Slow? Windows 9x are the best choice for legacy hardware just because they are faster than NT.

I certainly wouldn't recommend it if you were planning on connecting the computer to the internet, although most malware will fail to run as it would be expecting Windows XP or higher I personally wouldn't take the risk knowing that their are probably thousands of known security bugs in the OS which are going to remain unpatched. I'd much rather go with a lightweight Linux installation instead.

9x is also only the best choice on *really* legacy hardware. Anything from the last decade will easily run better with NT.

Bull.
NT4 is from 1996. It is capable of running on i386 systems minimum. NT3.x is even earlier and has lower requirements I think. When it comes to speed and scalability, 9x does not even come close to NT. The same goes for stability and reliability. Please do not attempt to base facts on a biased opinion.


NT3.x-NT4. Maybe even NT5.


True, Windows 9x is notoriously known for it's lack of security. I wouldn't go and run a minimal *nix distro on a legacy machine unless I wanted to run *nix. For people wanting to run Windows, NT3x-NT4. Even that was better than 9x.

Why does everyone forget the cream of the oldies?

- soulman: The problem is, that NT 4.0 and earlier aren't really desgined for home use so they have very bad support for most consumer needs such as games, multimedia, etc. They were designed for their use on workstations (NT Workstation) and servers (NT Server). For the home users back then, the Windows to choose was 9x.
Now if your legacy box has at least 64 MB of RAM, I'd say go for Windows 2000, doesn't differ that much in support for general home user stuff from 9x, but is much more stable. But if it has less than that, the choose based on your needs.
Also, how can NT be faster than 9x when it always had higher system requirements? Remember, the average computer home users have is a low end box that has a reasonable price-quality relationship and a low cost. Not a high-end workstation which is what NT was designed for in those days.

1. It sucked.
2. It was unreliable
3. Ugly as hell
4. Slow
5. 9x was named after years (and ME was a joke), therefore it wouldn't be named the same in the 2000s.

It was just outdated, and it was really unreliable, so it had to be updated.

Windows NT 4.0 in a 486 PC is just completely slow and awful to use, and Windows NT 3.x is just too much outdated to run most Win32 programs. Come on people, Windows NT is only good in powerful enough hardware. Seeing is believing.

I've seen NT4 for myself on a 486 before. With 32MB RAM and all the SPs it ran flawlessly. Dunno what you're talking about.

Quite true, however, just like various programs, it can be installed. I haven't seen a game that hasn't yet worked on NT.

It can actually handle multiprocessor systems and I have seen many a multiprocessor legacy system. You have to remember back in the day is different to now. It's pretty much free now since it's abandonware. From my experiences too it also handles resources much more efficiently. Even if NT was slower, I'd rather risk a bit of speed for extra stability. Also, NT can easily scale the hell out of hardware a lot more efficiently than 9*/DOS can.
P.S. rated requirements aren't always accurate. EA Games, Windows Vista, etc. Good examples of system requirement screwups. Though it also pushed the market forward too, pressuring the need of faster hardware in the workstation market.

For browsing the web or editing pictures(not gaming)you can use every OS that has a working browser and supports your Modem or network hardware.Try out a few!

There were more than a few games designed for win32s or 95/98 because as NT 4.0 finally arrived it only supported DirectX 2.0 first.
You can run them on Wine using Linux/BSD but that needs more computing power.

All you NT-lovers just don't get it, do you?

Us 9x'ers don't care what you think about Windows 9x, and we don't care what you think about us for liking it.

We're not interested in your BIASED opinions, any more than you're interested in ours.

And, as for me, I will go on using it, and go on disliking Windows NT.

I think it's time for this thread to be locked and put to rest.

Not so fast (I'm annoying, am I? ). Windows 9x discontinued because there's a thing called "evolution".

NT wasn't really supposed to be an end-user system core. It was for servers because it was _more stable_ than 9x (one 9x system crashed every amount of time when running continously... Wasn't it 95?). NT was really put into consumer jaws when Windows 2000 reached RTM, and even at this time, there was still a huge amount of 9x users. Not to mention, 9x could throw a critical 0E exception randomly or when you pressed the button on CD-ROM while it was reading data. NT in this case just throws a dialog that something's wrong with CD.

In the end: I don't have bad opinion on 9x, I like it as well as I like NT, because 9x gives me an option to connect my Cassiopeia E-11, which obviously, NT can't provide proper connectivity. I like NT because it's more stable and can handle exceptions far better than 9x does.

So, people, use whatever you want you can even work on a calculator if you can. Don't be like Linux users and don't flame at friendlies (distro community vs another distro community - sounds familiar?).

Fully agree with Ciastex here. NT was also superior in every way for workstations.
Even unbiased, NT is still superior to 9x/DOS. Nothing is stopping you from using 9x, but it is a fact that NT is superior. Even some of the 9x fanboys I know realise that.

Lets get the MS guy that proposed pushing Windows 4.0 against OS/2 and undo the 9x mistake.

So Windows 95 had a bug. It was fixed in a HotFix. (I know, I have it, and I have slisptreamed it.) Windows NT systems have had more than their share of bugs and HotFixes as well. This proves nothing.

I'm glad you mentioned Linux, because as I said before in this thread, when my 9x system will no longer do the things I need it to do, I will use Linux rather than use any form of Windows NT.



It is no "fact" that NT is superior. The only FACTS here are 1)That Microsoft ceased development of 9x whereas Windows NT development continued; and, 2)Microsoft owes their market dominance and the popularity of their newer NT systems to the success of good old Windows 9x, whether they want to admit it or not.

So, to compare apples to apples, Windows 9x can only be compared to equivalent NT systems of the same time frame (For all practical purposes NT 4.0). Comparing 9x to XP & up is comparing apples and oranges because the 9x line saw no new development.


I suggested that the thread be locked because I grow tired of seeing some new 9x-bashing rubish in this thread every few days (usually by newly registered users trying to find a place to up their post count). I've got better things to do that argue a topic that has been argued to death a million times across the internet. I'm not out to change anyone's mind, but I have no plans to change mine either.

No-one requires you to post in this thread. I'm not about to lock it because one guy can't be bothered to defend his case.

You say we should compare 9x to NT4, but no-one's even made a convincing case that 9x is better than NT4. That's because from every technical and objective measurement, NT - even NT4 - is demonstrably superior in construction and implementation to 9x.

For the most part, I haven't been posting in this thread.

I keep seeing bits here and there about "useless topics" .. well, a topic which seems devoted (or has become devoted) to bashing this-OS-or-that-OS seems "useless" to me, but I'm not a moderator, so if you don't want to lock it, fine.

I see no reason to even try "defending my case" here. This is a kangaroo court. The opinions of the "judge" & "jurors" are already biased.

I'm not going to change your opinions, and you're not going to change mine. That's why I've stayed out of it for the most part.


So... continue.

How is NT not superior, if it doesn't use DOS anymore. Also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_9x#Kernel



Oh, and remember the CIH virus. Easily flashing BIOS ROM, and 95/98 not protecting from that.

So... If 9x is a stone and NT is hammer, imagine:

Stone can do hammer's job, but it has less durability and is uncomfortable to hold in hand. If I'll give you a hammer, what will you use? A stone that (from now) is impractical, or hammer, that can utilise your power more efficiently? Of course, no-one will blame you for continuous usage of stone, but it will look strange, as almost everyone is using hammer this time.

Can someone explain to me what was so good about 9x? It doesn't look good, and I don't think its more compatible with current software, so is it more stable? Faster? I honestly would like to know; why not just use the latest version available?





I think everyone would blame you for using a rock. Would you let a carpenter keep using a rock, or would you tell them to use a hammer?

I'll keep my stone, thanks.

Carpenter is not a simple user. Carpenter is a specialist. He must use a hammer, because he does realise that stone is useless for his work.

And here we reach the point:
Everyone uses that, what he/she *thinks* is best for him/her.

Of course, thinking can be wrong because they're people.

The only DirectX that could be installed on NT 4.0, was, AFAIK, DirectX 5 (if not an even earlier version), while Windows 9x were going ahead in DirectX terms.


Yeah but in those days, multiprocessor systems were something seen in a corporate environment. The average home user had a box with a single low to middle end 1-core CPU. Also DOS games persisted for quite far too - not something that worked well in Windows NT at the time (remember, DOSBox not only didn't exist at the time, but PC's were even too slow for something like DOSBox to work properly even). Also not even NT-based OS'es are perfectly safe and stable - I had Windows XP brought onto the knees by a simple rootkit. And I even brought Windows 2000 to the knees.
In fact, a badly written driver can bring NT-based OS'es to the knees much more easily than 9x, because of the way NT STOP errors are - halting the entire system rather then trying to solve the problem.
Example: D-Link Wi-Fi driver getting a bad IRQL. On a NT-based OS, that results in a STOP error, system halted with no way of recovery apart from reboot. On a 9x-based OS, you'd get at most a Fatal Exception 0D or 0E in the driver, and in many cases be able to at least save your work before rebooting the OS.
I used the exact same D-Link Wi-Fi card in both Windows 98 SE and Windows 2000. In Windows 2000, its driver (included on its installation CD) would cause random BSOD's. In Windows 98 SE, never.

Not to mention, I had Windows 2000 becoming absolutely unrecoverble by a simble BSOD-induced reboot corrupting the registry on a NTFS parition. I never had such happen on 9x.

And once again, Windows 2000 or XP can end up this badly, I dare not imagine NT 4 or earlier.


That's of course true.

Because NT up to 2000 wasn't targetting into a regular consumer.

No OS is malware free, that is a fact. NT has had its share of malware, but just look at how much malware Windows 9x has had and just how unsecure it was - one could write a "virus" that deleted command.com and whoops! Suddenly your PC doesn't boot anymore!



So because Windows 9x allows you to recover from a blue screen, while also putting your data and software at risk for corruption makes it a superior OS? Seems legit. At least bad drivers and bad hardware are pretty much the only reasons one should ever get a STOP error in NT.


Why not you get your head out of 10 years ago and try NT 6?

Yes, all operating systems have their flaws, including Windows NT and Windows 9x. It's just that Windows 9x is more flawed than NT, that is all.