this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
87 points (98.9% liked)

retrocomputing

4103 readers
4 users here now

Discussions on vintage and retrocomputing

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 38 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It's not stable, but it will boot and run ... most of the time.

Pretty much my recollection of running Windows NT on x86.

60% of the time, it works every time.

Of course, 60% was a hell of a lot more than 95 managed, so still impressive?

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

NT 3.5 wasn’t too bad.

NT4 moved a lot of stuff into the kernel that wasn’t ready for prime time and we suffered for it, at least on NT Workstation.

[–] meleethecat@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

To expand, Windows NT was originally a microkernel system where all the drivers were in userspace. This is more stable but ended up being very slow. With NT 4, they started moving drivers into the kernel and it was really buggy in the beginning. It wasn’t until NT 4 SP3 that it was usable.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

4.0 was my first exposure to NT - I used systems running 3.5 a few times, but not enough to have any real opinion on it. I did know there had been big architectural changes, but that was all. I have no difficulty believing 3.5 was better though.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Glowstick@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

Boy, in 1994 this would've been huge!

[–] AnomalousBit@programming.dev 7 points 3 months ago

Those poor Power Macintoshes