Board index » delphi » D2 on 95/NT3.x/NT4.x Best?

D2 on 95/NT3.x/NT4.x Best?

Hello,

At the moment I'm runing D2.0 on a Pentium 133 with 16Mb of EDO RAM, and
a 1Gb HD. The PC was delivered with Win95 installed/infested on the HD.
While the shell is prettier than win 3.x I don't like the way it wastes
HD space, and it does crash with amazing regularity.

I'm hoping to get another PC, how have people found D2 under NT3.51 and
NT4.0, and is anyone in a position to compare it accross OS? I here tell
that NT4.0 is already better than NT3.x and 95, how true is it.

What kind of hardware will NT4.0 need. I'm trying to persuade my boss
into a Pentium166 or PentiumPro15 with 32Mb of RAM. I know NT needs more
RAM than 95, and I'd prefer a more stable OS than the one I have at the
moment.

[I hope I don't sound like I'm getting at MS, but windows is naff and
getting better (I applaude them for that) but 95 still isn't stable enough]

oppions by email/news group, other peoples money is being spent here, and
I want the best system for the money, and good arguments may get me more
money.........if it's needed :)

--

 Adam J Trickett      | Voice   +1 (413) 545-1037    | Insert your
 Entomology UMass     | Fax     +1 (413) 545-2115    | silly phrase
 Amherst MA 01003 USA | email trick...@ent.umass.edu | or comment
 http://www.leeds.ac.uk/genetics/resear/butlin/      | here!

 

Re:D2 on 95/NT3.x/NT4.x Best?


In article: <4mloja$...@nic.umass.edu>  trick...@wilde.oit.umass.edu (Adam J.

Quote
Trickett) writes:
> I'm hoping to get another PC, how have people found D2 under NT3.51 and
> NT4.0, and is anyone in a position to compare it accross OS? I here tell
> that NT4.0 is already better than NT3.x and 95, how true is it.

> What kind of hardware will NT4.0 need. I'm trying to persuade my boss
> into a Pentium166 or PentiumPro15 with 32Mb of RAM. I know NT needs more
> RAM than 95, and I'd prefer a more stable OS than the one I have at the
> moment.

NT4 is still in beta, so it's difficult to be certain, but it *should* be
faster than 3.51. Your proposed machine will be fine: NT doesn't need much
more than 95 *really* needs, and it's well worth it!

I'd say go for 3.51 today. Make sure you get Service Pack 4 and the resource
kit (from ftp.microsoft.com and mirrors), and you will have an environment
that is as good as Windows gets. 4.0 is still a little buggy, although by 3.x
and 95 standards we're talking unbelievable stability! I'm happy to use it as
my main development machine O/S even though it's not *quite* as solid as 3.51.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Rencontre               |  st...@dstrip.demon.co.uk (business)
If it works, it's obsolete.   |  steve...@cix.compulink.co.uk (private)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re:D2 on 95/NT3.x/NT4.x Best?


Quote
Adam J. Trickett wrote:

> I'm hoping to get another PC, how have people found D2 under NT3.51 and
> NT4.0, and is anyone in a position to compare it accross OS?

I've used all three over the past year.

Quote
> ...that NT4.0 is already better than NT3.x and 95, how true is it.

Both OSes have thier strengths and weaknesses.  Win95 is better at hardware support, NT is technologically
on sounder ground.

Quote
> What kind of hardware will NT4.0 need. I'm trying to persuade my boss
> into a Pentium166 or PentiumPro15 with 32Mb of RAM. I know NT needs more
> RAM than 95, and I'd prefer a more stable OS than the one I have at the
> moment.

I've been running NT 4.0 Beta 1 on a 486/33 with only 16M and Delphi 2.0 with no problems (although it's
slow).  There are a couple of issues that I discovered:

1. I prefer the NT 4.0 multi-tasking over Win95 on a machine with the same resources.
2  If you upgrade from Win95, the setup does not migrate your app setups.
   I found out the hard way that I had to re-install everything after the upgrade.
3. Automatic hardware detection is nothing like Win95.
4. NT native drivers for various devices (tape drives, sound cards, etc.) are harder to come by.

Overall, I believe that a developer shouldn't run anything less than NT 3.51 if they are doing a lot of
serious work.

Re:D2 on 95/NT3.x/NT4.x Best?


Quote
On Monday, May 06, 1996, Adam J. Trickett wrote...
> a 1Gb HD. The PC was delivered with Win95 installed/infested on the HD.
> While the shell is prettier than win 3.x I don't like the way it wastes
> HD space, and it does crash with amazing regularity.

I have been using Win95 for a long time and I find it to be very stable.
Make sure the machine itself is ok. However, you are correct that NT
should be more stable, but of course the hardware has to be stable!

Re:D2 on 95/NT3.x/NT4.x Best?


Quote
On Tuesday, May 07, 1996, Steve Rencontre wrote...
> NT4 is still in beta, so it's difficult to be certain, but it *should*
be
> faster than 3.51. Your proposed machine will be fine: NT doesn't need
much
> more than 95 *really* needs, and it's well worth it!

No. Win95 runs barely acceptable in 8 MB and well in 16 MB. NT runs fairly
well in 16 MB, but if you run more than a single major app it really needs
more.

I am running Win95 at the moment and am having very good luck with it; I
find it very stable. I will probably eventually go to NT; as you point out
it is in many cases a better operating system. However, I would not ignore
Win95 completely right now.

Re:D2 on 95/NT3.x/NT4.x Best?


In article: <01bb3d05.ca870e00$35883...@osmium.nosc.mil>  Andrew Patterson

Quote
<a...@nosc.mil> writes:
> On Tuesday, May 07, 1996, Steve Rencontre wrote...

> > NT4 is still in beta, so it's difficult to be certain, but it *should*
> be
> > faster than 3.51. Your proposed machine will be fine: NT doesn't need
> much
> > more than 95 *really* needs, and it's well worth it!

> No. Win95 runs barely acceptable in 8 MB and well in 16 MB. NT runs fairly
> well in 16 MB, but if you run more than a single major app it really needs
> more.

Err, I think you're agreeing with me! Win95 in 8MB is *far* worse than NT in
16; I would consider 16MB as the serious minimum for Win95 to run sensibly,
and I don't call the extra 4-8 meg to get NT up to speed a lot.

Quote
> I am running Win95 at the moment and am having very good luck with it; I
> find it very stable.

Experiences differ, of course. Mine has been very negative with several
different machines.

Quote
> However, I would not ignore Win95 completely right now.

I wouldn't ignore it either - I'd just suggest that it's the poorer choice
unless you have a specific need for any of the features that aren't presently
in NT. In the longer term, I subscribe to the view that the hidden agenda of
95 is to force everyone to upgrade their hardware to the point that it can run
NT.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Rencontre               |  st...@dstrip.demon.co.uk (business)
If it works, it's obsolete.   |  steve...@cix.compulink.co.uk (private)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re:D2 on 95/NT3.x/NT4.x Best?


Quote
Andrew Patterson wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 07, 1996, Steve Rencontre wrote...

> > NT4 is still in beta, so it's difficult to be certain, but it *should*
> be
> > faster than 3.51. Your proposed machine will be fine: NT doesn't need
> much
> > more than 95 *really* needs, and it's well worth it!

> No. Win95 runs barely acceptable in 8 MB and well in 16 MB. NT runs fairly
> well in 16 MB, but if you run more than a single major app it really needs
> more.

> I am running Win95 at the moment and am having very good luck with it; I
> find it very stable. I will probably eventually go to NT; as you point out
> it is in many cases a better operating system. However, I would not ignore
> Win95 completely right now.

My apologies in advance for being a bit off topic, but I read in a
recent issue of Information Week that to go from Win95 to NT requires a
complete reinstallation of all applications because of incompatibilities
in the registries. Does anyone know if this is true? Is this to be
expected? If true, maybe I should have just skipped Windows95...?
--
Steve Esser, JCPenney Telemarketing, ses...@jcpenney.com
{Of course this is only me talking, not JCPenney.}

Re:D2 on 95/NT3.x/NT4.x Best?


Quote
Steve Esser (ses...@jcpenney.com) wrote:
: Andrew Patterson wrote:

:
: My apologies in advance for being a bit off topic, but I read in a
: recent issue of Information Week that to go from Win95 to NT requires a
: complete reinstallation of all applications because of incompatibilities
: in the registries. Does anyone know if this is true? Is this to be
: expected? If true, maybe I should have just skipped Windows95...?
: --
: Steve Esser, JCPenney Telemarketing, ses...@jcpenney.com
: {Of course this is only me talking, not JCPenney.}

I have heard something along these lines too, though I think it's the
registry of NT4.0 that's not compatible with Win95. PCMag suggest the
only use for 95 is to autodetect your PC so that NT will be easier to
install........

Seems like a dumb move for MS making the registry between its consumer OS
and real OS incompatible......

 --

 Adam J Trickett      | Voice   +1 (413) 545-1037    | Insert your
 Entomology UMass     | Fax     +1 (413) 545-2115    | silly phrase
 Amherst MA 01003 USA | email trick...@ent.umass.edu | or comment
 http://www.leeds.ac.uk/genetics/resear/butlin/      | here!

Re:D2 on 95/NT3.x/NT4.x Best?


Quote
> No. Win95 runs barely acceptable in 8 MB and well in 16 MB. NT runs fairly
> well in 16 MB, but if you run more than a single major app it really needs
> more.

Um, D2 runs just fine on my NT 3.51 machine with just 12MB. I understand
it'll be even better in NT 4.

Also, my wife is running Win95 on a 386DX40 with 8MB, _and_ runs Winword
7.0 without a hitch.

Dave

Re:D2 on 95/NT3.x/NT4.x Best?


On 11 May 1996 18:57:50 GMT, trick...@wilde.oit.umass.edu (Adam J.

Quote
Trickett) wrote:
>Steve Esser (ses...@jcpenney.com) wrote:
>: Andrew Patterson wrote:
>:
>: My apologies in advance for being a bit off topic, but I read in a
>: recent issue of Information Week that to go from Win95 to NT requires a
>: complete reinstallation of all applications because of incompatibilities
>: in the registries. [snip]

>I have heard something along these lines too, though I think it's the
>registry of NT4.0 that's not compatible with Win95. [snip]

I have installed the Beta 2 of NT4.0 (and since removed it), and
indeed what you describe is true. MS recommends that if you intend to
dual-boot Win95 and WinNT4.0, that you place the two OS's on separate
disk partitions. The NT4.0 boot loader goes on the boot drive, but
beyond that, you should then keep Win95 and WinNT4 completely
separate. When I installed the Beta, I was even unable to upgrade my
WinNT3.51 installation. But, I think that was more my fault than
their's: I have a lot of wierd drivers and configuration stuff that
doesn't play well with the new User Interface.

I suspect that they will likely not change this behavior for the final
release. Windows NT is a very differently constructed OS compared
against Windows 95. There are scads of things in one that just don't
fly with the other. The 4.0 version really seems to be just making the
user interface the same, with as little internal changes as possible.
Maybe they're doing that to keep the flaming bug reports down, eh?

Regards to all,

Thom Randolph
t...@halcyon.com

Other Threads