Anyone still running NT4 on a real machine?

[Procta]

Is there anyone still running a windows NT4 on PC hardware rather than vmware?
It was the 1st OS that got me into networking and domain based networks, I found it just works.
Has some of you lot pushed it on, after Microsoft binned it? As I still have unfinished business with NT4.

[roytam1]

sure.
Here still has a NT4 server serving files

[Goldfish64]

Yep. It shares my NEC Ready 9847 with WFW 3.11 and 98 SE.

[Procta]

that's great to see!! is there anyone on here still write a few things for the OS? Ie tweaks, I know you can get USB support, as I did down load it, but it crashed the system.

[LuketehNerd46]

Running it on a Gateway e-4200 designed for it. It is pretty good, but I wish i could take full advantage of my 6.4 GB drive that is in there

[sdfox7]

@ Procta

If you are interested in running NT 4.0 on a regular basis, I would recommend the following:

NT 4.0 Service Pack 6: http://sdfox7.com/nt40/hiencry/sp6/MSNT128.EXE

Note: There is a rollup for Post-SP6 but I do NOT recommend it as it has been found to break some programs, such as certain versions of Microsoft IntelliPoint: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/299444

Internet Explorer 5.5 Service Pack 2: http://sdfox7.com/ie/win32/IE55SP2_NT.ZIP
or
Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1: http://sdfox7.com/ie/win32/IE6SP1NT.ZIP

For "modern" browsing, Firefox 1.5.0.12 http://sdfox7.com/nt40/FFX15012.EXE,
or Firefox 2.0.0.20 http://sdfox7.com/win98/FIREFOX2.EXE
or Opera 9: http://sdfox7.com/nt40/OPERA927.EXE.

I recommend ToastyTech 's article on web browsing with Windows 95 and NT 4.0: http://toastytech.com/files/95browsing.html

Flash Player 9.0.47 for Firefox/Opera is the final version that will run on older non-SSE processors such as Pentium II and earlier: http://sdfox7.com/nt40/flashplayer9r47_win.exe

I also have the service packs for Office 97: http://sdfox7.com/office97/
or Office 2000:http://sdfox7.com/2000/August2003_backup/

[Windows OS]

I occasionally install NT4 on my older machines, like my Dell Inspiron i3700. However, none of my machines are currently running it. Maybe I should reinstall it now just for the hell of it. Hmm...

[MSUser2013]

Occasionally, But not permanently ATM. I run OpenNT on real hardware, Such as my HP E-Vectra and my Custom-Built Pentium II, It's interesting to see how well it handles NT4 Drivers considering it's currently at SP2-level code and some drivers work better with SP6. So it can be unstable. Last time I ran vanilla NT4 on real hardware was Summer 2013 when I ran it (along with Windows 95) on a Custom-Built AMD Athlon XP computer which I no longer have.

[LuketehNerd46]

Anyone have a tip on how to make Windows NT have a bigger partition than 4 GB?

[sdfox7]

Anyone have a tip on how to make Windows NT have a bigger partition than 4 GB?

IIRC by default NT 4.0 generally installs to a FAT16 partition.

Once you install NT 4.0, you can use a tool like Partition Magic to expand it.

Here is an excellent source of information as it pertains to NT 4.0 and hard drive partitioning:

Windows NT 4.0 Large HDD Information.

That page also recommends

Universal ATA driver for Windows NT3.51/NT4/2000/XP/2003/Vista/7/ReactOS
With PATA/SATA/AHCI support

[Procta]

Anyone have a tip on how to make Windows NT have a bigger partition than 4 GB?

I think you need service pack 5 for that, as it updates ntfs 4 to 5.

[haroldas.velioniskis]

Occasionally, But not permanently ATM. I run OpenNT on real hardware, Such as my HP E-Vectra and my Custom-Built Pentium II, It's interesting to see how well it handles NT4 Drivers considering it's currently at SP2-level code and some drivers work better with SP6. So it can be unstable. Last time I ran vanilla NT4 on real hardware was Summer 2013 when I ran it (along with Windows 95) on a Custom-Built AMD Athlon XP computer which I no longer have.

If you find any bugs you should report them to the main opennt thread. Which version you're running?

[DJ Deedahx]

I think you need service pack 5 for that, as it updates ntfs 4 to 5.

I don't see why you can't just install Service Pack 6a instead...

[Battler]

- DJ Deedahx: Procta was just listing the minimum service pack number required.

[MSUser2013]

If you find any bugs you should report them to the main opennt thread. Which version you're running?

I was running version 4.50.1400.sr687 on the E-Vectra. It was running fine until I installed the sound driver. Then it started to get buggy. I've reported stability issues in this post on the main topic. Have yet to try the latest build (4.51.1401 for those who are wondering) on real hardware.

[haroldas.velioniskis]

I plan to release OpenNT 4.51.1500.000 on 13/02/16

[Procta]

what's this nt4.51? has some one found a prototype to windows 2000?

[roytam1]

what's this nt4.51? has some one found a prototype to windows 2000?

He is talking about OpenNT: http://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewto ... &start=650

[haroldas.velioniskis]

what's this nt4.51? has some one found a prototype to windows 2000?

Open NT is our custom made fork of Windows nt4

[KevinIsVeryKawaii]

I don´t have a real NT machine but I am thinking of buying one soon. For now I use vmware.

[Procta]

Do you lads just use the server side or do you use the workstation too?

[sdfox7]

Do you lads just use the server side or do you use the workstation too?

I just have the client version, for a few different reasons:

*Server was for more expensive versus Workstation ($999 vs $319) (Related article, July 31, 1996)
*Hardware requirements Server higher than Workstation. While Microsoft recommended 12MB RAM for Workstation and 16MB for Server, the realistic minimum for Server was actually 32MB RAM. Microsoft even admitted this in their literature. In 1996 and 1997, 32MB RAM was still an expensive investment.
*Additional services in Server I wouldn't use (IIS, etc)

[Procta]

Do you lads just use the server side or do you use the workstation too?

I just have the client version, for a few different reasons:

*Server was for more expensive versus Workstation ($999 vs $319) (Related article, July 31, 1996)
*Hardware requirements Server higher than Workstation. While Microsoft recommended 12MB RAM for Workstation and 16MB for Server, the realistic minimum for Server was actually 32MB RAM. Microsoft even admitted this in their literature. In 1996 and 1997, 32MB RAM was still an expensive investment.
*Additional services in Server I wouldn't use (IIS, etc)

I remember getting a system with windows 98 that had 32 mb of ram, in 1998 I think it was. I would have thought Server based software would need double the workstation side, due to it handling a lot more stuff.

[sdfox7]

Do you lads just use the server side or do you use the workstation too?

I just have the client version, for a few different reasons:

*Server was for more expensive versus Workstation ($999 vs $319) (Related article, July 31, 1996)
*Hardware requirements Server higher than Workstation. While Microsoft recommended 12MB RAM for Workstation and 16MB for Server, the realistic minimum for Server was actually 32MB RAM. Microsoft even admitted this in their literature. In 1996 and 1997, 32MB RAM was still an expensive investment.
*Additional services in Server I wouldn't use (IIS, etc)

I remember getting a system with windows 98 that had 32 mb of ram, in 1998 I think it was. I would have thought Server based software would need double the workstation side, due to it handling a lot more stuff.

For a production machine today, I would say at least 64MB-96MB for a workstation that only runs one program at a time. For smooth operation and multiple processes running, the sweet spot is 256MB-512MB. I remember trying 1GB RAM one time on my Intel SAI2, and did not notice any improvement over 512MB. I suppose it might if you were running PhotoShop.

Offtopic Comment

The best performance improvement you can make on these old machines is installing a 7200 RPM hard drive (or even a 10,000 RPM Raptor), complete with Ultra ATA / ATA6 cables.

[Procta]

Do you lads just use the server side or do you use the workstation too?

I just have the client version, for a few different reasons:

*Server was for more expensive versus Workstation ($999 vs $319) (Related article, July 31, 1996)
*Hardware requirements Server higher than Workstation. While Microsoft recommended 12MB RAM for Workstation and 16MB for Server, the realistic minimum for Server was actually 32MB RAM. Microsoft even admitted this in their literature. In 1996 and 1997, 32MB RAM was still an expensive investment.
*Additional services in Server I wouldn't use (IIS, etc)

I remember getting a system with windows 98 that had 32 mb of ram, in 1998 I think it was. I would have thought Server based software would need double the workstation side, due to it handling a lot more stuff.

For a production machine today, I would say at least 64MB-96MB for a workstation that only runs one program at a time. For smooth operation and multiple processes running, the sweet spot is 256MB-512MB. I remember trying 1GB RAM one time on my Intel SAI2, and did not notice any improvement over 512MB. I suppose it might if you were running PhotoShop.

Offtopic Comment

The best performance improvement you can make on these old machines is installing a 7200 RPM hard drive (or even a 10,000 RPM Raptor), complete with Ultra ATA / ATA6 cables.

yeah, I have noticed that too, what I used to with my test lab, was turn off all the fancy stuff, that was when I ran window XP. That helped my lower spec system I had out at the time. That was when I ran with 64mb, I tell you what that did really help the boot up, and it had no trouble running music software, But I would recon if you ran something more powerful, it would fail. All depends on how the system is tuned I found too. Even with the twin processor setup I have in my server, with 700 odd mb, its no different to when it was shipped with 512. I had a spare memory stick so I just shoved it in.