4 ms·

NT 4 prepared Win32 for synchronization with Windows 95. I hated it for that: they moved the presentation layer into the kernel (to allow features like "Active

NT 4 prepared Win32 for synchronization with Windows 95. I hated it for that: they moved the presentation layer into the kernel (to allow features like "Active Desktop" widgets) which negatively impacted reliability and security for years to come. Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5 were much more reliable. The CD-ROM's containing the OS from MSDN came with the Microsoft C/C++ compiler on it, somewhere they even added Visual Studio 1.0. There was hardly any client software for MIPS and Alpha, but the i386 versions ran 16 bit versions of Ami Pro, Excel and Mosaic well. Which is probably why MIPS and Alpha NT versions never became popular, despite the fact that they were very fast for the time.

yuhong 9y ago
win32k has nothing to do with active desktop which was mostly shell level.
- JonathonW 9y ago
  Windows 95 and NT 4 didn't even ship with Active Desktop-- it (along with IE integration into Windows Explorer) was added as part of the Windows Desktop Update that shipped with IE4, and didn't become part of the OS out of the box until Windows 98 (and 2000 on the NT series). GDI in the kernel (win32k.sys) was a performance optimization.
  - stevekemp 9y ago
    Windows 2000 was always my favourite release - most of the reliability of NT4, but with the added ability to use USB.
gh02t 9y ago
Alpha NT didn't become popular because of price and compatibility. DEC wanted to sell Alpha in serious workstations and servers and only made some half-hearted attempts to target the consumer market. Meanwhile the consumer marker coalesced around Wintel and Intel could leverage that larger volume to reduce costs, while consumers were locked in to x86 for compatibility. Dunno much about the history of MIPS but I imagine it was a similar story. Once Windows on x86 hit critical mass it steamrolled the rest. PowerPC was the exception with Apple, but even they didn't really start biting into bigger market shares until they switched. The dominance wasn't technically motivated (I know at least Alpha and SPARC had superior performance in many areas), it was economics and compatibility (and some shady dealings).
- Fnoord 9y ago
  All the RISC architectures had superior performance over x86-32 in the '90s. MIPS is much larger than SGI, and POWER [1] is much larger than PPC (or Apple). MIPS and POWER have been used in consoles, for example. That is volume! Especially MIPS, is used in embedded chips (together with predominantly ARM). Those are found on every mainboard, laptop, console even though the latest gen consoles run on AMD64. Alpha however, died somewhere within DEC/Compaq/HP. My friend argued the NSA was using Alpha processors internally, and had their own fab. I have no clue about that though. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Architecture
flomo 9y ago
NT 3.x was mainly pushed as a server OS targeting Novell Netware. On the PC side it never made sense unless you bought one of these discount surplus Multias. I worked at a F500 and two times DEC reps came into sell NT/Alpha, and both occasions, they couldn't get the machines to boot. I wonder how much of that NT/Alpha just for marketing, because DEC was selling a lot of x86 servers in those days. The Pentium Pro 200Mhz was better than or close-enough to RISC processors in most standard benchmarks that most businesses seem to decide "good enough", and that was the beginning of the end of the end of the server processor wars.
- rjsw 9y ago
  NT 3.x was fine for a desktop OS. I ran both on Pentium machines as my development system.
- flomo 9y ago
  Whatever point I thought I was trying to make came out the completely wrong way, so for anyone looking at my post history, I was drunk and disavow this comment.
- fanf2 9y ago
  I had a pet Pentium Pro server in about 1999, and it was a fantastic machine. Excellent CPU performance and a fast IO system to match.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tonyedgecombe 9y ago
they moved the presentation layer into the kernel That was a nightmare, I remember opening a printer queue on a server at one customer and it instantly blue screened the machine. I'd only been on site for five minutes before I had to go and apologise to the customer.

yuhong 9y ago

win32k has nothing to do with active desktop which was mostly shell level.

JonathonW 9y ago
Windows 95 and NT 4 didn't even ship with Active Desktop-- it (along with IE integration into Windows Explorer) was added as part of the Windows Desktop Update that shipped with IE4, and didn't become part of the OS out of the box until Windows 98 (and 2000 on the NT series). GDI in the kernel (win32k.sys) was a performance optimization.
- stevekemp 9y ago
  Windows 2000 was always my favourite release - most of the reliability of NT4, but with the added ability to use USB.

gh02t 9y ago

Alpha NT didn't become popular because of price and compatibility. DEC wanted to sell Alpha in serious workstations and servers and only made some half-hearted attempts to target the consumer market. Meanwhile the consumer marker coalesced around Wintel and Intel could leverage that larger volume to reduce costs, while consumers were locked in to x86 for compatibility. Dunno much about the history of MIPS but I imagine it was a similar story. Once Windows on x86 hit critical mass it steamrolled the rest. PowerPC was the exception with Apple, but even they didn't really start biting into bigger market shares until they switched. The dominance wasn't technically motivated (I know at least Alpha and SPARC had superior performance in many areas), it was economics and compatibility (and some shady dealings).

Fnoord 9y ago
All the RISC architectures had superior performance over x86-32 in the '90s. MIPS is much larger than SGI, and POWER [1] is much larger than PPC (or Apple). MIPS and POWER have been used in consoles, for example. That is volume! Especially MIPS, is used in embedded chips (together with predominantly ARM). Those are found on every mainboard, laptop, console even though the latest gen consoles run on AMD64. Alpha however, died somewhere within DEC/Compaq/HP. My friend argued the NSA was using Alpha processors internally, and had their own fab. I have no clue about that though. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Architecture

flomo 9y ago

NT 3.x was mainly pushed as a server OS targeting Novell Netware. On the PC side it never made sense unless you bought one of these discount surplus Multias. I worked at a F500 and two times DEC reps came into sell NT/Alpha, and both occasions, they couldn't get the machines to boot. I wonder how much of that NT/Alpha just for marketing, because DEC was selling a lot of x86 servers in those days. The Pentium Pro 200Mhz was better than or close-enough to RISC processors in most standard benchmarks that most businesses seem to decide "good enough", and that was the beginning of the end of the end of the server processor wars.

rjsw 9y ago
NT 3.x was fine for a desktop OS. I ran both on Pentium machines as my development system.
flomo 9y ago
Whatever point I thought I was trying to make came out the completely wrong way, so for anyone looking at my post history, I was drunk and disavow this comment.
fanf2 9y ago
I had a pet Pentium Pro server in about 1999, and it was a fantastic machine. Excellent CPU performance and a fast IO system to match.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tonyedgecombe 9y ago

they moved the presentation layer into the kernel That was a nightmare, I remember opening a printer queue on a server at one customer and it instantly blue screened the machine. I'd only been on site for five minutes before I had to go and apologise to the customer.