Windows 98SE had the ability to recognize the actual path if you had opened the Explorer window.
If you then launched a command prompt window, the path of the top window was being used. Very useful.

Windows NT, by comparison, was years behind in terms of user friendliness.
Its whole command prompt was stuck on the level of NT 3.1 and MS-DOS 5.

OS/2 Warp also hadn't exactly the right to write home about it, but its command prompt was better at early stage already (due to Family API, its roots as a super DOS etc).
There were sophisticated text-adventure games being written entirely in OS/2 batch language. And that was before REXX even.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2025-04-03, 00:53:

The cooler looking disk defrag tool in Win98.

Yes! I liked to see the pieces being arranged as if the computer was playing Tower of Hanoi, although who knows how representative it was of reality. Was it just something thrown up on screen to placate users like one of those file transfers that starts out saying it'll take 1 day and 3 hours?

outside of DOS and other than nostalgia/familiarity characteristics nothing really. I'm thinking NT4 and W2k though, not earlier NT or later. When XP was for home and professional use that was it.

I was going to say that a clean 9x start up was fast - but we all know that a few install/uninstalls later and it slowed down 😀

ALT+Enter to full-screen a command prompt window.
Running 16-bit programs.

Nothing

Only miss explorer without ie integration, but this is possible on NT4 then i dont miss anything from 9x

I like the fact that drivers and DirectX can be installed without rebooting the system – one just needs to switch to DOS mode, then go back.

Cyberdyne wrote on 2025-04-03, 08:29:

Windows NT 4. Great OS. Many service packs. Best icons and startup sound. But why no PnP.

It was called Plug 'n' Pray for a reason.

- Plug and Play. Windows 9x, as unstable as it is in general, makes device installation easier than NT4.
- better DirectX support.

Windows 2000 fixed both as is vastly superior to NT4.

From NT 4.0 i miss Direct3D and DirectSound multimedia features that Win95/98/ME had.

Azarien wrote on 2025-04-04, 15:49:

- Plug and Play. Windows 9x, as unstable as it is in general, makes device installation easier than NT4.

Device installation isn't particularly difficult on Windows NT 4.0. Want to install a display driver? Go to Display in the Control Panel. For network drivers, go to Network. That's exactly what I do on Windows 9x.

Windows 2000 fixed both as is vastly superior to NT4.

Especially since it can run the NT 4 shell. Tweak the icons as well and you have a glorious computing experience.

Windows 95 was built for the 486dx-33 CPU computer with 8mb of RAM which was Still Very popular back in 1995
From my experience Win95 is the Best Microsoft OS for the 486 computer
But Win95 I.E. Web browser Chokes and Crashes the computer when trying to open large files.

Not Sure about WinNT 4.0 but it was highly used back in 1990’s.
And the most popular.

WinNT 4.0 had allot of Application and Program support.
Hardware wise it mainly supported specific major name brand hardware foe workstations and servers.
Ensuring Reliability and Uptime.
Back in 1990’s we did just about everything on the WinNT 4.0 workstation and Servers.

Win95 was a Desktop Operating system for Home computers mainly.
Most businesses used WinNT 4.0

Azarien wrote on 2025-04-04, 15:49:

- Plug and Play. Windows 9x, as unstable as it is in general, makes device installation easier than NT4.
- better DirectX support.

Windows 2000 fixed both as is vastly superior to NT4.

Hi! The funny thing for me about this here is..
a) that I got my own boxed copy of NT 4 in ~2000, when 98SE was current OS
b) that I also compared NT 4 with 98SE at the time and was both amazed and disappointed by NT 4
c) that Windows 98SE had an miniature NT kernel (ntkern.vxd) in order to support WDM drivers
d) that Windows NT 4 still was being receiving updates (SPs) at the time of 98SE release
and it was technically possible for MS to port back 95C GUI or 98 GUI to NT 4

Edit: Is it just me or do you also think that OS/2 Warp 4 and NT 4 are like siblings of some sort?
I've tinkered with OS/2 2.11, Warp 3 and 4 back then and especially Warp 4 seemed like a twin brother to NT 4..
It has things like DIVE (DDraw counterpart) and OpenGL that are on par with NT 4.
Networking is important to both platforms. Both came out in '96, too.

AlaricD wrote on 2025-04-04, 14:47:

ALT+Enter to full-screen a command prompt window.

Alt+Enter also worked on old NT versions, and still works on modern ones.

Yes, it got broken in Vista or thereabouts, but later got fixed.
Full-screen mode no longer uses hardware text mode, but it doesn't really matter - on modern machines graphics is fast enough.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-04-04, 20:09:

Edit: Is it just me or do you also think that OS/2 Warp 4 and NT 4 are like siblings of some sort?

NT in general is pretty similar to OS/2.
After all, NT was originally designed as yet another version of OS/2.

16-bit OS/2 executables
CMD.EXE
HPFS, with NTFS using the same partition type ID in the MBR
Windows-on-Windows similar to Win-OS/2, both equally unable to run Win16 apps that install their own VXDs

Really, NT so often felt like a fork of OS/2...

Grzyb wrote on 2025-04-04, 22:22:

Alt+Enter also worked on old NT versions, and still works on modern ones. […]
Show full quote

AlaricD wrote on 2025-04-04, 14:47:

ALT+Enter to full-screen a command prompt window.

Alt+Enter also worked on old NT versions, and still works on modern ones.

Yes, it got broken in Vista or thereabouts, but later got fixed.
Full-screen mode no longer uses hardware text mode, but it doesn't really matter - on modern machines graphics is fast enough.

didn't fullscreen work when XPDM drivers were used or am I confusing something?

BEEN_Nath_58 wrote on 2025-04-04, 23:13:

didn't fullscreen work when XPDM drivers were used or am I confusing something?

I guess you're right - I vaguely recall that in default setup it complained something about the display driver not supporting full-screen mode.

It would be logical that replacing the driver would help - but I never bothered...

I liked that NT4 still used full screen text mode for its "splash" screen/bootup. It made it feel like an OS for serious, technical users. 2000 was OK (I always noticed the flicker from the low refresh rate of the splash screen on the then-common 19" CRTs), and XP is when it really went downhill with the dumbing down. "Hide shortcut keys until you press Alt"... why, because a young user (like me on Win3.x) might see them and learn something? sigh.

jakethompson1 wrote on 2025-04-04, 23:37:

I liked that NT4 still used full screen text mode for its "splash" screen/bootup. It made it feel like an OS for serious, technical users. 2000 was OK (I always noticed the flicker from the low refresh rate of the splash screen on the then-common 19" CRTs), and XP is when it really went downhill with the dumbing down. "Hide shortcut keys until you press Alt"... why, because a young user (like me on Win3.x) might see them and learn something? sigh.

Yes i really miss NT4 text mode boot, 400line mode, the dots while loading... amazing

im still using XP and this and not.ie explorer are my only miss from NT4

Last time I messed with Win9x, probably 98SE, I noticed it remembered position of DOS window. That was a nice touch. Even though this is no longer case, console windows are an atrocity in other aspects pre-Win10 IMHO.

Also, remember when Windows came with nice help system? Look what happens now if you press F1 while in Explorer.

UCyborg wrote on 2025-04-06, 20:48:

Also, remember when Windows came with nice help system? Look what happens now if you press F1 while in Explorer.

Young MS developer to manager: "but you said it needed 'online help'; I don't understand the issue?"

UCyborg wrote on 2025-04-06, 20:48:

Last time I messed with Win9x, probably 98SE, I noticed it remembered position of DOS window. That was a nice touch. Even though this is no longer case, console windows are an atrocity in other aspects pre-Win10 IMHO.

Cant understand this, windows NT,200,XP always remember cmd positions just need to do by hand