"Lance Birch" <:-)Lan### [at] tpgicomau> wrote:

>Hi, I was wondering whether anyone here uses NT 4.0...  I've just bought 3D
>Studio MAX and I was wondering whether there is a huge speed and reliability
>increase.  I've heard that it is better than Windows 95 but that it's about
>the same as Windows 98 (except 98 doesn't have Multi-Processor threading).
>Does anyone here know about NT and 98?  This may not be the best place to
>ask but I couldn't really find anywhere else.  Thanks.

Lance - I have used NT 4 for about six months (P2/266, 128mb RAM) and there's
no way I would even remotely consider going back to Windows 95. With the type
of development and application use that I do, I would often see Win95 crash
several times a day. In the six months I've been running NT, it has crashed
perhaps five times. Occasionally (maybe once every few days) it gets into a
funny state and I'll choose to reboot it, but hard crashes are very unusual.

For applications like POVWIN (which is pure 32-bit code) NT will be faster than
95 since it doesn't have to deal with all the Win16 baggage that 95 does.

Post a reply to this message

I only see two possible reasons to use 95 or 98 over NT:

Either you have hardware that doesn't run in NT or you want to play all the
newest games. In the hardware department, NT is getting better and better
(more compatible drivers developed each day), but it is not very compatible
with many games.

For serious computing, NT goes *way* first!

If you can afford it, install double boot: NT for working with your
computer, W95 for playing :-)

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

It's nice if you can get it working - IRQ juggling was ... let's just say it
wasn't easy. : )

I can't really compare the speed of 95 and NT, as I've got a coupla
machines; a P2-266 with NT, a 166 with 95, a 120 with 95 and a 486/sx 33
laptop running Windows 3.1. Haven't ever put 95 on the P2-266, nor NT on the
other machines.

All I know is the Pentium II is FAST. :) :)

Also, the STOP's are a pain. Whenever an app crashes badly, NT generates a
STOP; just what it sounds like, a STOP halts the operating system and forces
you to restart.

Never used 98. [shrug]

-aardvarko

Lance Birch <:-)Lan### [at] tpgicomau> wrote in message
<6kv7mp$57a$1@oz.aussie.org>...
>Hi, I was wondering whether anyone here uses NT 4.0...  I've just bought 3D
>Studio MAX and I was wondering whether there is a huge speed and
reliability
>increase.  I've heard that it is better than Windows 95 but that it's about
>the same as Windows 98 (except 98 doesn't have Multi-Processor threading).
>Does anyone here know about NT and 98?  This may not be the best place to
>ask but I couldn't really find anywhere else.  Thanks.

Post a reply to this message

Johannes Hubert wrote:
> 
> I only see two possible reasons to use 95 or 98 over NT:
> 
> Either you have hardware that doesn't run in NT or you want to play all the
> newest games. In the hardware department, NT is getting better and better
> (more compatible drivers developed each day), but it is not very compatible
> with many games.
> 
> For serious computing, NT goes *way* first!
> 
> If you can afford it, install double boot: NT for working with your
> computer, W95 for playing :-)
> 
> Johannes.
How about the fact that it costs ~200 dollars, OEM.

Post a reply to this message

In article <6l1vlg$8oe$1@oz.aussie.org>,
	"aardvarko" <aar### [at] geocitiescom> writes:
>Also, the STOP's are a pain. Whenever an app crashes badly, NT generates a
>STOP; just what it sounds like, a STOP halts the operating system and forces
>you to restart.

Not the OS my friend, the _processor_ ;)

/Michael

Post a reply to this message

In article <357370fc.8075051@news.povray.org>,
	new### [at] DESPAMpovrayorg (povray.org admin team) writes:

>I would often see Win95 crash
>several times a day. In the six months I've been running NT, it has crashed
>perhaps five times. Occasionally (maybe once every few days) it gets into a
>funny state and I'll choose to reboot it, but hard crashes are very unusual.

You need to reboot Windows machines!? And they crash?!?!

/Michael, Unix-user, admirerer of long up-times ;)

Post a reply to this message

d93### [at] efdlthse (Michael Lundahl) wrote:

>In article <357370fc.8075051@news.povray.org>,
>	new### [at] DESPAMpovrayorg (povray.org admin team) writes:
>
>>I would often see Win95 crash
>>several times a day. In the six months I've been running NT, it has crashed
>>perhaps five times. Occasionally (maybe once every few days) it gets into a
>>funny state and I'll choose to reboot it, but hard crashes are very unusual.
>
>You need to reboot Windows machines!? And they crash?!?!

Unfortunately, yes .. with all Microsoft's efforts, they have yet to reach the
level of reliability of, say, the FreeBSD machine that runs this news server,
or kernels such as QNX or even [ugh] OS-9 (which is what I do a lot of work in
- uptimes of several years are not unknown).

Nevertheless, they are on their way ; the NT kernel design is very nice. In
general, when I get problems with NT, it's because one of the higher-level
components gets screwy (in particular, the GUI). Unlike Unix, where you can
just CTL-ALT-BKSP exit from and restart XFree86 if it goes ga-ga, with NT there
is no such option (though perhaps there should be).

Post a reply to this message

Andrew M <tot### [at] inamecom> wrote:

>How about the fact that it costs ~200 dollars, OEM.

I was going to mention that myself. This is the primary reason why I had to
choose not to make the new POVWIN rendering engine an NT-only service. Many of
our users simply can't afford the high cost of NT.

Post a reply to this message

>Also, the STOP's are a pain. Whenever an app crashes badly, NT generates a
>STOP; just what it sounds like, a STOP halts the operating system and forces
>you to restart.

An app (presuming it's a user-level app) cannot (to my knowledge) induce a stop
(i.e. bugcheck). Only a faulty kernel-mode component (i.e. ring 0) can do this.


This generally means a bug in a device driver. It is possible, of course, for
an app to induce a bugcheck (AKA BSOD, the 'Blue Screen Of Death') if it is
communicating with a device driver in such a way as to flush the bug out. Also,
some apps come with their own kernel-mode drivers (though this is uncommon).
However, the same principle applies there - the bug is in the device driver.

Post a reply to this message

Yes, but since NT 4.0 moved a lot of the GUI stuff into ring 0, there
are potentials for applications to do this.

There was the one where a 4-line Windows App could cause a BSOD 100% of
the time. Then the Internet Explorer/F00F bug combo was also a good
one...



povray.org admin team wrote:
> 
> >Also, the STOP's are a pain. Whenever an app crashes badly, NT generates a
> >STOP; just what it sounds like, a STOP halts the operating system and forces
> >you to restart.
> 
> An app (presuming it's a user-level app) cannot (to my knowledge) induce a stop
> (i.e. bugcheck). Only a faulty kernel-mode component (i.e. ring 0) can do this.
> 
> This generally means a bug in a device driver. It is possible, of course, for
> an app to induce a bugcheck (AKA BSOD, the 'Blue Screen Of Death') if it is
> communicating with a device driver in such a way as to flush the bug out. Also,
> some apps come with their own kernel-mode drivers (though this is uncommon).
> However, the same principle applies there - the bug is in the device driver.

Post a reply to this message