5 ms·
Maybe my memory is a bit rose colored, but I still think NT 4.0 was great. Win 95 interface and rock solid OS.
by protomyth 7y ago
Maybe my memory is a bit rose colored, but I still think NT 4.0 was great. Win 95 interface and rock solid OS.
- zabzonk 7y agoWindows 2000 was even more rock-solid. I used to run it on a couple of Sony Vaio laptops and I never had a blue screen.
- protomyth 7y agoDidn't they move the video driver back into the kernel in 2000?
- microcolonel 7y agoYeah, but they actually worked so it was fine. Of course, I will not attest to any architectural advantage of NT, especially today. Everything from the filesystem to the schedulers to the memory management... it all leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe with Genode coming along, we'll get a serviceable seL4 desktop that I can run my Chicago-style UI on. :- ) My impression of the eventual ideal is that the formally-verified stuff can be allowed into the kernel, if there is some valid reason to do so; and everything else can sit elsewhere.
- mmis1000 7y agoAt least in recently windows10 preview, patch kernel memory area itself was no longer allowed, only hooks are allowed to be used to alter the kernel behavior (thus breaking some silly anti cheat engine). And it also comes with a option to enforce these with virtualization. So yes, it is ongoing. But not Kernel -> Userspace. Instead it is Hypervisor mode Kernel(?) -> Kernel.
- zabzonk 7y agoI'm not commenting on the OS architecture, just my quite extensive user experience.
- jdsully 7y agoYou were definitely living in the future with NT 4.0. But the memory requirements were way too high for the average home user to afford it. Win95 was a bridge into this modern new world of applications protected from each other.