2 ms·
Windows NT 4.0 was tight in its time. (Despite the name, NT 4 was really version 2.0 of the NT operating system.) It had the new kernel that could compete with
by pavlov 4y ago
Windows NT 4.0 was tight in its time. (Despite the name, NT 4 was really version 2.0 of the NT operating system.)
It had the new kernel that could compete with (and even outperform) commercial Unix for workstation use, and also the new GUI from Windows 95 which meant it was both familiar and had an enormous range of apps easily available.
Not only was Windows NT 4 enormously better than DOS, but it was also objectively better as a total package than Mac OS 8, the Sun Solaris CDE desktop, and everything else. Open source Linux desktops were still very early.
Windows 2000 (a.k.a. NT 5) was still good and a much more practical desktop OS than the first Mac OS X which had absolutely horrendous performance. Somehow Microsoft managed to squander this lead by focusing on consumer Windows XP and their own endless .NET API turf wars that ended up destroying the credibility of the Windows platform.
- GeekyBear 4y ago> Not only was Windows NT 4 enormously better than DOS, but it was also objectively better as a total package than Mac OS 8, the Sun Solaris CDE desktop, and everything else. The issues were that Windows NT needed much more RAM than consumer Windows at a time when RAM was still extremely expensive, and only a subset of the hardware that would work under consumer versions of Windows had drivers for Windows NT. However, NT (and especially Windows 2000) was night and day better than Windows 9x.