4 ms·

Is there anything you can do with NT4 Server that you can't do with 2000 Server? (Other than run it on Alpha, MIPS or PowerPC.)

reconnecting 1y ago
NT 4 feels way stable comparing with 2000. Despite my own experience with Windows ends with XP, NT 4 was always my favourite version.
- simondotau 1y ago
  The main reason for preferring a newer version of Windows has generally been hardware compatibility. But when virtualising (or emulating), this is far less important as compatibility is usually scaffolded by emulated hardware and/or backported drivers. When your requirements call for an old version of Windows, generally you have a specific piece of software you want to run, so start by choosing the version most widely used at the time, which sometimes isn't the latest version. And you should always experiment, because there are thousands of things which contribute to stability. Newer (or older) version of Windows could be better or worse, depending on your specific case. Regardless which version you pick, treat them as a security risk and (if you're in a serious production environment) avoid giving them unrestricted access to your local network or unrestricted access to the wider internet.
  - reconnecting 1y ago
    NT 4.0 was way different from XP or 2000, and it wasn't just a matter of hardware support. It wasn't as "Plug and Play" as XP, but somehow it worked much more stably. I think back to the days when we had an NT server that ran for years without a reboot, and that's not something you could expect from XP or 2000. Actually, if I ever decide to dive into old Windows, NT 4.0 will be the only version I have personal sentiments for.
    - com2kid 1y ago
      2000 was rock solid stable once it was up and running. It took a lot of one off patches to get my k7 system to that point, but iirc I never had the os crash.
  - hulitu 1y ago
    > Newer (or older) version of Windows could be better or worse, depending on your specific case. This only applies since Windows 8 when Microsoft started bundling new features with patches. For older Windows versions, you usually want the latest service pack. Except, of course, when your programs depends on a specific bug being present.
    - simondotau 1y ago
      I was only referring to choosing between NT4, 2000, XP, etc. I've personally never come across any reason to avoid a service pack.
- accrual 1y ago
  I really like NT 4.0 as well. In my experience the stability varied based on hardware and driver support, though. I tried running NT 4.0 on a "relatively fast" K6-3+ system with GeForce 2 and AWE64 but had weird issues, like sound stuttering in games that the same hardware runs fine under Win98 and 2K. I had endless trouble getting it installed too, I ended up installing in 86Box then imaging onto the host. I could fairly easily get it to BSOD by doing multimedia type work on it. Really though, not a fault of NT 4.0 so much as I probably didn't have the ideal drivers or hardware combo. But on a fast 486 system, a bit older than NT 4.0 was really designed for, it ran flawlessly and made the dusty hardware feel very competent and modern - lots of common software runs fine on NT 4.0 including Winamp and specially compiled versions of modern PuTTY. It's probably my favorite OS for a DX4-100.
  - hypercube33 1y ago
    NT wasn't exactly made for games. If I'm not mistaken video drivers were always rough around the edges especially for opengl or directx. Half Life and Quake 2 always worked pretty flawless on it though.
    - Lammy 1y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41543425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41543425
AdrianB1 1y ago
Not really. I started using both around the time 2000 Server appeared and I preferred 2000 because it was easier to use on the hardware that I had, which was some Intel multiprocessor servers (made by Intel, not just the CPUs). The Active Directory of Windows 2000 was a pain point to support, but otherwise 2000 was "a better NT" for me. I don't remember the details, but I think the software compatibility was also better with 2000, I mean the software written for Win 98 and Win ME.

reconnecting 1y ago

NT 4 feels way stable comparing with 2000. Despite my own experience with Windows ends with XP, NT 4 was always my favourite version.

simondotau 1y ago
The main reason for preferring a newer version of Windows has generally been hardware compatibility. But when virtualising (or emulating), this is far less important as compatibility is usually scaffolded by emulated hardware and/or backported drivers. When your requirements call for an old version of Windows, generally you have a specific piece of software you want to run, so start by choosing the version most widely used at the time, which sometimes isn't the latest version. And you should always experiment, because there are thousands of things which contribute to stability. Newer (or older) version of Windows could be better or worse, depending on your specific case. Regardless which version you pick, treat them as a security risk and (if you're in a serious production environment) avoid giving them unrestricted access to your local network or unrestricted access to the wider internet.
- reconnecting 1y ago
  NT 4.0 was way different from XP or 2000, and it wasn't just a matter of hardware support. It wasn't as "Plug and Play" as XP, but somehow it worked much more stably. I think back to the days when we had an NT server that ran for years without a reboot, and that's not something you could expect from XP or 2000. Actually, if I ever decide to dive into old Windows, NT 4.0 will be the only version I have personal sentiments for.
  - com2kid 1y ago
    2000 was rock solid stable once it was up and running. It took a lot of one off patches to get my k7 system to that point, but iirc I never had the os crash.
- hulitu 1y ago
  > Newer (or older) version of Windows could be better or worse, depending on your specific case. This only applies since Windows 8 when Microsoft started bundling new features with patches. For older Windows versions, you usually want the latest service pack. Except, of course, when your programs depends on a specific bug being present.
  - simondotau 1y ago
    I was only referring to choosing between NT4, 2000, XP, etc. I've personally never come across any reason to avoid a service pack.
accrual 1y ago
I really like NT 4.0 as well. In my experience the stability varied based on hardware and driver support, though. I tried running NT 4.0 on a "relatively fast" K6-3+ system with GeForce 2 and AWE64 but had weird issues, like sound stuttering in games that the same hardware runs fine under Win98 and 2K. I had endless trouble getting it installed too, I ended up installing in 86Box then imaging onto the host. I could fairly easily get it to BSOD by doing multimedia type work on it. Really though, not a fault of NT 4.0 so much as I probably didn't have the ideal drivers or hardware combo. But on a fast 486 system, a bit older than NT 4.0 was really designed for, it ran flawlessly and made the dusty hardware feel very competent and modern - lots of common software runs fine on NT 4.0 including Winamp and specially compiled versions of modern PuTTY. It's probably my favorite OS for a DX4-100.
- hypercube33 1y ago
  NT wasn't exactly made for games. If I'm not mistaken video drivers were always rough around the edges especially for opengl or directx. Half Life and Quake 2 always worked pretty flawless on it though.
  - Lammy 1y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41543425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41543425

AdrianB1 1y ago

Not really. I started using both around the time 2000 Server appeared and I preferred 2000 because it was easier to use on the hardware that I had, which was some Intel multiprocessor servers (made by Intel, not just the CPUs). The Active Directory of Windows 2000 was a pain point to support, but otherwise 2000 was "a better NT" for me. I don't remember the details, but I think the software compatibility was also better with 2000, I mean the software written for Win 98 and Win ME.