4 ms·

Windows 3.1 and 16 bit would be a little too painful for me. Windows 95 was quite nice with 32 bit and preemptive multitasking though. I kind of miss this or Wi

Windows 3.1 and 16 bit would be a little too painful for me. Windows 95 was quite nice with 32 bit and preemptive multitasking though. I kind of miss this or Windows 2000.

vardump 7y ago
NT4 was very nice, although no USB. Didn't crash and was smooth as butter.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- 1996 7y ago
  I find this history so super interesting. Have you kept a nt4? Do you still use it? What do you think is the closest equivalent: win200, reactos??
  - vardump 7y ago
    No, I haven't used it since early 2000. Windows 2000 was the successor, also a good release. I guess both are pretty close to what NT4 was.
- cr0sh 7y ago
  Last time I "used" NT4 it was to set up a machine for a specific piece of software so I could test a SICK 2D LIDAR unit (one of the blue "coffee pot" units) I had purchased off Ebay; sometime around 2014/15 IIRC. Initially turned out that it had been set to RS485 mode, and I didn't have an adapter, and I didn't even know if it worked if I was able to get it into that mode. So with the help of a sympathetic engineer at SICK, he had me send to unit to them and he reset it (to RS232) and tested it. When I got it back, I tested it with the machine again and it worked perfectly. He didn't charge me anything for the service. You don't see that kind of support anymore - almost no company will say "yeah, sure, send us a unit you bought second-hand off Ebay to us and we'll take a look at it, fix it, etc - and no charge to you, either - even though you're just a hobbyist and have no support contract" - it shocked me.
bonzini 7y ago
There's also Win32s for writing 32-bit applications in Windows 3.1! It could be done because Windows 3.1 in 386 mode uses a 32-bit kernel that saw relatively few changes between 3.1 and 95. The main difference between 3.1 and 95 is that 3.1 uses a single 32-bit task for all of the GUI, but there is really a lot of 16-bit code in Windows 95 (unlike NT for example). /me feels an urge to read Unauthorized Windows 95 back to back.
bluedino 7y ago
If I had a month to do whatever I wanted, I've always wanted to 'go back in time' and try to write a Doom level editor for W 3.1

Windows 3.1 and 16 bit would be a little too painful for me. Windows 95 was quite nice with 32 bit and preemptive multitasking though. I kind of miss this or Windows 2000.

vardump 7y ago

NT4 was very nice, although no USB. Didn't crash and was smooth as butter.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
1996 7y ago
I find this history so super interesting. Have you kept a nt4? Do you still use it? What do you think is the closest equivalent: win200, reactos??
- vardump 7y ago
  No, I haven't used it since early 2000. Windows 2000 was the successor, also a good release. I guess both are pretty close to what NT4 was.
cr0sh 7y ago
Last time I "used" NT4 it was to set up a machine for a specific piece of software so I could test a SICK 2D LIDAR unit (one of the blue "coffee pot" units) I had purchased off Ebay; sometime around 2014/15 IIRC. Initially turned out that it had been set to RS485 mode, and I didn't have an adapter, and I didn't even know if it worked if I was able to get it into that mode. So with the help of a sympathetic engineer at SICK, he had me send to unit to them and he reset it (to RS232) and tested it. When I got it back, I tested it with the machine again and it worked perfectly. He didn't charge me anything for the service. You don't see that kind of support anymore - almost no company will say "yeah, sure, send us a unit you bought second-hand off Ebay to us and we'll take a look at it, fix it, etc - and no charge to you, either - even though you're just a hobbyist and have no support contract" - it shocked me.

bonzini 7y ago

There's also Win32s for writing 32-bit applications in Windows 3.1! It could be done because Windows 3.1 in 386 mode uses a 32-bit kernel that saw relatively few changes between 3.1 and 95. The main difference between 3.1 and 95 is that 3.1 uses a single 32-bit task for all of the GUI, but there is really a lot of 16-bit code in Windows 95 (unlike NT for example). /me feels an urge to read Unauthorized Windows 95 back to back.

bluedino 7y ago

If I had a month to do whatever I wanted, I've always wanted to 'go back in time' and try to write a Doom level editor for W 3.1