just curious, please do not take this as an offence, but reading your posts here and 911CD Forum, I got the impression that in your opinion:

1.DOS is crap!

2.BartPE is crap!

3.Win9x is crap!

Now it seems also like:

4.Linux is crap!

5.ReactOs is crap!

6.Windows 2k is crap!

fortunately, at least XP and WinPE appear not to be crap!

I would be interested in something more substantial than:

I took one look at this garbage and within 1 minute I understood exactly what it was and decided that I don't want it.

as a reason to say that something is crap.

As a side note, you must have your calendar a bit "out of date".

NT 4.00 was released in 1996

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx

Win2k end of 1999/2000

The el-torito standard dates back to 1995:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Torito_(CD-ROM_standard)

EVERY board since 1997 has el-torito compatible BIOS, at least in "mode 1" i.e. floppy image.

First release of Windows 95 was sold as either 26 or 28 HD floppies or bootable CD using this standard.

EVERY board since late 1999 has BOTH el-torito "Mode 1" AND "Mode 2" i.e. "no emulation".

This was a requirement for the "Windows Logo Program" for Me and 2k, so every manufacturer quickly HAD to update the BIOS if not already compatible.

http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/legacy.htm#BIOS

MOST later boards have all THREE modes, including "Mode 3" i.e. hard disk emulation.

Reference:

http://bochs.sourceforge.net/doc/docbook/user/bios-tips.html

jaclaz

[Daemonforce]

@daemonforce

I am just curious, please do not take this as an offence, but reading your posts here and 911CD Forum, I got the impression that in your opinion:

1.DOS is crap!

2.BartPE is crap!

3.Win9x is crap!

Now it seems also like:

4.Linux is crap!

5.ReactOs is crap!

6.Windows 2k is crap!

I'm not going to disect your message.

.......................

Yes I am. =/

DOS was absolutely horrible to deal with when I had to rely on it. DOS was this awful 16 color environment that looked like someone took a black background and smeared a bunch of gray crap all over it. It was available to me in the form of a floppy disc and it was originally used by me to do an install of Win9X or prepare an installation with an Fdisk and format. DOS and Win9X are something I would like to stay as far away from as possible. I don't need to give you any reasons why. BartPE is something I need to get away from due to licensing issues. Corporate offices just don't like it for some reason. Linux cannot support a Windows sysprep, but it can prepare a linux installation, so I keep it ready. ReactOS is probably the first step towards getting Win32s to "natively" run on a *nix base. It's been in alpha stage since the first days I've had a computer and the current condition of it is horrible. Making a Windows that runs as an ISOLINUX can't be a good thing. ReactOS Team is trying to figure out all the little hooks and references in Windows code and they need to just write their own build without that "help." Windows source was closed for a reason and I can guarantee that by the time the ReactOS Team is done making a worthy candidate, half their developers will have gone insane.

Windows 2000 is now garbage because of networking problems. If I deployed Windows 2000 over this network, 9 out of 10 boxes would be experiencing service failures within 10 seconds of joining the domain. Windows XP has a software firewall and you would be surprised how much crap it keeps out. Maybe I could get around this if I were to put a write filter on Win2K. Windows NT and 2000 are no longer something that I can simply deploy and use without a second thought. I would like to just move to linux because it presents the least problems, but I need to figure out how I'm going to do that. There is rumor that Slax is doing what ReactOS is doing, but I don't think it's running Win32 APIs natively. That's another thing bothering me. Win32s have not been classic Win32s since mid 2002. Somewhere around this time back in 2002(maybe it was April), I had gotten the chance to test an OS that the web detected as Windows .NET CLR 1.0. For the Windows impaired, that's Windows .NET Server 2003. I used this for a great period of time after getting along with XP because XP did not support my applications! It was around the release of SP1 and no one knew what .NET was. I didn't even know what .NET was! That was a serious problem, especially since all the cool stuff was already using it.

fortunately, at least XP and WinPE appear not to be crap!

YES! YES! OMGWTFBBQ YES! ♥ PE!!! RAwR!

words

I really didn't want to go through the details of why I don't like ReactOS. That post was long enough. If you download the latest builds, you will recognize they're completely useless as far as an ISOLINUX goes. There at least needs to be some file system support for mass storage devices or network support before I pick this one up again. I like what the ReactOS team is trying to accomplish, but the end result is going to be this half-assed throwback to Lindows at best.

As a side note, you must have your calendar a bit "out of date".

NT 4.00 was released in 1996

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx

Win2k end of 1999/2000

Yeah. What did I say?

.........

Oh you thought...

I first started messing with a computer back in 2001 and I was stuck with Windows 95 since it was the only build I had and I really wanted NT. I believe you can understand what kind of problems quickly came from the lack of a decent operating system. Think back to every single flaw and bug from setup to the end result and imagine dealing with that about 7 times each day. I fixed every problem I came across other than the "Windows 95 unsupported" issue. I really needed NT. Buying 2000 was pushing my cash limit as well as four or five kinds of physical laws because I had hell trying to install XP on here for the first time. That was fun.

The el-torito standard dates back to 1995:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Torito_(CD-ROM_standard)

EVERY board since 1997 has el-torito compatible BIOS, at least in "mode 1" i.e. floppy image.

First release of Windows 95 was sold as either 26 or 28 HD floppies or bootable CD using this standard.

Windows 95 was not a bootable CD. It was one disc and an associated MS-DOS boot disk with the OAK CD driver and a ramdrive for calling setup from the CD. My super 7 was created in 1998 and to this very day people give me very odd looks when they see that board. I guess there's some history behind the ASUS P5A-B that I don't understand.

EVERY board since late 1999 has BOTH el-torito "Mode 1" AND "Mode 2" i.e. "no emulation".

This was a requirement for the "Windows Logo Program" for Me and 2k, so every manufacturer quickly HAD to update the BIOS if not already compatible.

http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/legacy.htm#BIOS

MOST later boards have all THREE modes, including "Mode 3" i.e. hard disk emulation.

I already made a long post about these issues this morning. I was going to post it at 911CD but decided not to since I doubt anyone would read it.

Right now it's just one big mess and Hardware Engineers are trying to defeat the point of booting from a floppy and are even removing the drive from the new board designs. I understand that a floppy drive just doesn't belong in a modern computer, but this is forcing me into a pinch.

[-I-]

seeing and reading your reply i'd realy love to moke you and, tell you how its done but realy deploying windows 2000 is as easy as it gets, (if your willing to READ some documentation that is),

yeah does didn't look nice, but hell unix looked worse and worked (euh did it ) way better, if you could figure it out, (thought i was way before i realy started with computers, so i started right with linux)

windows 9x was a realy good os (in its days, it was fairly simple, userfriendly, and for 'the avarage user' quite sufficient,

just not for corp use but hey, id moke companies who'd use 9x instead of NT4 all days of the week...

Right now it's just one big mess and Hardware Engineers are trying to defeat the point of booting from a floppy and are even removing the drive from the new board designs. I understand that a floppy drive just doesn't belong in a modern computer, but this is forcing me into a pinch.

well ofcource they are removing flopy support, its a disk that supports only 1.4mb of data (current avarage doc files (from about 25pages (wich isn't that mutch, are already bigger than that),

it takes up quite a lot of space that could be used of the sata-raid controler.

so.

> we boot from cdrom, or usb - and leave the good-old flopy behind,

(i realy hope) longhorn wil stop reserving a and b drives for floppies)...

btw. yeah its a disaster for a good project like reactos is forced to regroup, thanks to those SOB lazy coders who rip of stolen MS source-code .......

BART-PE (i?)lligality, ???????

even though bart cant garantee that BartPE is actualy legal doesn't meen that it isn't,

As far as i know, installing 1 singel (Retail licence) on a computer (ram or rom or hdd) is legit,

also as far as i know it only writes diferent inf files for your customized software install, just dont use files your not entiteled to,

so id not be ashamed to buy a 10x VLK license and make it a standard isue for al sys-admins, in a company..

[jaclaz]

Yes I am. =/

I knew that!

I first started messing with a computer back in 2001 and I was stuck with Windows 95 since it was the only build I had and I really wanted NT. I believe you can understand what kind of problems quickly came from the lack of a decent operating system.

Now I can better understand some of your points of view.

You see, I started messing with a computer back in 1981 and my first computer was a Sinclair ZX80:

http://www.bostonpda.org/zx80/zx80_hardware.htm

(you actually had to ASSEMBLE it!)

Second one was the ZX81:

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=263

(it came pre-assembled, and I even jad the 32 Kbytes RAM expansion board!

When the PC came out, it even had FLOPPY DISKS! (360 Kb), I built myself an XT with a 5 Mb Hard disk...

When NT 3.1 came out, I was jumping for joy!

Probably that's why I am less critic than you are on some elder OS, I have actually seen the progress as it was made, always having the most recent OS on the market, whilst you started with an elder OS, after having seen what other better ones could do.

Windows 95 was not a bootable CD. It was one disc and an associated MS-DOS boot disk with the OAK CD driver and a ramdrive for calling setup from the CD.

No, the ORIGNAL Windows 95 was not, as said the very first release was on a bunch of floppies, by the way with the "stupid" 1680 K format, then came the CD you remember with the boot floppy, then with latest releases, ÷ 1997 (OEM Service Release version 2.0, 2.1 or 2.5, cannot remember) there was a bootable CD allright:

Windows 95 came in seven (7) versions. While there are a few odd version numbers floating around, the following are the common released versions:

Windows 95 Original Version* (The first retail version)

Windows 95 OSR1 (The first version with Service Pack 1 added)

Windows 95 OSR2 (1st Original Equipment Manufacturer version)

Windows 95 OSR2.1 (2nd OEM version - 4.03.1212)

Windows 95 OSR2.1 (2nd OEM version updated - 4.03.1214)

Windows 95 OSR2.5 (3rd OEM version without USB support)

Windows 95 OSR2.5 (3rd OEM version with USB support)

*Issued in a floppy disk (13 diskettes) or CD-ROM version.

.....

......

If you have everything together that you need, then let's get started. Depending upon the configuration of your computer, there are a number of ways to start the Windows 95 installation procedure. If your computer's Bios supports booting to a CD Rom drive, you can insert the Windows 95 CD into the drive and then boot to it. If you cannot boot to a CD Rom disk, or your are using the diskette version of Windows 95 then follow this procedure.

from here:

http://www.dewassoc.com/support/index.html

(click on Windows95, then on Installing Windows 95)

jaclaz

Edited March 20, 2006 by jaclaz

[Link21]

@RJARRRPCGP

I'm sorry, but WIndows 98 is based on MS-DOS. It is just a huge extension of Windows 3.1. Windows 98 has much more in common with Windows 1.0 than it ever had with Windows 2000/XP. Windows 2000/XP have much more in common with Windows NT 3.1 than they ever did with Windows 98/ME.

Read this thread over here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=34259&st=0

This was explained to you. Windows 9X is really just a DOS extender, Microsoft just did a good job of hiding it.

Edited March 22, 2006 by Link21

[RJARRRPCGP]

@RJARRRPCGP

I'm sorry, but WIndows 98 is based on MS-DOS. It is just a huge extension of Windows 3.1. Windows 98 has much more in common with Windows 1.0 than it ever had with Windows 2000/XP. Windows 2000/XP have much more in common with Windows NT 3.1 than they ever did with Windows 98/ME.

Read this thread over here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=34259&st=0

This was explained to you. Windows 9X is really just a DOS extender, Microsoft just did a good job of hiding it.

B.S. !

You're really testing me when you said "Windows 1.0".

Edited March 23, 2006 by RJARRRPCGP

[Link21]

@RJARRRPCGP

I'm sorry, but WIndows 98 is based on MS-DOS. It is just a huge extension of Windows 3.1. Windows 98 has much more in common with Windows 1.0 than it ever had with Windows 2000/XP. Windows 2000/XP have much more in common with Windows NT 3.1 than they ever did with Windows 98/ME.

Read this thread over here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=34259&st=0

This was explained to you. Windows 9X is really just a DOS extender, Microsoft just did a good job of hiding it.

B.S. !

You're really cruisin' when you said "Windows 1.0".

You are the one who is spouting BS.

It is just a DOS extender. It is a pretty special and gignatic DOS extender, but that is really what it is at its very roots. Just try and delete any of the files MSDOS.SYS, IO.SYS, CONFIG.SYS, and/or COMMAND.COM and let us know what happens. Also, try deleting user.exe and/or gdi.exe which are both 16-bit Windows files. gdi32.exe and user32.exe are the 32-bit Windows files. If you delete any of the following DOS or Windows 16-bit files, you can forget about using Windows 9X because it just won't run. Now, you could delete user32.exe and gdi32.exe and Windows 9X would still run.

That should tell you that at its ver roots, it is a 16-bit OS and not a 32-bit OS. You just need to face the facts. Windows NT is better and it will always be superior to Windows 9X.'

You are right, I am really cruisin when I say Windows 1.0 because it is the truth and I know what I am talking about here. Windows 9X was based on Windows 3.1 which was based on Windows 3.0 which was based on Windows 2.0 and etc...

Windows Server 2003 is based on Windows XP which is based on Windows 2000 which is based on Windows NT 4 and so forth.

Windows 1.0, WIndows 2.0, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, WIndows 3.11, Windows 95 (4.0), Windows 98 (4.10.1998), Windows 98SE (4.10.2222), and Windows ME (4.9) are all based on the same OS heritage and just evolved stepo by step by improving the coding of the same based OS core over time. So thus, Windows ME is still native to Windows 1.0

Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 3.51, Windows NT 4.0, Windows NT 5.0 (2000), Windows NT 5.1 (XP), and Windows NT 5.2 (2003) are all based on and follow the same OS heritage and just evolved step by step by improving the code over time to get to Windows NT 5.2, which is Windows Server 2003. SO thus, Windows Server 2003 is still native to Windows NT 3.1.

The Windows NT based OS has always been far superior to the POS ancient DOS dependent based Widnows versions.

Edited March 23, 2006 by Link21

[Daemonforce]

It is just a DOS extender. It is a pretty special and gignatic DOS extender, but that is really what it is at its very roots.

You have.....no idea. =/

If you have ever gotten the weird problems I've had in the middle of setup down to DOS commands eating away the background, you'd believe the GUI is something that just floats in front of DOS. It's really that horrible. Somehow saying just a DOS extender, doesn't quite say it.

That should tell you that at its ver roots, it is a 16-bit OS and not a 32-bit OS. You just need to face the facts. Windows NT is better and it will always be superior to Windows 9X.'

Windows NT is something I would rather not touch right now. Windows 2000 is in the same boat now. Windows XP is almost there, but worth hanging on to.

Windows Server 2003 is based on Windows XP which is based on Windows 2000 which is based on Windows NT 4 and so forth.

Windows NT 4.00 is a solid OS in comparison to Windows 95. Windows 2000 is not related to Windows NT 4.00. It is an entirely new WINNT platform. I admit there is some similarity that makes a seperation between XP and 2000 due to the deployment methods. The XP/.NET/03 builds are part of the NT5 platform. Vista is a solid NT 6.0.

Windows Server 2003 is a variant of Windows 2000(since that was the first major to NT5). I'm pretty sure we have a major and minor determination for a reason.

Edited March 23, 2006 by Daemonforce

[Dels]

gee this topic is really hot (hope it not become flame wars)

btw

if other os than winxp is really crap, then where have you been before xp came out?a place where computers is a "sum of all crap's" and it's only just a piece of junk?or for simple, what os you use before xp came out?

gee don't blame anyone for making such a crap os, you should respect what it does (even you hated the creator, don't hate the os). if anyone could maybe each person will have their "own" os.

really i hate when people blame win 9x/me,nt/2000 or linux. we all have some good old days before xp came out (except you were born in 2001 just when xp released) with a game with better gampelay than the graphics, with enough speed before the Ghz came out (now allmost everyone want to make computer more speed than their brain )

even in this present day, i regularly surfing on abandonware site to find some good old games/apps to have fun with it

xp wouldn't be a "not a crap" if microsoft never tried to make win9x/me,nt/2000

People gets better when they known their history

face it and maybe someday vista will be better than xp and then xp will be said as a big crap

Edited March 23, 2006 by Dels

[Daemonforce]

gee this topic is really hot (hope it not become flame wars)

Yeah well I hope it does! RAwR!

btw

if other os than winxp is really crap, then where have you been before xp came out?a place where computers is a "sum of all crap's" and it's only just a piece of junk?or for simple, what os you use before xp came out?

Strangely enough, Windows 2000 was really awesome at the time. Somewhere down the line, XP was released...I started getting messenger popups(and nuked every one of these morons trying to bug me). Around the release of SP1 for XP I started getting svchost errors and couldn't figure out what was causing it. It turns out that blaster was the problem. I switched over to Windows .NET Server and that fixed it for a while. I couldn't update the OS, so that got me to go back to XP. After a year I went back to 2000 to see if the problem was still there and it was. Remember, this is a time when I only had one computer and it was on a dialup connection. Stupid networking flaws made me migrate to XP and has kept me from going to anything else since then.

gee don't blame anyone for making such a crap os, you should respect what it does (even you hated the creator, don't hate the os). if anyone could maybe each person will have their "own" os.

Welcome to the development lab...Where the OS you're working on is being compiled on an OS that should retire. When I go to a new OS, it's not because of the features in it, but the crap that it can keep out.

really i hate when people blame win 9x/me,nt/2000 or linux. we all have some good old days before xp came out

I never had any good days on Windows 95. The only thing good about it was that MSN Chat was free and spyware wasn't such a huge problem.

face it and maybe someday vista will be better than xp and then xp will be said as a big crap

I look at the real problems at hand on a zero network system and there are none. The introduction to the Internet is the only problem.

[Link21]

Windows NT is something I would rather not touch right now. Windows 2000 is in the same boat now. Windows XP is almost there, but worth hanging on to.

I would rather touch Windows NT 4 RTM than POS Windows 98/ME.

Edited March 23, 2006 by Link21

[jaclaz]

gee this topic is really hot (hope it not become flame wars)

There is no hope about that.

Maybe those willing to take part in the flame war could just read this elder thread:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=37402

(all 45 pages of it)

or just go directly to my post here:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=37402&st=411

This 9x vs. NT war is one of the most recurring topics....

jaclaz

[-I-]

what a garbage i read here, for most parts,

most people adding to this post dont even reconize that windows 2000/XP should in this manor be called Windows NT version 5 (and 5.1)

second of all, windows 98 was a desktop manager / user shell, running on top of a doskernel, NT was bassed on work by Ex-AIX developers atracted by MS to build a new OS

third of al, people ar blabbing about X9 being compatible with windows 9x - but realy the only part of DX that is copatible with both 9x and NT x is setup.exe.....

also again, if your trying to compare 9x with NTx you should even be allowed to post about it.... the coparison itself is plain rubbish, and tells me just that you obviously dont see the point in how time-consuming OS-devolopment is, and that the release time for win 9x was so mutch shorter than that of XP that xp has a huge and unfair advantage.

lets compare windows 4.8 (with its nt-based brother (nt 3.0) i thing most of you havent ever worked with NT from those days, but take it from me it wasn't pritty...

i you want to compare xp compare it with OS2 (youl be shock how bad xp still is, and it isn't because of the 16bit exentions).