• octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    Pretty much my recollection of running Windows NT on x86.

    • psvrh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 month 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month 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.