Win NT 4.0 verses Win98

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

I am debating which operating system to put on a new computer. Any
comparisions/comments would be appreciated.

JPC

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Why would you put either of them on a NEW computer?

Ray at home

"John Callaway" <jcalla@erols.com> wrote in message
news:6fd380lk9v9fj30hs17u5q18cptrc2nbpr@4ax.com...
> I am debating which operating system to put on a new computer. Any
> comparisions/comments would be appreciated.
>
> JPC

 

[Calvin]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Hi John,

the answer to your question depends on what you are after. If stability and good
behaviour are top priorities WinNT will win hands down - if you desperately
require Plug and Play, USB, Firewire and other 'newer' connection standards to
be fully functional then Win98 may be a better choice (at the expense of stability).

WinNT can deal with most hardware, if you have the neccessary support drivers
and a bit of expertise available to assist with the setup. It certainly requires
more skill than Win98 though, you aren't gonna get any 'found new hardware'
wizards, or the like, to help you adding a new device to your system.

If you want to have a bit of look at WinNT4.0 and what is involved in it's 'care
and feeding' have a browse of:

http://nt4ref.zcm.com.au

My final thoughts:

Don't believe all the remarks about 'why would you install WinNT4.0 on new
hardware' that you are likely to get in this or other newsgroups. When it comes
to Operating Systems, newer ain't necessarily better. WinNT has a lot of
advantages - it certainly is much smaller (you can get it down to an 85MB
footprint with a little effort) and when compared for speed on the same hardware
will beat Win2k or XP by miles.

Win2k is now (after 3 service packs) ready for the real world, XP may get to the
same level eventually - frankly though I have my doubts. Microsoft has put that
many bells, whistles and add-ons into these newer OSes that I doubt they will
ever be able to get the code completely under control.

I'm also unhappy with the amount of 'detail hiding' that these newer OSes
indulge in, and the requirement that these OSes MUST have a version of Internet
Explorer installed to function. (despite Microsoft's claims to the contrary
before the courts in the anti-trust cases of a couple of years ago)

Calvin.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Calvin wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> the answer to your question depends on what you are after. If stability
> and good behaviour are top priorities WinNT will win hands down - if you
> desperately require Plug and Play, USB, Firewire and other 'newer'
> connection standards to be fully functional then Win98 may be a better
> choice (at the expense of stability).

Wrong! For all this capability, Windows 2000 is the better
choice over Windows 98. And Windows 2000-SP3/4 has achieved
the same degree of stability of Windows NT-SP6a.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Ghostrider wrote:
>> If stability and good behaviour are top priorities
>> WinNT will win hands down
>
> Wrong! For all this capability, Windows 2000 is the better
> choice over Windows 98. And Windows 2000-SP3/4 has achieved
> the same degree of stability of Windows NT-SP6a.

As always, things do depend a lot on what hardware you use, too.
In terms of stability, W2k definitely is as stable as NT4, but it is
much more demanding on the hwardware side and it has dropped support
for quite a few bits of hardware that were no-brainers under NT4.

Helmut
--
All typos © My Knotty Fingers Ltd. Capacity Dept.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

"Calvin" <nospam@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:4081e970$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...

> Don't believe all the remarks about 'why would you install WinNT4.0 on new
> hardware' that you are likely to get in this or other newsgroups. When it
comes
> to Operating Systems, newer ain't necessarily better.

I have to at least partially disagree with this. Yes, newer isn't
necessarily a better OS, but it is a better experience. And I'm not talking
about all the new bells and whistles in Windows XP, I just mean as far as
the experience of owning a computer today. NT was an outstanding OS,
absolutely outstanding. But its day has passed. And because of that, if
you run it, you're not likely to be able to participate in much of the "fun"
that people are having on their computers today. Every day you see more and
more hardward and software coming out that simply cannot be used in Windows
NT. Does this make NT a bad OS? No. But it does make it a bad OS to use
today if you want to be modern. The lack of USB support is one of the main
things that will hurt you today. Also, the lack of support, product
updates, etc., will make it no fun.

Ray at home

 

[Calvin]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

As USUAL I get flamed by somebody who didn't bother to read the original
question - the choice offered was between NT4 and Win98 - Win2k was only
mentioned by ME as a passing reference to later OSes !

I agree with you btw - Win2k is now stable (after 3 Service Packs) to be used !

Calvin.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Calvin wrote:

> As USUAL I get flamed by somebody who didn't bother to read the original
> question - the choice offered was between NT4 and Win98 - Win2k was only
> mentioned by ME as a passing reference to later OSes !
>
> I agree with you btw - Win2k is now stable (after 3 Service Packs) to be
> used !
>
> Calvin.
>

It happens to all of us who post replies. I think that those
of us who are part of the Windows NT/2000/XP "users group" tend
to see red when Windows 9X is mentioned as an alternative. I'd
be careful with the "ME". Someone might jump to the conclusion
that it refers to Windows Millenium - an unadulterated disaster.
BTW, I still keep a Windows NT machine running in tip-top shape.

<:-}}

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

why talk only about nt4, w2k and xp? w2k3?
I do think w98 is too unstable to be installed on any machine.

 

[Calvin]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Hi,

You are right - I didn't think about the obvious interpretation of ME as
Millenium Edition (ie: Win98 with a facelift and even worse stability) - I was
meaning of course _me_ as in myself. I apologise to the newsgroup for adding
confusion

Calvin.

 

[Calvin]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Hi Ray,

For the average 'home end user' your assessment is probably correct - they would
probably have difficulty maintaining an NT4 system.

But for 'power users' and professionals, NT4.0 I would argue is still a quite
viable OS. It works well, and is still widely supported and used.

A very LARGE retail chain here in Australia (we are talking 5000+ stores with
10-20 checkouts each) recently (in early 2003) implemented an entirely new
computer based scan and checkout system - based on which OS ? NT4.0 - Why ?
Because it is stable, reliable, small, fast and well known and supported. The
decision to go with NT4.0 (as opposed to Win2k or XP) was taken after thorough
research and evaluation, particularly in the field of reliability and hardware
requirments. They have done quite a lot of customisation of finished product to
meet their exacting requirments. The checkout system, as finally installed, is
virtually a work of art, and apparently won awards for innovation and even
favourable comment from Microsoft themselves.

I agree that NT4.0 hardware support is beginning to become an issue, but not yet
a major one. A bit of research at this stage can nearly always turn up a
suitable peripheral for use on NT4.0 I keep an eye on the hardware situation,
and from the trends I am seeing, the first big problem area is likely to be
scanners. Conversion of this product group to exclusively USB in now virtually
total, and driver support for this class of devices under NT4.0 is poor - to a
degree scanner support on any connect standard always has been :-(

Have a read of my page at: http://nt4ref.zcm.com.au/usb.htm for my assessment
of the 'state of play' with NT4.0 and USB.

Most other peripheral groups are still well represented for NT4.0 - granted the
range is narrowing, mostly at the extreme bottom price end of the market, which
I usually advise people to stay well clear of anyway !

Calvin.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Calvin wrote:

> Hi Ray,
>
> For the average 'home end user' your assessment is probably correct -
> they would probably have difficulty maintaining an NT4 system.
>
> But for 'power users' and professionals, NT4.0 I would argue is still a
> quite viable OS. It works well, and is still widely supported and used.
>
> A very LARGE retail chain here in Australia (we are talking 5000+ stores
> with 10-20 checkouts each) recently (in early 2003) implemented an
> entirely new computer based scan and checkout system - based on which OS
> ? NT4.0 - Why ? Because it is stable, reliable, small, fast and well
> known and supported. The decision to go with NT4.0 (as opposed to Win2k
> or XP) was taken after thorough research and evaluation, particularly in
> the field of reliability and hardware requirments. They have done quite
> a lot of customisation of finished product to meet their exacting
> requirments. The checkout system, as finally installed, is virtually a
> work of art, and apparently won awards for innovation and even
> favourable comment from Microsoft themselves.
>
> I agree that NT4.0 hardware support is beginning to become an issue, but
> not yet a major one. A bit of research at this stage can nearly always
> turn up a suitable peripheral for use on NT4.0 I keep an eye on the
> hardware situation, and from the trends I am seeing, the first big
> problem area is likely to be scanners. Conversion of this product group
> to exclusively USB in now virtually total, and driver support for this
> class of devices under NT4.0 is poor - to a degree scanner support on
> any connect standard always has been :-(

Depends on what you mean by "scanners". If you are talking about
the kinds of scanners at store checkout counters, then I'll defer
to you.

However, if you are talking about flatbed scanners, then I would
disagree about the "always" part. For old folks like me, it
seems like only yesterday that document/flatbed scanners were
mostly SCSI, with a sprinkling of parallel port models at the low
end of the product line. Support for NT was great for the SCSI
scanners, while support for Win 3.x and later Win95 was pathetic.
Scanners at that time were too expensive to be anything but a
"professional" product, and the pro's were all using NT - they
would eat human flesh before they would let themselves be seen
using Win 3.x or Win9x.


>
> Have a read of my page at: http://nt4ref.zcm.com.au/usb.htm for my
> assessment of the 'state of play' with NT4.0 and USB.
>
> Most other peripheral groups are still well represented for NT4.0 -
> granted the range is narrowing, mostly at the extreme bottom price end
> of the market, which I usually advise people to stay well clear of anyway !
>
> Calvin.
>

 

[Calvin]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc (More info?)

Agreed,

Win98 was an unmitigated disaster, hard on the heels of a semi-disaster with
Win95. Both these OSes were a case of: take quite a good code base from Win3.1
(still a formative product, but probably on the right track) and turn it into a
dogs breakfast!

The bit that really annoys me about all this discussion is the fact that the
'Spin Doctors' at Microsoft PR have managed to convince 98% of the population
that Win2k is the successor to Win98, rather than tell the truth and admit that
Win2k and above are WinNT 5.0 and that the Win98 code all went into the dumpster
were it belonged!

The other worrying point is: about the time Win2k was born, the software team
who did Win98 all started working on code in the NT5.0 line. I hope the project
managers on the NT5.0 line managed to curb their extremely bad coding practises
that lead to the mess that was Win98 being integrated into XP and above - though
I doubt they will have completely suceeded :-(

Calvin.