4 ms·

I guess the average consumer was on Windows 95 or 98, though, right?

by mig39 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hedgehog 4y ago
I ran NT4 on my laptop in the late 90s and remember it was somewhat unusual. A little clunky, my memory is some common things like changing screen resolution required a reboot, but it was more reliable and responsive overall. Most people stuck with the 95/98/Me progression due to cost (2000 wanted more memory than Me and partially for that reason Me was default preload on most PCs).
- hoistbypetard 4y ago
  I ran NT4 on my Thinkpad briefly around 98 or 99... it sucked. Power management didn't work at all. USB didn't work at all. The video driver was awful. The built-in ethernet didn't work; you had to use a PCMCIA card to get networking at all. Essentially, it turned the laptop into an under-powered desktop with a built-in UPS and slow video. These things were generally better by the time 2000 came around... but NT4 was never any good on my laptop. (And at the bank where I worked when I graduated in 1999, it was terrible on those as well. The senior managers' laptops were the only systems in the bank allowed to use 98.)
  - lproven 4y ago
    NT 4 was rubbish for laptops. But it was a state-of-the-art OS for desktops in 1996. Laptops were not so crucial then. Few people used a laptop as their primary computer; they were an adjunct to a _real_ computer, suitable for emergency working on the move, but with poor CPU, slow disks, poor graphics, etc. The default computer for business until ½ decade or so into the 21st century was a desktop PC, and for them, from 1993 onwards, NT was unrivalled. And I speak as someone who spent their own money on OS/2 2.0. I've been working in the industry since the 1980s, which means I never spent my own cash on software. (I'm not a gamer.) I've been using FOSS for 25+ years now, but OS/2 2.0 was worth the money.
    - hoistbypetard 4y ago
      > NT 4 was rubbish for laptops. But it was a state-of-the-art OS for desktops in 1996. That matches my recollection. I was working in a shop that used NT 4 on 15000+ desktops. (I do recall SP3 or SP4 causing a ton of drama on those.) We were never able to get it to run acceptably on a laptop. I never used OS/2 2.0 in anger. I did run Warp 4 on a few systems and recall preferring it over NT 4. It was also only suitable for desktops, though.
GeekyBear 4y ago
Indeed. Back in the days when RAM was hideously expensive, Windows NT needed too much RAM for the home PCs of the era. Also, Windows 9x had plug and play and the NT family did not. Most home users didn't switch over to the NT family until Windows XP.
icedchai 4y ago
Probably! I was in college at the time. All the fellow nerds either ran Linux or NT.

I guess the average consumer was on Windows 95 or 98, though, right?

by mig39 4y ago

I guess the average consumer was on Windows 95 or 98, though, right?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hedgehog 4y ago

I ran NT4 on my laptop in the late 90s and remember it was somewhat unusual. A little clunky, my memory is some common things like changing screen resolution required a reboot, but it was more reliable and responsive overall. Most people stuck with the 95/98/Me progression due to cost (2000 wanted more memory than Me and partially for that reason Me was default preload on most PCs).

hoistbypetard 4y ago
I ran NT4 on my Thinkpad briefly around 98 or 99... it sucked. Power management didn't work at all. USB didn't work at all. The video driver was awful. The built-in ethernet didn't work; you had to use a PCMCIA card to get networking at all. Essentially, it turned the laptop into an under-powered desktop with a built-in UPS and slow video. These things were generally better by the time 2000 came around... but NT4 was never any good on my laptop. (And at the bank where I worked when I graduated in 1999, it was terrible on those as well. The senior managers' laptops were the only systems in the bank allowed to use 98.)
- lproven 4y ago
  NT 4 was rubbish for laptops. But it was a state-of-the-art OS for desktops in 1996. Laptops were not so crucial then. Few people used a laptop as their primary computer; they were an adjunct to a _real_ computer, suitable for emergency working on the move, but with poor CPU, slow disks, poor graphics, etc. The default computer for business until ½ decade or so into the 21st century was a desktop PC, and for them, from 1993 onwards, NT was unrivalled. And I speak as someone who spent their own money on OS/2 2.0. I've been working in the industry since the 1980s, which means I never spent my own cash on software. (I'm not a gamer.) I've been using FOSS for 25+ years now, but OS/2 2.0 was worth the money.
  - hoistbypetard 4y ago
    > NT 4 was rubbish for laptops. But it was a state-of-the-art OS for desktops in 1996. That matches my recollection. I was working in a shop that used NT 4 on 15000+ desktops. (I do recall SP3 or SP4 causing a ton of drama on those.) We were never able to get it to run acceptably on a laptop. I never used OS/2 2.0 in anger. I did run Warp 4 on a few systems and recall preferring it over NT 4. It was also only suitable for desktops, though.

GeekyBear 4y ago

Indeed. Back in the days when RAM was hideously expensive, Windows NT needed too much RAM for the home PCs of the era. Also, Windows 9x had plug and play and the NT family did not. Most home users didn't switch over to the NT family until Windows XP.

icedchai 4y ago

Probably! I was in college at the time. All the fellow nerds either ran Linux or NT.