Jo22 wrote on 2024-07-02, 15:26:

appiah4 wrote on 2024-07-02, 14:46:

Does NT 4.0 support SMP?

Wikipedia says something about it. It needs SP6a, I guess. And thr rollup updates, maybe.

it says the updates improved SMP scalability, not that the updates were needed to get SMP working at all. that would be a strange choice considering that dual socket boards were already available when the OS launched.

the problem with SMP is that apparently some drivers explicitly don't support it and that games probably won't benefit from it at all unless you are doing some heavy multitasking.

The benefit for gaming was the same as with 2000. You could assign affinity to a seperate process and have all other processes churn away while being able to game without issues whereas with 9x it's all on the same cpu.

IIRC apart from DirectX being held back, NT4 had palette allocation issues and sound buffer issues (delayed sound). If you're fine with sticking to the usual id tech stuff, it's okay as their games officially support it (starting from Quakeworld and up through to Quake3). It wasn't until 2000 that other gamedevs took NT more seriously.

darry wrote on 2024-07-02, 16:45:

Jedi Knight 2 uses OpenGL for 3D acceleration, not Direct3D. While a Directx5 or 6 runtime might be required for it to run, it does not use Direct3D according to the below reference.

https://support.starwars.com/hc/en-us/article … II-Jedi-Outcast

Gotcha. Makes sense considering I've never had problems with OpenGL hardware acceleration in NT. My current workstation environment uses a Matrox Millennium II 8 MB, which isn't really a card known for it's 3D capabilities and is much suited for 2D. Stuff like audio/video editing works superb, where as AutoCAD/Blender performance is acceptable but not stellar.

However, back when I was running a Voodoo 3, I had a pretty good experience in Half Life on NT 4.0.

..I once had had a Gloria XL graphics card I got on the flea market.
It had an S3 ViRGE 325 as a VGA chip and an OpenGL 3D accelerator.
This card would have been fine for a dual boot scenario with Windows 9x and NT 4, I suppose.
The card had S3D/DirectX driver for Windows 95 and OpenGL drivers for NT..

I've been running Windows 2000 SP4 on a P100 Intel Endeavor 430fx board with 64MB ram and an SSD. It is as fast as Win98se on the same machine (games within 1-2fps). The SSD makes the biggest difference (with MWDMA-2) and general usage is snappy. The exact same config with an 80GB hard drive U use to use is pretty unresponsive.

I will try NT4 SP6 and compare but I'm surprisingly pleased with Win2k vs Win98 on this hardware.

DosFreak wrote on 2024-07-02, 17:36:

The benefit for gaming was the same as with 2000. You could assign affinity to a separate process and have all other processes churn away while being able to game without issues whereas with 9x it's all on the same cpu.

I've said that forever. Coincidentally; Action Retro was fooling around (as always) with a dual cpu upgrade card and accidently made teh biggest case ever for multi-cpu computers, even with single core programs. https://youtu.be/Y80LoN1sBs4?si=XEatWdCdB1zvUnkG&t=945

All that said, if you can wrangle NT4 into working, it will outlive the hardware its running on. If I were to make a Venn-Diagram of people who like NT4 and people that are into BDSM, it would be a fucking circle. *rimshot*

Riikcakirds wrote on 2024-07-02, 19:24:

I've been running Windows 2000 SP4 on a P100 Intel Endeavor 430fx board with 64MB ram and an SSD. It is as fast as Win98se on the same machine (games within 1-2fps). The SSD makes the biggest difference (with MWDMA-2) and general usage is snappy. The exact same config with an 80GB hard drive U use to use is pretty unresponsive.

I will try NT4 SP6 and compare but I'm surprisingly pleased with Win2k vs Win98 on this hardware.

That's very impressive for a Pentium 100, honestly. Like you said in your original post, I imagine the SSD probably makes the biggest difference. It's amazing how much they can help modernize an otherwise aging set of components.

Would NT 4 run smoother on that system? Maybe. Unlike 2000, a P100 is above the minimum specs for NT 4, and should, in theory, provide an even better overall desktop experience as the Windows 95-based shell NT 4 uses is generally more lightweight. Depending on what games you're playing, you may run into compatibility issues when compared to 2000. But if the game uses OpenGL or just standard Windows API calls, it very well may work even if not explicitly stated as supporting NT 4. This was the case for me with SimCity 2000 Special Edition. DirectX support is just hit and mass, as has been stated in this thread.

luckybob wrote on 2024-07-02, 19:55:

DosFreak wrote on 2024-07-02, 17:36:

The benefit for gaming was the same as with 2000. You could assign affinity to a separate process and have all other processes churn away while being able to game without issues whereas with 9x it's all on the same cpu.

I've said that forever. Coincidentally; Action Retro was fooling around (as always) with a dual cpu upgrade card and accidently made teh biggest case ever for multi-cpu computers, even with single core programs. https://youtu.be/Y80LoN1sBs4?si=XEatWdCdB1zvUnkG&t=945

All that said, if you can wrangle NT4 into working, it will outlive the hardware its running on. If I were to make a Venn-Diagram of people who like NT4 and people that are into BDSM, it would be a fucking circle. *rimshot*

Getting a multi-processing capable Socket 8 motherboard is one of my dream retro builds. I'd love to recreate a circa 1997 NT 4 high end workstation setup, complete with dual 200 Mhz Pentium Pros and maybe even a dual-CRT setup with two video cards. Impractical? Perhaps, but it'd be one hell of a set piece and I'd have a lot of fun with it. I can only imagine how blazing fast 3D CAD software would be - truly mouth watering to think about, at least for me.

I think LGR did a video very recently about NT4 and pentium pro.

OH BOY, was it entertaining to watch him fall into the pitfalls of NT4. Between drivers, and just general system quirks. Not because I want to watch him fail. quite the opposite, he was the first "retro" youtuber I followed back in the brown couch days. It was just watching someone LEARN something and come to the same conclusion i did a decade ago.

put more ram into it, and run Win 2000

darry wrote on 2024-07-02, 16:41:

Are you specifically referring to Direct3D hardware acceleration, which is what I was referring to ? […]
Show full quote

fosterwj03 wrote on 2024-07-02, 13:10:

3D acceleration works quite well depending on the GPU performance and driver quality. The entire Radeon 9000 series were officially supported as were the GeForce 6000-series.

Are you specifically referring to Direct3D hardware acceleration, which is what I was referring to ?

OpenGL hardware acceleration was supported officially, but AFAIK, Direct3D hardware acceleration was not supported in NT 4, at least not officially (EDIT: and AFAIK did not work unofficially either, unless I missed some developments in that front).

Are you saying that ATI and Nvidia not only had working Direct3D hardware accelerated drivers for NT 4 AND that functionality was officially supported by them ? If this is actually the case, I am missing some background/memories, because I have absolutely no recall of that being a thing.

EDIT: To clarify, I was wondering if someone actually ever got Direct3D hardware accelererated 3D rendering to work under NT 4 either with the help of that Directx5 runtime or with something else.

I was taking about both OpenGL and Direct3D, but to answer you follow up question, yes, NT does support Direct3D hardware acceleration as long as the hardware and drivers support it.

In the case of my GeForce 6800 GS, the drivers allow for both OpenGL and DirectX optimization options in the control panel applet similar to their Win9x counterparts.

As a practical example, Fraps shows triple digit framerates in Unreal Tournament in 1080p when I use either OpenGL or Direct3D rendering with the 6800 GS and NT4. I think OpenGL performs better, but I like the way Direct3D looks better.

Yes, ATI and Nvidia had official drivers for NT4 for those cards.

I gamed on my NT4 system back in the late 90s. It was definately a thing 😀

fosterwj03 wrote on 2024-07-02, 21:14:

I gamed on my NT4 system back in the late 90s. It was definately a thing 😀

My school computer lab ran on late pentium 1 machines running NT4. I had no end of fun playing hours and hours of Starcraft. ^.^ Those machines always worked. The win 98 ones were always a gamble on working right.

One of my plans with it is trying ZDoom, and maybe hosting some LAN parties. I know the source port was originally made on NT, so I imagine it would work very well given how well Quake performs.

luckybob wrote on 2024-07-02, 21:48:

The win 98 ones were always a gamble on working right.

My dad would always warn me of the stability problems with DOS-based Windows. I had the impression it was greatly exaggerated, and could be alleviated as long as you had the right hardware.

It certainly helps to have powerful hardware, but 9x being inherently unstable was the conclusion I eventually came to throughout my own testing. I'm sure that's something you all already figured out many, many years ago. That being said, my always told me it was perfectly fine as long as you frequently rebooted and were careful about how many things you were running at once.

luckybob wrote on 2024-07-02, 21:48:

fosterwj03 wrote on 2024-07-02, 21:14:

I gamed on my NT4 system back in the late 90s. It was definately a thing 😀

My school computer lab ran on late pentium 1 machines running NT4. I had no end of fun playing hours and hours of Starcraft. ^.^ Those machines always worked. The win 98 ones were always a gamble on working right.

Same here. I guess it were P90 machines.
We had no Win98 machines.
And we were an IT high school (grade 9 to 13) with own /22 in the 90s.
https://www.htl-leonding.at

fosterwj03 wrote on 2024-07-02, 21:00:

I was taking about both OpenGL and Direct3D, but to answer you follow up question, yes, NT does support Direct3D hardware accele […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2024-07-02, 16:41:

Are you specifically referring to Direct3D hardware acceleration, which is what I was referring to ? […]
Show full quote

fosterwj03 wrote on 2024-07-02, 13:10:

3D acceleration works quite well depending on the GPU performance and driver quality. The entire Radeon 9000 series were officially supported as were the GeForce 6000-series.

Are you specifically referring to Direct3D hardware acceleration, which is what I was referring to ?

OpenGL hardware acceleration was supported officially, but AFAIK, Direct3D hardware acceleration was not supported in NT 4, at least not officially (EDIT: and AFAIK did not work unofficially either, unless I missed some developments in that front).

Are you saying that ATI and Nvidia not only had working Direct3D hardware accelerated drivers for NT 4 AND that functionality was officially supported by them ? If this is actually the case, I am missing some background/memories, because I have absolutely no recall of that being a thing.

EDIT: To clarify, I was wondering if someone actually ever got Direct3D hardware accelererated 3D rendering to work under NT 4 either with the help of that Directx5 runtime or with something else.

I was taking about both OpenGL and Direct3D, but to answer you follow up question, yes, NT does support Direct3D hardware acceleration as long as the hardware and drivers support it.

In the case of my GeForce 6800 GS, the drivers allow for both OpenGL and DirectX optimization options in the control panel applet similar to their Win9x counterparts.

As a practical example, Fraps shows triple digit framerates in Unreal Tournament in 1080p when I use either OpenGL or Direct3D rendering with the 6800 GS and NT4. I think OpenGL performs better, but I like the way Direct3D looks better.

Yes, ATI and Nvidia had official drivers for NT4 for those cards.

I know ATI and NVidia had official drivers for NT4 and that they supported hardware acceleration through OpenGL, I just cannot find any reference to hardware accelerated Direct3D working let alone being supported in NT4. In fact, every remaining (harder to find these days) Microsoft doc, including the Windows NT 4 DDK docs mentions Direct3D as not being supported or working.

Do you currently have a Windows NT 4 system running where Direct3D acceleration works ? If so, what did you you do to get it working (please share info about hardware/software versions used) ?

At the time of the Windows 2000 launch, support for hardware accelerated Direct3D was touted as a new feature for an NT based operating system.

EDIT: info about the driver model supported and used in Windows 2000 and later https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-har … isplay/direct3d

Here's a link to the Nvidia driver release note for the version I use with NT 4 (Version 77.72):

https://download.nvidia.com/Windows/77.77/77. … lease_Notes.pdf

It doesn't mention anything about specific supported capabilities within NT 4.0 (only that it's a supported operating system). I can assure you that it does accelerate DX3D regardless. If I have a quick minute, I'll see what the specific Unreal Tournament framerate is using the DX3D renderer.

I didn't do anything particularly special. I first install Windows NT (with SP6 slipstreamed into the install CD). I next reinstall SP6 followed by IE 6.0. I then upgrade DX3 to DX5 using the unofficial DX5 files for NT4. Finally, I install the GeForce driver (I did modify the driver's .INI file for my specific GF 6800 GS's PCI ID). That's it.

I might stand corrected. I tried Unreal Tournament just now, and it only runs in a window when I select Direct3D to render the game. I wonder if that means it isn't really running in Direct3D mode at all and is reverting back to software rendering. Very interesting...

(Sees the NT4 naysaying.)

(Frowns.)

While it is true that NT4 is not plug and play aware (and requires you to have a bios that can allocate resources/init cards for you), and needs old crusty drivers, it is a VERY lightweight version of windows.
With the DX5 pack installed, quite a few early 9x games install and run fine.

Most of the complaints about NT4 are about it being "Different" from more modern Plug&Play experiences on say, win9x and win2k. It's important to remember that NT4 predates those OSes, and so such mental models need to be discarded as anachronisms. You wont find a 5 speed transmission on a Model T.

As a general rule, NT4 "Feels Like" Win95A, up until you want to install drivers. Then it "Feels like NT3.5"

If you need DX6 or newer, then yes, go ahead and bite the much higher RAM and CPU needs for win2k. Very solid performer in that era.