Windows NT 4

[bedouin]

Question . . .

Why did MS make Windows 95 their 'consumer' OS when NT Workstation really wasn't that bad?

Just curious.  It never made much sense to me.

[toadlife]

Because NT4 couldn't run real-mode DOS games, which were dominant at the time. They had to wait until game publishers started using directX before they could switch their consumer OS to an NT kernel.

[Kintaro]

I remember in the early days when Windows 98 was still commonplace a lot of users regarded Windows 2000 and the like to be a "whole new lot of shit", even when people switched to XP they found this was how things were. Adapting to a new system is not easy when you are not a enthusiast.

The market is always chosen by the people with the buying power, if the majority of people wanted Windows NT and were ready for it, it would have had more of the marketshare and become popular with OEMS. However most people were not ready for it, the business/professional sector needed its reliability and other features so it was used. However home users would have had a lot of new things to learn. Microsoft is not really responsible for what users use.

[Refalm]

Because NT4 couldn't run real-mode DOS games, which were dominant at the time. They had to wait until game publishers started using directX before they could switch their consumer OS to an NT kernel.

Not only that, think about the huge number of companies using DOS programs to do their database, accounting, farming, etc.

These companies wouldn't have switched to Windows 95/98/ME if it didn't support DOS fully.

[mobrien_12]

NT4 came after Windows 95.  It wasn't as easy to operate.  It had no Plug-and-Play support.  It had no APM.  

It required a LOT more RAM and CPU power.  Unless you were on a Pentium II this was very noticable and frustratingly slow.    

As far as games:  it had only DirectX 3. It could support Glide and OpenGL if you bought a good video card from a company that bothered to write such drivers for the OS (like 3DfX).  Games tended to run poorly compared to Win9x (if at all) anyway.  

NT4 was more stable than Win9x.  It ran office and business applications very well (better than 9x I think).  NT4 was built for offices and buisinesses.  Not the regular MS customers.

[toadlife]

 It wasn't as easy to operate.  It had no Plug-and-Play support.  It had no APM.  

Yep I used NT4 at work for two years. It was a bitch to set up (all the things you mentioned are true), but it didn't crash every ten seconds like Win9x did. When Win2k came along I though I had died and gone to heaven. I switched from Win98 to Win2k for gaming and all of a sudden I could play counter strike for 15 hours straight wihtout having to worry about the damn computer blue screening.

[MarathoN]

Exactly, this is why I still dual boot Win2k, I would never switch to XP.

Win2k worked perfectly for 8 months for me, without any protection software, until I deleted Windows Installer

[Pathos]

I like XP, never liked 2000 but its great for networks. But linux is far superior (better handling of multiple accounts). XP has little new to offer for established networks.

Would like to install 98 on a partition for dos support, the XP emulators suck for some games.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Why don't you give FreeDOS a try then?

[noob]

i think this is a good thread to point this out. in xp, serach the help for hibernate. follow the imnstructions to do it. notice how it doesnt work. the help file was written for 2000. also, un control userpasswords2 in run and look at the bottom, changing your password,. again, win 2000 stuff, dont work for xp. xp is a scam. software "designed" for xp will run fine on 2000. 2000 doesnt have as many issues with old programs (in my experiance). xp sucks, it is win 2000 with a nice GUI and some tweaks.

[MarathoN]

It's a broken version of Windows 2000

[hm_murdock]

Actually, it's Windows NT 5.1. 2000 was 5.0. It does stand to reason that being a .1 release, there would be nothing but some minor changes, while the big ones were left for a major version.

As to why 95 and not NT? MS made claims that DirectX above version 3 couldn't work on it. Guess what... it could, they just intentionally broke all their installers so that it wouldn't.

You have to remember the mindset of MS... there's "home" and "business". You can't just make software that's good for everybody, no... that's what is done with Linux, or Mac OS X... instead, you make different "noob" and "paid noob" versions. This way, some dipshit in a suit and tie will want to pay you $800 for the same junk that you sold to him for $200 on his "home" computer.

The amount of lipservice that MS pays to "corporate" and "business" users is near the level of farce. The new MSN Messenger on OS X has separate "Personal" and "Corporate" tabs for different lists. There's no way to make the Corporate tab leave. It's there, whether you use it or not.

And this... this is where their big problem lies. They sell "business software". You can write shitty software and they'll buy it... you don't need quality, all you need is a snazzy logo and a lot of "corporate" branding, and they'll be on it like old folks at a buffet. Just shit out some code that barely runs, and these cockmasters will pay thousands of dollars for it. They'll be more willing to pay if you offer things like "subscriptions", "Genuine Microsoft Partner" shit, and "expensive tech support".

Funny part is, these same tactics that sell software to businesses, gets it into the hands of users, because who installs the software? Business. HP or Hell or whoever uses the same "busness" mindset to buy Winblows. Moron users think that it's because it's "good", when in reality, it's just the opposite.

Fuck 'em all.

[Kintaro]

Windows 2003 is awesome.

[noob]

well, they did say that xp was almost a full recode of windows,, yet they cant be bothered to make the copied and pasted parts fit in with the OS.

[hm_murdock]

Perhaps you should read my post again, as it has been edited. I don't remember anything about a "complete recode".