If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ZDNet)   Windows NT finally makes it past those awkward teenage years   (zdnet.com) divider line 42
    More: Sappy, Windows NT, Windows, How Microsoft, Windows Server, Windows Azure, Ask Premier Field Engineering, OS/2, howler monkeys  
•       •       •

3724 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Jul 2013 at 11:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-27 11:38:09 AM  
Windows 2000 should have been the one release that year and Windows ME should have never been sold.
 
2013-07-27 11:40:57 AM  
Our version 1.0, we'll call that 3.1.  Then we'll call version 1.1 v3.5 instead, and version 2.0 will be so popular we'll have to call it version 4.  Version 5 we'll call 2000. Version 5.1 you'd think we'd call version 2500, but we'll surprise you and call it XP.  Eventually we're going to pull out all the stops and release a version of Windows that doesn't support windowing and doesn't run any of the existing Windows applications.  We'll call that RT.  Ta-da!
 
2013-07-27 11:48:36 AM  
I always assumed that Windows 8 was Windows 7.0.
 
2013-07-27 11:50:25 AM  

skinink: Windows 2000 should have been the one release that year and Windows ME should have never been sold.


I remember the cries of "If you dont have the right hardware it wont run!" and "You can't play games on Windows 2000" which then allowed Windows ME to sadly exist.
 
2013-07-27 11:54:53 AM  

syrynxx: Our version 1.0, we'll call that 3.1.  Then we'll call version 1.1 v3.5 instead, and version 2.0 will be so popular we'll have to call it version 4.  Version 5 we'll call 2000. Version 5.1 you'd think we'd call version 2500, but we'll surprise you and call it XP.  Eventually we're going to pull out all the stops and release a version of Windows that doesn't support windowing and doesn't run any of the existing Windows applications.  We'll call that RT.  Ta-da!


Amen.

Let's take a moment to see how this would have worked if Microsoft had stuck to one naming scheme used rational version numbers all along.

Windows NT 3.1 is really Windows NT 1.0
Windows NT 3.5 is really Windows NT 1.5
Windows NT 4 is really Windows NT 2.0
Windows 2000 is really Windows NT 3.0
Windows XP is really Windows NT 3.1.
Windows Vista is really Windows NT 4.
Windows 7 is really Windows NT 4.1
Windows 8 is really Windows NT 4.2
Windows 8.1 is really Windows NT 4.3

/Used NT all the way back to 1.0
 
2013-07-27 11:55:00 AM  
Windows NT 4.0 and SQL Server 7, good times.
 
2013-07-27 12:02:44 PM  

skinink: Windows 2000 should have been the one release that year and Windows ME should have never been sold.


This. Don't know what they were thinking with ME. No Windows OS has come even close to being as bad as ME was when I used it.
 
2013-07-27 12:13:54 PM  
Built on New Technology Technology
 
2013-07-27 12:27:23 PM  
Just get everything up to Blue and I'll be happy
 
2013-07-27 12:52:55 PM  
I don't think the disconnect between the NT kernel version and operating system release numbering is so weird. I can't think of an OS that matches the release version to the kernel version number.

For comparison;

Mac OS X 10.8.4 uses the 12.2.4 Darwin kernel, RedHat Enterprise Linux uses the 2.6.32-358 Linux kernel and Ubuntu 13.04 uses the 3.10 Linux kernel.
 
2013-07-27 01:30:38 PM  

The Billdozer: "You can't play games on Windows 2000"


As somebody who used Windows 2000 as their primary OS, I always got a laugh out of that.  The only games that really didn't like W2K were DOS games with 32-bit extender like DOS/4G.  That was easy enough to get around by installing MS-DOS 7.1 (FAT32 support) and dual-booting your PC.

Microsoft would have been a lot better off had they used the personnel used to develop Windows Me to instead improve their NTVDM.  Had it been remotely close to the level of emulation and speed that DOSBox offers today, WinMe would have been pointless.


BafflerMeal: Built on New Technology Technology

VMS

Microsoft snatched David Cutler and some of his co-workers from Digital Equipment to build NT.  The internal workings of NT kernel look a lot like the internal workings of VMS.  It isn't until you get down to the userland programming interface (Win32 API) that things look a lot like Windows again.
 
2013-07-27 02:03:10 PM  

Dinjiin: The Billdozer: "You can't play games on Windows 2000"

As somebody who used Windows 2000 as their primary OS, I always got a laugh out of that.  The only games that really didn't like W2K were DOS games with 32-bit extender like DOS/4G.  That was easy enough to get around by installing MS-DOS 7.1 (FAT32 support) and dual-booting your PC.


Yeah I had heard that too, but at the time I was desperate to get away from WinME so I took the chance. I think part of those rumors stemmed from the fact that NT 4 had very limited DirectX support, which was what games were mostly being built for. Of course Win2K (and soon after XP) had no such limitation, even though they were built off the NT kernel. I remember hearing similar rumors about 64 bit OS too, how they couldn't run all your old programs, while neglecting to mention they were backwards compatible with 32 bit software as well.
 
2013-07-27 02:29:12 PM  
Dinjiin: Microsoft snatched David Cutler and some of his co-workers from Digital Equipment to build NT.  The internal workings of NT kernel look a lot like the internal workings of VMS.  It isn't until you get down to the userland programming interface (Win32 API) that things look a lot like Windows again.

Was just about to comment on 'How do you have a thread like this without acknowledging Cutler's work on VMS?'  Glad to see that you covered it.

IIRC, Cutler was referred to as one of, if not *the*, principal architect of VMS.  Just as folks joked about '2001: A Space Odyssey', saying that 'HAL' was 'IBM' after Shift-Left-1, so people said that if you did a Shift-Right-1 on 'VMS', you got...  'WNT'!

/thankful for all of the giants - in the computer field and in all fields - on whose shoulders we stand.

//anyone else notice that the standard lore of magicians, sorcerors, wizards, alchemists, etc., is that they all tend to be pretty solitary and jealous of their secrets?  Still a lot of that in the science / physics / tech world, but there was enough 'Hey! Let's all share all of our work and stop reinventing the wheel!' that, when you add up uncounted man-eons of work, we ended up really creating an age of common miracles.
 
2013-07-27 02:37:54 PM  

Dinjiin: As somebody who used Windows 2000 as their primary OS, I always got a laugh out of that.  The only games that really didn't like W2K were DOS games with 32-bit extender like DOS/4G.  That was easy enough to get around by installing MS-DOS 7.1 (FAT32 support) and dual-booting your PC.

Microsoft would have been a lot better off had they used the personnel used to develop Windows Me to instead improve their NTVDM.  Had it been remotely close to the level of emulation and speed that DOSBox offers today, WinMe would have been pointless.


I remember Ultima IX wouldn't run on Windows 2000 when I bought it and had a 2K machine, had to format and revert to 98.   Then I actually played it and realized that W2K had been doing me a favor by preventing me from playing.
 
2013-07-27 02:48:40 PM  

pyrotek85: Dinjiin: The Billdozer: "You can't play games on Windows 2000"

As somebody who used Windows 2000 as their primary OS, I always got a laugh out of that.  The only games that really didn't like W2K were DOS games with 32-bit extender like DOS/4G.  That was easy enough to get around by installing MS-DOS 7.1 (FAT32 support) and dual-booting your PC.

Yeah I had heard that too, but at the time I was desperate to get away from WinME so I took the chance. I think part of those rumors stemmed from the fact that NT 4 had very limited DirectX support, which was what games were mostly being built for. Of course Win2K (and soon after XP) had no such limitation, even though they were built off the NT kernel. I remember hearing similar rumors about 64 bit OS too, how they couldn't run all your old programs, while neglecting to mention they were backwards compatible with 32 bit software as well.


I ran plenty of games on Win2k. Hell, in my experience, Dos games ran better on 2K than XP, once VDMSound was installed (For SB16 emulation). XP provided it's own SB16 emulator, I believe.

I was already using NT 4 for gaming, since the handful of Windows games out ran much, much better - at least, the ones I played. QuakeGL wasn't stable in Win98 for me, but ran beautifully in NT. QuickTime videos ran better, Quake 2 was playable (It wasn't in 98 - my computer didn't quit meet minimum specs).

And, yeah, 64-bit Windows won't run your old programs, because it doesn't include NTVDM for running 16-bit apps. Pretty much any 32-bit app will run (Unless it does something stupid), and 32-bit programs installed by a 16-bit installer might install properly, too.
 
2013-07-27 02:58:19 PM  
Happy birthday to a great kernel.

/Linux is old enough to drink
 
2013-07-27 03:21:46 PM  
Did they ever combine Windows CE, Windows ME and Windows NT into Windows CEMENT?
 
2013-07-27 03:33:22 PM  

GWSuperfan: Did they ever combine Windows CE, Windows ME and Windows NT into Windows CEMENT?


That's pretty much Windows RT. An NT-based OS ported over to ARM like CE, with some bad design decisions like Me.
 
2013-07-27 04:00:28 PM  
pyrotek85:

This. Don't know what they were thinking with ME. No Windows OS has come even close to being as bad as ME was when I used it.

A final hurrah of the 9x kernel which had the advantage of running all the legacy 9x drivers and having much better compatibility with consumers equipment than Win2k did.   DOS support was also much stronger in WinME than it was Win2k; depending on what you were doing with it obviously.
 
2013-07-27 05:35:25 PM  

Dinjiin: BafflerMeal: Built on New Technology Technology VMS

Microsoft snatched David Cutler and some of his co-workers from Digital Equipment to build NT.  The internal workings of NT kernel look a lot like the internal workings of VMS.  It isn't until you get down to the userland programming interface (Win32 API) that things look a lot like Windows again.


Apparently Cutler's most recently worked on the XBone.
 
2013-07-27 05:47:58 PM  
I always wondered.. What if MS didn't fork Windows back in the day and create NTFS...  Would we still be stuck using FAT32 or would MS finally have caved and moved windows to EXT2, EXT4 etc or attempt (like they already did) a half hearted attempt at a brand new file system?

/Windows 2000 was the best
 
2013-07-27 06:46:59 PM  

styckx: I always wondered.. What if MS didn't fork Windows back in the day and create NTFS...  Would we still be stuck using FAT32 or would MS finally have caved and moved windows to EXT2, EXT4 etc or attempt (like they already did) a half hearted attempt at a brand new file system?


The main fork that lead to NT was the IBM / Microsoft split over OS/2. So in the original plan for a replacement for MS-DOS (Windows not being around at the start, and then contributing to the split) we'd all be using HPFS.

/ Well, unless the split had got to the stage where IBM did OS/2 2.0 whilst Microsoft did the fancy OS/2 3.0 / NT, but NT was released as OS/2 not Windows, in which case we might be using NTFS on OS/2.
// Other alternate histories are available.
/// Early versions of Windows NT could still run OS/2 1.x programmes and mount HPFS as a legacy of it starting as a version of OS/2 not Windows.
 
2013-07-27 06:48:59 PM  

BullBearMS: syrynxx: Our version 1.0, we'll call that 3.1.  Then we'll call version 1.1 v3.5 instead, and version 2.0 will be so popular we'll have to call it version 4.  Version 5 we'll call 2000. Version 5.1 you'd think we'd call version 2500, but we'll surprise you and call it XP.  Eventually we're going to pull out all the stops and release a version of Windows that doesn't support windowing and doesn't run any of the existing Windows applications.  We'll call that RT.  Ta-da!

Amen.

Let's take a moment to see how this would have worked if Microsoft had stuck to one naming scheme used rational version numbers all along.

Windows NT 3.1 is really Windows NT 1.0
Windows NT 3.5 is really Windows NT 1.5
Windows NT 4 is really Windows NT 2.0
Windows 2000 is really Windows NT 3.0
Windows XP is really Windows NT 3.1.
Windows Vista is really Windows NT 4.
Windows 7 is really Windows NT 4.1
Windows 8 is really Windows NT 4.2
Windows 8.1 is really Windows NT 4.3

/Used NT all the way back to 1.0


FYI - Windows 1 and 2 were actual products. Applications like clock and calc date back to Windows 1.0. Sure they were 16-bit and very little code was brought forward to the NT code base, but the amount isn't zero. For example, command.com still builds in Windows from the original 16-bit assembly code.
 
2013-07-27 06:56:21 PM  

BullBearMS: syrynxx: Our version 1.0, we'll call that 3.1.  Then we'll call version 1.1 v3.5 instead, and version 2.0 will be so popular we'll have to call it version 4.  Version 5 we'll call 2000. Version 5.1 you'd think we'd call version 2500, but we'll surprise you and call it XP.  Eventually we're going to pull out all the stops and release a version of Windows that doesn't support windowing and doesn't run any of the existing Windows applications.  We'll call that RT.  Ta-da!

Amen.

Let's take a moment to see how this would have worked if Microsoft had stuck to one naming scheme used rational version numbers all along.

Windows NT 3.1 is really Windows NT 1.0
Windows NT 3.5 is really Windows NT 1.5
Windows NT 4 is really Windows NT 2.0
Windows 2000 is really Windows NT 3.0
Windows XP is really Windows NT 3.1.
Windows Vista is really Windows NT 4.
Windows 7 is really Windows NT 4.1
Windows 8 is really Windows NT 4.2
Windows 8.1 is really Windows NT 4.3

/Used NT all the way back to 1.0


Everyone forgets 3.51 and it was the bestest version of the 3.x line. Also they started with 3.1 because it shared the same GUI and version number as the then current Windows 3.1, if they had started with 1.0 people would have thought it was old and outdated because people are stupid.
 
2013-07-27 07:03:46 PM  

fredoralive: styckx: I always wondered.. What if MS didn't fork Windows back in the day and create NTFS...  Would we still be stuck using FAT32 or would MS finally have caved and moved windows to EXT2, EXT4 etc or attempt (like they already did) a half hearted attempt at a brand new file system?

The main fork that lead to NT was the IBM / Microsoft split over OS/2. So in the original plan for a replacement for MS-DOS (Windows not being around at the start, and then contributing to the split) we'd all be using HPFS.

/ Well, unless the split had got to the stage where IBM did OS/2 2.0 whilst Microsoft did the fancy OS/2 3.0 / NT, but NT was released as OS/2 not Windows, in which case we might be using NTFS on OS/2.
// Other alternate histories are available.
/// Early versions of Windows NT could still run OS/2 1.x programmes and mount HPFS as a legacy of it starting as a version of OS/2 not Windows.


Yeah there are a lot of "grey areas" in the timeline and reasoning of things.. I miss those days a lot.. No trademark wars, no patent wars.. Just out and out capitalism in its purest and most raw form.  I'd pay good money to re-live from about 1990 to about 2003ish.. To me that was the best years to be around personal computing..
 
2013-07-27 07:04:46 PM  
NT originally meant Nice Try.
 
2013-07-27 07:05:52 PM  

2wolves: NT originally meant Nice Try.


Because NT was such a terrible failure? Oh wait...
 
2013-07-27 07:22:25 PM  

ausfahrk: BullBearMS: Let's take a moment to see how this would have worked if Microsoft had stuck to one naming scheme used rational version numbers all along.

Windows NT 3.1 is really Windows NT 1.0
...
Windows 8.1 is really Windows NT 4.3

/Used NT all the way back to 1.0

FYI - Windows 1 and 2 were actual products. Applications like clock and calc date back to Windows 1.0. Sure they were 16-bit and very little code was brought forward to the NT code base, but the amount isn't zero. For example, command.com still builds in Windows from the original 16-bit assembly code.


I think they're more referring to the way Windows NT is basically a separate OS to the "MS-DOS based"  Windows (1 / 2 / non-NT 3.x / 9x / ME). If NT has started off at 1.0 instead of using 3.1 to match the current version of "DOS based" Windows the scheme proposed makes sense.

I think Notepad probably makes more sense as an app that hasn't changed in a big way since the early days of Windows, clock is long since gone, and calc has been overhauled a couple of times.

command.com only exists in 32 bit versions of NT, it's part of the VDM MS-DOS compatability layer, and a direct copy of the one from MS-DOS 5 (at least going by the command /c ver bug / easter egg). cmd.exe is the normal command prompt, and is standard 32 bit app.
 
2013-07-27 07:28:50 PM  

fredoralive: ausfahrk: BullBearMS: Let's take a moment to see how this would have worked if Microsoft had stuck to one naming scheme used rational version numbers all along.

Windows NT 3.1 is really Windows NT 1.0
...
Windows 8.1 is really Windows NT 4.3

/Used NT all the way back to 1.0

FYI - Windows 1 and 2 were actual products. Applications like clock and calc date back to Windows 1.0. Sure they were 16-bit and very little code was brought forward to the NT code base, but the amount isn't zero. For example, command.com still builds in Windows from the original 16-bit assembly code.

I think they're more referring to the way Windows NT is basically a separate OS to the "MS-DOS based"  Windows (1 / 2 / non-NT 3.x / 9x / ME). If NT has started off at 1.0 instead of using 3.1 to match the current version of "DOS based" Windows the scheme proposed makes sense.

I think Notepad probably makes more sense as an app that hasn't changed in a big way since the early days of Windows, clock is long since gone, and calc has been overhauled a couple of times.

command.com only exists in 32 bit versions of NT, it's part of the VDM MS-DOS compatability layer, and a direct copy of the one from MS-DOS 5 (at least going by the command /c ver bug / easter egg). cmd.exe is the normal command prompt, and is standard 32 bit app.


Clock basically got moved to the system tray in Windows 95/NT 4.0 so I'm surprised they kept including it as long as they did. I still used the NT 3.51 File Manager for a long time, especially when Vista came out because I hated the new Windows Explorer. Using Directory Opus now but you can still use the old File Manager in Windows 7 (and probably 8). Cardfile, CD Player and all those little programs still work too.

http://www.brydon.net/winfile/
 
2013-07-27 08:31:13 PM  

1000 Ways to Dye: VDMSound was installed


I remember using that before I found DOSBox.  Worked really well, too.


pyrotek85: I remember hearing similar rumors about 64 bit OS too, how they couldn't run all your old programs


Depends on what you mean by "old programs".  The new x86-64 processors won't let you run Virtual 8086 mode while the processor is in 64-bit mode.  So old real-mode DOS and protected-mode Win16 programs must be run in an emulator or a virtual machine since Microsoft didn't rewrite NTVDM to use pure software emulation.  I personally use DOSBox to run DOS games and VMWare to run old 16-bit Windows games.  But you can still run old Windows 95 games fine*.


styckx: I miss those days a lot.. No trademark wars, no patent wars..


Huh?  During the 1980s, IBM sued everyone under the sun in order to force them into patent sharing contracts.  They have (had?) a division in Florida whose entire purpose was to suck up ideas for writing patents.  They got very good at it.

Don't forget that Commodore was eventually forced into bankruptcy over a patent in the early '90s.  It was a fairly trivial patent at that.


/* biggest landmine is that a lot of old Windows 95 games used a 16-bit installer, even though the main program was 32-bit.  Those can be a PITA to install by hand since the installer won't run.
 
2013-07-27 08:52:38 PM  

Dinjiin: /* biggest landmine is that a lot of old Windows 95 games used a 16-bit installer, even though the main program was 32-bit.  Those can be a PITA to install by hand since the installer won't run.


I had some funtimes with this exact issue trying to get the first You Don't Know Jack to install on my PC. Runs a charm on Win8, but had to install a WinXP virtual machine to install the game onto and then copy the files over manually since the installer doesn't work.

Still rather impressive that a game from almost 20 years ago works fine on a machine I bought 4 months ago.
 
2013-07-27 08:57:27 PM  

Dinjiin: /* biggest landmine is that a lot of old Windows 95 games used a 16-bit installer, even though the main program was 32-bit.  Those can be a PITA to install by hand since the installer won't run.


I've found that in some cases you can just manually copy the game directory to program files or wherever and it'll run fine. Well assuming there aren't other incompatibilities but you know what I mean.

Some of the fun problems are like with SimCopter where the game runs too fast, so you need to use cpugrabber to waste processing power on nothing so that it slows down lol.
 
2013-07-27 09:22:07 PM  

Dinjiin: VMS


Came for this.

Leaving with rude words for HP, who killed DEC.
 
2013-07-27 10:02:17 PM  
www.digibarn.comwww.digibarn.com

\actually had one of these shirts, and wore it too
\\was a OS/2 2.x beta tester
\\\fedex envelopes with sheets of 3 1/2 inch floppies at first
 
2013-07-27 10:39:23 PM  
I liked Win2k. I grudgingly moved to XP. And yes I gamed on it just fine.
 
2013-07-28 12:11:07 AM  

BullBearMS: Windows NT 3.1 is really Windows NT 1.0
Windows NT 3.5 is really Windows NT 1.5
Windows NT 4 is really Windows NT 2.0
Windows 2000 is really Windows NT 3.0
Windows XP is really Windows NT 3.1.
Windows Vista is really Windows NT 4.
Windows 7 is really Windows NT 4.1
Windows 8 is really Windows NT 4.2
Windows 8.1 is really Windows NT 4.3

/Used NT all the way back to 1.0


In all honesty, NT1.0 and NT2.0 were probably actually the versions of OS/2 that IBM and Microsoft jointly worked on.
 
2013-07-28 02:02:17 AM  

fredoralive: command.com only exists in 32 bit versions of NT, it's part of the VDM MS-DOS compatability layer, and a direct copy of the one from MS-DOS 5 (at least going by the command /c ver bug / easter egg). cmd.exe is the normal command prompt, and is standard 32 bit app.


No kidding....I just checked that on Windows 2000 and Windows 8 (both 32 bit), and what do you know?  MS DOS Version 5.00.500.  Apparently you have to enable 16 bit support in W8 before it'll run it though.
 
2013-07-28 02:32:27 AM  

fredoralive: ausfahrk: BullBearMS: Let's take a moment to see how this would have worked if Microsoft had stuck to one naming scheme used rational version numbers all along.

Windows NT 3.1 is really Windows NT 1.0
...
Windows 8.1 is really Windows NT 4.3

/Used NT all the way back to 1.0

FYI - Windows 1 and 2 were actual products. Applications like clock and calc date back to Windows 1.0. Sure they were 16-bit and very little code was brought forward to the NT code base, but the amount isn't zero. For example, command.com still builds in Windows from the original 16-bit assembly code.

I think they're more referring to the way Windows NT is basically a separate OS to the "MS-DOS based"  Windows (1 / 2 / non-NT 3.x / 9x / ME). If NT has started off at 1.0 instead of using 3.1 to match the current version of "DOS based" Windows the scheme proposed makes sense.

I think Notepad probably makes more sense as an app that hasn't changed in a big way since the early days of Windows, clock is long since gone, and calc has been overhauled a couple of times.

command.com only exists in 32 bit versions of NT, it's part of the VDM MS-DOS compatability layer, and a direct copy of the one from MS-DOS 5 (at least going by the command /c ver bug / easter egg). cmd.exe is the normal command prompt, and is standard 32 bit app.


powershell is the normal command prompt you heathen
 
2013-07-28 10:12:11 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Windows NT 4.0 and SQL Server 7, good times.



good infections.
 
2013-07-28 10:13:33 AM  
some say that by the time Windows 367 comes out, it'll finally be a secure and truly multi user OS.
 
2013-07-28 10:14:30 AM  

Nadie_AZ: I liked Win2k. I grudgingly moved to XP. And yes I gamed on it just fine.



i hope you pulled the cat5 cable.
 
2013-07-28 10:55:32 AM  

Linux_Yes: some say that by the time Windows 367 comes out, it'll finally be a secure and truly multi user OS.


And that you'll have moved on to better things in life.

Doubtful, though.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report