 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I just tried installing Windows NT 4.0 Workstation under VMware. Wow,
that was an experience.
I've installed this damned thing so many times during the course of
working here that my fingers actually remember the license key. I can
almost install it on autopilot.
The really amazing thing is... Jesus it's fast! O_O
Seriously, back when I was regularly having to install this, our
standard PC consisted of a Gigabyte GA-5AX motherboard with an AMD K6-II
at 500 MHz, 128 MB RAM, an S3 Trio3D/2X graphics card, and an SMC 1211TX
network card. (Yes, I can actually remember all of that off the top of
my head. I set them up enough times. Note also the complete lack of a
sound card!)
On such a system (some of which lacked a CD-ROM drive to keep costs
down), setting up Windows NT was at least a one-day operation. Just
waiting for the text-mode portion of the OS install to finish would
typically take 20 to 30 minutes. Formatting the HD would take forever
too. But, under VMware, the text-mode portion lasted less than 120
*seconds*. 8-O Now that's what I call fast!
For those of you who haven't had the misfortune of trying to install
Windows NT, allow me to elaborate:
- Boot the CD. Windows XP gives you the little "press any key to boot
this CD or wait X seconds to boot normally", but NT just boots into the
installer, weather you meant to or not.
- You get that classy blue VGA text-mode display while setup "inspects"
your PC. This usually takes about 40 seconds, but under VMware takes
more like 4 seconds.
- Multiple warnings tell you that no OS is detected and if there *is* in
fact an OS, the installer isn't seeing it and so will probably destroy
it. (Remember that Windows NT can be installed on the same FAT partition
as Windows 95 or 98 for a dual-boot configuration.)
- Accept the license agreement. (You must repeatedly press PGDW to get
to the bottom before you can press F8 to accept.)
- Tell it what partition. Note that since you're installing Windows SP0,
it doesn't "know" about harddrives larger than 4GB. (Yes, if you
remember, the BIOS calls hadn't been invented yet back then. HDs
routinely had a "cap disable" jumper to turn off the extra capacity for
software that couldn't handle it too.) If you have a HD larger than 4GB,
it will be detected as exactly 4GB.
- Specify whether you want to format with FAT or the (then-new) NTFS
filesystem. Note that even if you select NTFS, the partition is still
formatted with FAT.
- Wait for all the files to be copied onto the HD. Usually this takes
several lifetimes (i.e., about 30 minutes), but VMware (using an ISO
image on HD rather than a physical CD) managed it in under 2 seconds.
- Remove the CD, reboot. (If you don't remove the CD, the installer will
start again!)
- The Windows NT boot screen appears. If you selected to format with
NTFS, then Windows will now convert the existing FAT partition with all
your files on it to NTFS like you actually asked for. (WTF?) Presumably
because the text-mode installer doesn't grok NTFS yet or something...
- Once the filesystem has been converted to NTFS, the system reboots
again. Next time it boots, a message states that "the filesystem is
already NTFS", and the GUI installer portion [eventually] begins.
- Now you have to put the install CD back in, and another bunch of files
are copied off it.
- Next you have to type in the license key. Then the installer attempts
to detect the network card. Assuming your network card is older than 20
years, this works, otherwise Windows will claim no card exists. If you
want to install a driver, you need to have a floppy disk with the driver
on it. (NT4 does not support Plug & Play yet.) Amazingly, whatever card
VMware uses *is* detected and used. (Although you still have to press
lots of buttons to make it happen.)
- Now more things install, which again usually takes hours but VMware
makes it near instant. Finally, remove the CD and reboot for the final time.
- Windows is now installed. Bask in its glorious 16-colour 640x480
graphical majesty. (At least, until you manually install the correct
video driver by opening the graphics properties window, selecting
"install driver" and "have disk" and manually navigating to where the
INI file is stored...)
- Now update Windows, preferably to the latest available version:
Service Pack 6a. This is avilable in both "export" and "high encryption"
versions, due to the old US export laws that forced Microsoft to export
various software with only 40-bit encryption.
- Once Windows has rebooted (the boot screen helpfully tells you the SP
level), Windows can now access the full capacity of the harddrive. (But
now it's too late to resize any partitions you may already have...)
- Oh wow, Internet Explorer 1.0. Black text on a grey background. Cheesy
Windows 3 style buttons. Yuck! Time to update that. The latest version
you can update it to, AFAIK, is version 6 SP1. (This obviously requires
*another* reboot...)
At this point, Windows still won't come out of 16-colour mode. Not until
I figure out what video card VMware is emulating and then find some
Windows NT drivers for it - assuming that any were ever written... Isn't
all this fun? :-}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I just tried installing Windows NT 4.0 Workstation under VMware. Wow,
> that was an experience.
>
> I've installed this damned thing so many times during the course of
> working here that my fingers actually remember the license key. I can
> almost install it on autopilot.
>
> The really amazing thing is... Jesus it's fast! O_O
Not only is installing it fast, but running it too. I've taken a dozen
snapshots or so, and it takes less than 1 GB of space to store them all.
The OS boots up in under 40 seconds. Everything within it is
trippy-fast. Just a pitty that it's an old dinosaur system with almost
no useful function! :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, how quaint. I'd forgotten about that. Yes, if you select "shut down
my PC", it sits there for a few minutes saying "writing unsaved changes
to disk" (despite there being no CPU or HD activity). And then it pops
up a message saying "it is now safe to turn off your PC".
Yes, that's right, you have to manually turn the power off. The OS
doesn't do this automatically. It predates the time when it was
physically possible to turn off the PC in software.
Now, if you look up the appropriate Microsoft KB article, it tells you
how to replace HAL.DLL with a patched version, and then edit a registry
key to enable an extra option in the shutdown dialog that says "shut
down and power off", which really *does* power off your PC. (Unless it
lacks that feature, in which case you get a Blue Screen Of Death when
you try it. I have seen this happen once or twice...)
Indeed, many years ago I actually scripted this whole operation -
replacing HAL.DLL, setting the registry key, etc. Back when I actually
gave a damn. Ah, the memories... Jesus, I've been working here FAR too
long! o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 31.03.2010 16:13, schrieb Invisible:
> For those of you who haven't had the misfortune of trying to install
> Windows NT, allow me to elaborate:
Sounds more like, *Vade* retro! :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> At this point, Windows still won't come out of 16-colour mode. Not until
> I figure out what video card VMware is emulating and then find some
> Windows NT drivers for it - assuming that any were ever written... Isn't
> all this fun? :-}
Oh... oh my god... VMware Tools *actually works* with Windows NT! o_O
Now there's something I totally didn't expect!
Then again, it's a virtualisation solution. I guess there are probably
people out there using VMs to run ancient OSes like NT4 because they
have stuff that needs it. (Hell, that's why *I* am installing it!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> I just tried installing Windows NT 4.0 Workstation under VMware.
As a great lyricist once wrote, "you suffer, but why?"
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> As a great lyricist once wrote, "you suffer, but why?"
Which lyricist would that be?
Anyway, we have an ancient pile-of-crap application that doesn't work
under Windows XP, only Windows NT. (This is probably related to the fact
that it replaces SERIAL.SYS with a custom-patched version, which likely
fails completely under Windows XP.) Putting the stupid thing in a VM is
a nice, easy way to fix the problem.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> - Boot the CD. Windows XP gives you the little "press any key to boot
> this CD or wait X seconds to boot normally", but NT just boots into the
> installer, weather you meant to or not.
All the Windows installers will boot directly into the CD if there's no
bootable OS installed already.
> - Multiple warnings tell you that no OS is detected and if there *is* in
> fact an OS, the installer isn't seeing it and so will probably destroy
> it.
As opposed to Solaris x86, where even after you spend half an hour clearing
out enough room to make a partition for it, it blows away every other OS
installed without asking. :-)
> - Accept the license agreement. (You must repeatedly press PGDW to get
> to the bottom before you can press F8 to accept.)
I always liked that one.
> - The Windows NT boot screen appears. If you selected to format with
> NTFS, then Windows will now convert the existing FAT partition with all
> your files on it to NTFS like you actually asked for. (WTF?) Presumably
> because the text-mode installer doesn't grok NTFS yet or something...
Yes. Plus, apparently many people were upgrading earlier versions of Windows
anyway.
> - Now update Windows, preferably to the latest available version:
> Service Pack 6a. This is avilable in both "export" and "high encryption"
> versions, due to the old US export laws that forced Microsoft to export
> various software with only 40-bit encryption.
Ah yes. Service pack 6a, which is service pack 6 with the patent license
violating code removed. :-)
> Isn't all this fun? :-}
Is it more fun than trying to get MS products working where the only client
you have is beta-5 (and beta-5.2 is known not to work with your hardware)
and the only server you have is the one MS just came out with 2 months ago,
but which only runs on Server2003 which they stopped selling several years ago?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> - Boot the CD. Windows XP gives you the little "press any key to boot
>> this CD or wait X seconds to boot normally", but NT just boots into
>> the installer, weather you meant to or not.
>
> All the Windows installers will boot directly into the CD if there's no
> bootable OS installed already.
Ah yes, that's a subtle point. Windows XP *checks* to see if an OS is
present. If not, it boots the CD. If there is an OS already present, it
requires you to press a key to boot the CD.
Windows NT, on the other hand, just boots the CD, no matter what.
>> - Accept the license agreement. (You must repeatedly press PGDW to get
>> to the bottom before you can press F8 to accept.)
>
> I always liked that one.
Yep. Again fixed in XP. There you can press F8 immediately, without
needing to scroll down first. (I guess the idea was for "force" you to
read it - yeah, like that works!)
>> - The Windows NT boot screen appears. If you selected to format with
>> NTFS, then Windows will now convert the existing FAT partition with
>> all your files on it to NTFS like you actually asked for. (WTF?)
>> Presumably because the text-mode installer doesn't grok NTFS yet or
>> something...
>
> Yes. Plus, apparently many people were upgrading earlier versions of
> Windows anyway.
When I joined, we had lots of 98/NT machines. Each with a FAT partition
and two folders, C:\WINDOWS for 98, C:\WINNT for NT. ;-)
> Ah yes. Service pack 6a, which is service pack 6 with the patent license
> violating code removed. :-)
Is that the only difference?? o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4bb35e6a$1@news.povray.org...
> Am 31.03.2010 16:13, schrieb Invisible:
>
>> For those of you who haven't had the misfortune of trying to install
>> Windows NT, allow me to elaborate:
>
> Sounds more like, *Vade* retro! :-P
ROTFL! I knew there were evil powers at work in some OS!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Yep. Again fixed in XP. There you can press F8 immediately, without
> needing to scroll down first. (I guess the idea was for "force" you to
> read it - yeah, like that works!)
It does, in a legal sense. If they can prove you were required to scroll
thru the whole thing and then said "yes, I agree", they have a much stronger
position than someone who said "Oh, look, press F8 to continue" and pushed it.
People have lost lawsuits like that because the agreement you were agreeing
to was on a different web page linked from the one with the agree button,
and even if the agreement was on the same page but needed scrolling in the
default browser setup.
Blame the lawyers.
I guess by the time 2000 rolled around, the courts had gotten their act
together on clickware agreements.
>> Ah yes. Service pack 6a, which is service pack 6 with the patent
>> license violating code removed. :-)
>
> Is that the only difference?? o_O
AFAIK, yes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Yep. Again fixed in XP. There you can press F8 immediately, without
>> needing to scroll down first. (I guess the idea was for "force" you to
>> read it - yeah, like that works!)
>
> It does, in a legal sense. Blame the lawyers.
I still think the entire concept of a layman actually being able
comprehend twenty five pages of dense legalese and click "I agree"
actually having any clue what they just agreed to is absurd. But this is
not unique to computing; how many times have you signed some piece of
paper shoved at you? Do you actually spend two hours pouring over the
details? Or do you just sign it? Typically the salesman gets very
agressive if you attempt to read it before signing it.
>>> Ah yes. Service pack 6a, which is service pack 6 with the patent
>>> license violating code removed. :-)
>>
>> Is that the only difference?? o_O
>
> AFAIK, yes.
OK, that's pretty special. OOC, what exactly did they have to remove?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Typically the salesman gets very
> agressive if you attempt to read it before signing it.
That's a clear hint that you shouldn't sign it.
Never seen that here, though. Probably more usual in other places.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Typically the salesman gets very
>> agressive if you attempt to read it before signing it.
>
> That's a clear hint that you shouldn't sign it.
Just a tad... ;-)
> Never seen that here, though. Probably more usual in other places.
Lots of places seem to just assume that it's a case of "you need to sign
this form, it's all pretty standard stuff". Sometimes you can take a
form away with you, read it, and sign it at your leasure. But most
people seem to assume that you can just sign it right now. After all,
why would you need to actually *read* it? It's all "standard stuff",
after all...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I still think the entire concept of a layman actually being able
> comprehend twenty five pages of dense legalese and click "I agree"
> actually having any clue what they just agreed to is absurd.
Usually it's not that hard to understand, unless you get caught by some odd
law or precedent that makes what the words say something different than they
mean, or unless you're doing something unusual (like trying to use GPL code
in a commercial product or some such) at which point you hire your lawyer.
> how many times have you signed some piece of
> paper shoved at you?
I never do that.
> Do you actually spend two hours pouring over the
> details? Or do you just sign it?
I read it, at least.
> Typically the salesman gets very
> agressive if you attempt to read it before signing it.
Then you walk away. I don't need that crap from a salesman. ;-)
> OK, that's pretty special. OOC, what exactly did they have to remove?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246009
OK, a moment with google shows there were a couple other bug fixes, but I'm
pretty sure the *main* reason was to get rid of patent-violating code. But
that's from memory.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Lots of places seem to just assume that it's a case of "you need to sign
> this form, it's all pretty standard stuff". Sometimes you can take a form
> away with you, read it, and sign it at your leasure. But most people seem
> to assume that you can just sign it right now. After all, why would you
> need to actually *read* it? It's all "standard stuff", after all...
LOL we had that recently. The document referenced 6 other documents that we
didn't have, so we asked for them before we signed it. In the end they sent
us 2 of them, saying the other 4 weren't relevant. So we asked them to
remove the references to the other 4 from the original. "Oh it's a standard
document, we can't change it". In the end we wrote, by hand, on the
contract that those four were not relevant and we weren't agreeing to them,
then signed it. I think they were a bit pissed at us.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
