spieler8 wrote on 2020-06-27, 20:30:

It's interesting how time changes perspective. Back in the day I hated Microsoft with passion, as the whole Windows 9x line was unstable and crashed so often, as well as their business practices. Nowaday I understand what they achieved, given that back in the industry everyone was playing with these shady business tacticts, and technically with that slow and crappy hardware and zoo of configurations.
There's btw a very interesting read on how NT was born; the book is called: Show Stopper!: The Breakneck Race to Create Windows NT ...

Never used Windows 95 or 98.

At the time of 95 launch I was already running NT (together with OS/2 and FreeBSD) for some years. Super stable, and worked extremely well for me. I did not want to go back to DOS based Windows, with it's stability problems. The same goes for MacOS (even less stable than DOS/Win, and with more memory allocation problems). Today I really like macOS (as based on FreeBSD/NextStep), and have several MacBook pros, but that old MacOS was really not great at all.

OS/2 was good, but not as stable as NT. It was quite innovative with it's WPS GUI, but it was also a cause for a lot of crashes and OS corruption (had to repair and fix a lot of corrupted .INI-files). FreeBSD was super stable and a very nice UNIX, but did not have the software library of all the normal commercial desktop packages I wanted to use (a little bit like it is for Linux users today).

For me Windows NT was really the best combination of stability and app echo system (even if not all applications was 32-bit, most where, and it also handled Win16 apps very well if 32-bit versions was not available).

martinot wrote on 2020-07-03, 13:57:

Never used Windows 95 or 98. […]
Show full quote

spieler8 wrote on 2020-06-27, 20:30:

It's interesting how time changes perspective. Back in the day I hated Microsoft with passion, as the whole Windows 9x line was unstable and crashed so often, as well as their business practices. Nowaday I understand what they achieved, given that back in the industry everyone was playing with these shady business tacticts, and technically with that slow and crappy hardware and zoo of configurations.
There's btw a very interesting read on how NT was born; the book is called: Show Stopper!: The Breakneck Race to Create Windows NT ...

Never used Windows 95 or 98.

At the time of 95 launch I was already running NT (together with OS/2 and FreeBSD) for some years. Super stable, and worked extremely well for me. I did not want to go back to DOS based Windows, with it's stability problems. The same goes for MacOS (even less stable than DOS/Win, and with more memory allocation problems). Today I really like macOS (as based on FreeBSD/NextStep), and have several MacBook pros, but that old MacOS was really not great at all.

OS/2 was good, but not as stable as NT. It was quite innovative with it's WPS GUI, but it was also a cause for a lot of crashes and OS corruption (had to repair and fix a lot of corrupted .INI-files). FreeBSD was super stable and a very nice UNIX, but did not have the software library of all the normal commercial desktop packages I wanted to use (a little bit like it is for Linux users today).

For me Windows NT was really the best combination of stability and app echo system (even if not all applications was 32-bit, most where, and it also handled Win16 apps very well if 32-bit versions was not available).

Interesting. I never home used NT but OS/2 Warp allowed me to (for the most part) skip Win95 as well, until mid-97 when I got into Quake(world)..

zPacKRat wrote on 2020-06-30, 15:28:

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2020-06-25, 23:11:

Well, i was in the computer education system where we had allot ot the latest tech and software. But back in the early 1990’s it […]
Show full quote

chinny22 wrote on 2020-06-24, 21:38:

I'm surprised how many people are saying their schools had a NT3 server. Did the education system get it cheap?
Would have thought peer to peer was good enough, Computer labs were pretty basic in those pre internet for everyone days

I know Microsoft made a deal with the Australian Education system, Not sure of the full details but know dad being a teacher got bring home a few volume licence CD's like Office and Windows and install it. That was very late 90's maybe early 2000's though.

Well, i was in the computer education system where we had allot ot the latest tech and software.
But back in the early 1990’s it was Microsoft vs Novell vs. UNIX systems.
Novell was King of the Networks and Servers because they where easy and cheap to own.
Novell netware and Groupwise and Novell Database all came for FREE with the purchase of Novell server.
You could setup a Novell Server on a 486 computer with 8mb ram and 20mb harddrive.
And Novell could network Apple computers too.
In fact Apple use to use Novell to network there computers prior to OS X with tcp/ip .

Novell was more robust than WinNT 3.5.1 server.

Microsoft only supported Microsoft software.

But Universities in Silicon Valley did not start offering student discounts on software until about Windows XP.
But prior to that you could subscribe to Microsoft technet and get access to lots of beta and demo software.

Unlike a Windows BSOD, a Netware server would abend, sometimes not being noticed for years as the core functions kept on working, printing, check, files, check. no problem here .

People seems to think that BSOD is something bad. It is not.

It is actually the total way around.

It is a protection mechanism when something has gone horribly wrong with some device drivers (most common fault) or bugs in the kernel part (very much less common). It is the same as you get a kernel panic in a UNIX like system, and it starts it's core dump analysis from the crashkernel memory. It is how BSOD works in NT based systems, and really how all good operating systems should protect and monitor the integrity of the kernel.

Novell at the time (not like with the good Linux base today) was, just like DOS and MacOS, not a real full operating system, and did not have that type of advanced/normal (depending on view) way of running applications and processes in a protected and well monitored environment. It was more like a simple (but more optimized) DOS system running one file/print share program on top of it.

Really like comparing Apples to oranges if you compare old Netware to real operating systems like NT and UNIX.

appiah4 wrote on 2020-07-03, 14:05:

martinot wrote on 2020-07-03, 13:57:

Never used Windows 95 or 98. […]
Show full quote

spieler8 wrote on 2020-06-27, 20:30:

It's interesting how time changes perspective. Back in the day I hated Microsoft with passion, as the whole Windows 9x line was unstable and crashed so often, as well as their business practices. Nowaday I understand what they achieved, given that back in the industry everyone was playing with these shady business tacticts, and technically with that slow and crappy hardware and zoo of configurations.
There's btw a very interesting read on how NT was born; the book is called: Show Stopper!: The Breakneck Race to Create Windows NT ...

Never used Windows 95 or 98.

At the time of 95 launch I was already running NT (together with OS/2 and FreeBSD) for some years. Super stable, and worked extremely well for me. I did not want to go back to DOS based Windows, with it's stability problems. The same goes for MacOS (even less stable than DOS/Win, and with more memory allocation problems). Today I really like macOS (as based on FreeBSD/NextStep), and have several MacBook pros, but that old MacOS was really not great at all.

OS/2 was good, but not as stable as NT. It was quite innovative with it's WPS GUI, but it was also a cause for a lot of crashes and OS corruption (had to repair and fix a lot of corrupted .INI-files). FreeBSD was super stable and a very nice UNIX, but did not have the software library of all the normal commercial desktop packages I wanted to use (a little bit like it is for Linux users today).

For me Windows NT was really the best combination of stability and app echo system (even if not all applications was 32-bit, most where, and it also handled Win16 apps very well if 32-bit versions was not available).

Interesting. I never home used NT but OS/2 Warp allowed me to (for the most part) skip Win95 as well, until mid-97 when I got into Quake(world)..

Can understand that. W95/98 was a very good improvement over DOS/Win3x, but it was never as stable as OS/2, and even less so compared to other systems like NT and UNIX (build from ground up to handle several applications in a stringent way).

martinot wrote on 2020-07-03, 14:10:

People seems to think that BSOD is something bad. It is not. […]
Show full quote

zPacKRat wrote on 2020-06-30, 15:28:

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2020-06-25, 23:11:

Well, i was in the computer education system where we had allot ot the latest tech and software. But back in the early 1990’s it […]
Show full quote

Well, i was in the computer education system where we had allot ot the latest tech and software.
But back in the early 1990’s it was Microsoft vs Novell vs. UNIX systems.
Novell was King of the Networks and Servers because they where easy and cheap to own.
Novell netware and Groupwise and Novell Database all came for FREE with the purchase of Novell server.
You could setup a Novell Server on a 486 computer with 8mb ram and 20mb harddrive.
And Novell could network Apple computers too.
In fact Apple use to use Novell to network there computers prior to OS X with tcp/ip .

Novell was more robust than WinNT 3.5.1 server.

Microsoft only supported Microsoft software.

But Universities in Silicon Valley did not start offering student discounts on software until about Windows XP.
But prior to that you could subscribe to Microsoft technet and get access to lots of beta and demo software.

Unlike a Windows BSOD, a Netware server would abend, sometimes not being noticed for years as the core functions kept on working, printing, check, files, check. no problem here .

People seems to think that BSOD is something bad. It is not.

It is actually the total way around.

It is a protection mechanism when something has gone horribly wrong with some device drivers (most common fault) or bugs in the kernel part (very much less common). It is the same as you get a kernel panic in a UNIX like system, and it starts it's core dump analysis from the crashkernel memory. It is how BSOD works in NT based systems, and really how all good operating systems should protect and monitor the integrity of the kernel.

Novell at the time (not like with the good Linux base today) was, just like DOS and MacOS, not a real full operating system, and did not have that type of advanced/normal (depending on view) way of running applications and processes in a protected and well monitored environment. It was more like a simple (but more optimized) DOS system running one file/print share program on top of it.

Really like comparing Apples to oranges if you compare old Netware to real operating systems like NT and UNIX.

As someone who has made a living the last 20+ years as a MS systems engineer, A BSOD can be a bad thing, especially when they could be difficult to recover from, the owner got the latest, greatest printer and want's it install now, BSOD. I'm not saying having a mechanism to protect the kernel isn't important. But the early days of NT and kernel mode drivers were a pain in the ass, as were memory leaks. Nothing like having scheduled reboots to maintain system stability. Most people with long term exposure to Client/Server environments know this part of Microsoft's history. Not until later service packs were NT4 and Windows Server 2000 to become truly stable server operating systems. Not to say the Microsoft didn't position themselves well to over take Novell eventually. Novell had a strong hold on early requirements that a lot of companies/schools didn't feel a need to move away from for a long time after NT was released. It's sad really when you think about it that they had to jump on the SUSE Linux platform to survive as long as they did, not being able to produce a modern, competitive OS platform themselves. Point is there is no denying the importance and relevance of Netware in the 80s/90s and how good it was at what it did. NW4 NDS and having read write replicas instead of a PDC/BDC topology. It's amazing how many old school admins cant remove that terminology from their vocabulary even today as they can't grasp the fact that with the exception of more recent intoduction of the ro dc for branches/dmz's, still use bdc in explaining additional dc's in a modern ad environment. And please don't use NT and UNIX in the same breath, in the days of NT UNIX was far more advanced and stable than any version of NT could hope to be.

I found this in PC Magazine.

Well I had a very good experience with Windows 98FE. Mind you I wasn't installing/uninstalling applications/game all the time run it for around 8 years quite happily until I was given an XP pro box. Didn't have to reinstall every year or constant BSODs either. Just one installation in that whole time.

martinot wrote on 2020-07-03, 14:10:

People seems to think that BSOD is something bad. It is not.

It is actually the total way around.

What a load of dooggy doos.

Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-07-04, 02:35:

Well I had a very good experience with Windows 98FE. Mind you I wasn't installing/uninstalling applications/game all the time run it for around 8 years quite happily until I was given an XP pro box. Didn't have to reinstall every year or constant BSODs either. Just one installation in that whole time.

I have only rebuilt my Win10 workstation once since release and that was my own fault, keep in mind this system has been on a FX8350, migrated to a 6700K and now a 3700x system with both ATI and Nvidia graphics cards. I've also had xp systems for almost as long. As long as it's not abused and maintained (defrag anyone?) it tends to hold up quite well. Also knowing your way around the registry and file system for the rare instance when an app does not clean up behind itself does help!

Only OS I remember never having to reinstall is Win2K..

zPacKRat wrote on 2020-07-03, 21:22:

As someone who has made a living the last 20+ years as a MS systems engineer,

Wow.

I am truly impressed.

zPacKRat wrote on 2020-07-03, 21:22:

A BSOD can be a bad thing, especially when they could be difficult to recover from, the owner got the latest, greatest printer and want's it install now, BSOD.

I am not saying that it's fun to have BSOD, but that the mechanism in itself is a positive thing. It's like an airbag in your car. I am not saying it's good to be in an accident, but it's good to have an airbag when needed.

It's a good and positive protection mechanism (in both cases).

pretty bad analogy for your position considering airbags deploy needlessly a large percentage of the time and cost a fortune to replace 🤣

maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-07-05, 18:30:

pretty bad analogy for your position considering airbags deploy needlessly a large percentage of the time and cost a fortune to replace 🤣

Well. That can be debated (I dot not agree at all, and think your totally wrong about it), but that debate would be quite off topic.

But if it really makes you happier, we can replace the analogy with an electrical fuse. It's not fun to blow fuses, but it's a good protection mechanism to have, to not propagate the problem of overloading the system (fire, melting cables, etc.).

Happier? 😀

sure the fuse is a much better analogy

I think by focusing on the protection mechanism you're missing the point entirely. None of these guys in the thread were saying there should not be a kernel panic protection, but simply that the frequency with which it was tripped on those platforms betrayed poor design

..

maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-07-05, 19:30:

sure the fuse is a much better analogy

I think by focusing on the protection mechanism you're missing the point entirely. None of these guys in the thread were saying there should not be a kernel panic protection, but simply that the frequency with which it was tripped on those platforms betrayed poor design

I think you have totally missed many of my points (even if at least you got that it's a good thing with the BSOD-functionality) ;

1. The reason for the protection trips are most often due to poor device drivers (and generally not the fault of the kernel developers).

2. NT 3.5 and 3.51 gave me extremely few BSOD's, and where generally extremely stable systems (even more so than NT4/2K).

3. W9x, even if they did not have good BSOD mechanisms, crashed a lot more, and was (comparatively) of poorer design and much more unstable.

I agree about NT 3.x, I also found it to be more stable than NT4. Mature 2k was the best of the family IMO.