Talk:Windows NT 4.0

Version 4.5?

As the Windows 3.x page omitted mention of version 3.11 (NOT the For Workgroups one!) This page doesn't mention Windows NT 4.5.

FYI, if you're a die-hard fan of Program Manager and File Manager and lament their non-existence in Windows 2000 and Windows XP, the PROGMAN.EXE and FILEMAN.EXE from NT 4.5 run perfectly in 2000 and XP. You get long filename support but no right mouse button support. All you need are those two EXE files, drop them into any directory in your Path and enter progman or fileman in Start> Run. :)

There's no such thing called "Windows NT 4.5"; see Talk:Windows NT#Missing version? for details. --tyomitch 20:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There is, its BackOffice server - the ancestor of Windows Small Business Server. It is NT4 + Some stuff like exchange and SQL. It identifies itself as 4.5 but it is not really a seperate version, its NT4 server under the hood.Contributions/86.16.153.191 (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was called Microsoft BackOffice Server 4.5, not Windows NT 4.5 - there was no such thing, hence no mention of it on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djonesuk (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

32-bit operating system

Windows NT was a "32-bit operating system" for the Intel 386 and derivatives, earlier PowerPCs, and early MIPS; but it was a 64-bit operating system for the DEC Alphas, which were 64-bit processors from the start.—Kbolino 09:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Windows NT was not 64-bit on Alpha in any meaningful way, so in a moment I'll "Be Bold" and fix that. In some places NT applications on Alpha needed to use a 64 bit register to store an address, but Microsoft's own documentation is clear that only the bottom 32 bits may be used. I understand it's important to cite references, but obviously I'm just going to delete the incorrect part of the page leaving nothing to reference, so I'll just say that the July 1998 editon of the Microsoft Systems Journal http://www.microsoft.com/msj/0798/hood0798.aspx is one of many places which mentions this. — 82.68.41.196 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on, silly-buns! There is currently no information in the article stating what architectures Windows NT 4.0 supports! dreddnott 06:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It supported 4: PowerPC (yes, really.), x86, Mips, and Alpha (except for a certain class). If you can get your hands on the NT 4 disc it's printed ON the disc - all four architecutres shipped on the same CD...

I have NT4 server and it only has x86, Alpha and MIPS. May be true for other versions though, i know PowerPC was planned for NT 3.51 but that never materialised due to delays —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Windows NT and its lessening of its microkernel architecture

In version 4.0, Windows NT incorporated the GDI into the kernel in order to speed up the interface. Largely, this was to appease graphic designers. Colin Keigher 03:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"the fourth major release"

Not sure how to re-word the first line (if an explanation of the ambiguity is needed in the article text or not, etc.), but it's the fourth significant release. Literally and technically speaking, it's the second major release (NT 3x, NT 4x, because there was no 1x/2x). I believe 'significant' was the intent of the original author.

I would say it's the fourth release, period. Service Packs don't count. As you say, "major" software releases usually imply an increment of the major (first) version number. Letdorf 13:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Either way its still the fourth.

NT Began at 3.1 And there was 3.5 and 3.51

So NT4.0 is the fourth release still.

134.36.92.18 (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Security section

It looks like the section titled "Security" is out of place. Its not very encyclopedic. It mentions one vulnerability only, and does not discuss NT4's security as a whole. I think that it should be re-written to cover more of NT 4.0's security, or removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.22.231.208 (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

• I marked this as being confusing. I think it should also be rewritten, I don't understand the context in which this section is written. I agree the section should be re-written to discuss security issues within the platform as a whole. Lasdlt 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Please don't shoot me for being anonymous. I'll rewrite it, if you think it's better you can keep it, if not just revert it. I won't give any hassle if you do. -amp_man 26 June 2007

Hardware support

It is stated that NT 4.0 does not support USB, however, some drivers for USB devices were made available, such as for USB Mass Storage and USB HID. Maybe this should be mentioned? see http://www.everythingusb.com/windows_nt.html . Mallardtheduck 01:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Too many gaming references

Windows NT was never designed for gaming, said references in the opening of this article should be removed or redelegated elsewhere.Scott 110 05:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Desktop Update

The article should mention the "desktop update" for Windows NT, which came with internet explorer 4.0. This update provided a very nice update to the Windows NT shell, making it as user-friendly as the Windows 98 shell. It allowed for context menus when you right-click the start menu, added the "QuickLaunch" toolbar to Windows NT, allowed for Active Desktop, and updated the windows file manager.

IE4 is not available on the Microsoft website, but you can find it in various places, like the Windows NT Option Pack CD, Windows 95 C OSR2.5 CD, the Outlook 98 CD, or the Visual Basic 6.0 CD.

Download IE6 SP1, and get the IEAK (IE Administration Kit). Using that you can build a customised version of IE6 that includes the desktop update and all patches suitable for IE6 on NT4

NT 4 Screenshot.

Maybe it would be better if the NT 4 screenshot was of the Workstation version and ot of server. Just a thought.

CodenameCueball 10:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

They are basically identical, just the workstation one has a blue background image with the old style windows "flag" logo instead of the white backoffice/windows server system "swoosh" one that server has. Terminal Server uses a naff black background. Otherwise they are identical except server has some management tools.

workstation -> server

I seem to remember some stuff that went on around the release about how by doing some registry mods, you could basically convert NT4 WS to Server. In fact I seem to remember O'Rielly being pretty involved in "exposing" this. Anyone think this is noteworthy and know the details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabalon (talk • contribs)

The details are on O'Reilly and are linked to on Wikipedia from the Mark Russinovich page. It would make more sense to link to them from here. 213.48.150.236 (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Discontinued categories

This page belongs in Category:Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows, not directly in Category:Discontinued Microsoft software. This version's lack of popularity does not justify otherwise. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, this has been fixed. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Overview section

The overview section is basically a straw man comparison with Windows 95. Firstly, this is like lamenting the Ferarri F40 as sadly lacking compared to a Nissan Versa, because the former doesn't have an in car entertainment system. More importantly the overview should be just that, an over view. Djonesuk (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The current contents of Overview should be renamed to Comparison with Windows 95 and replaced. Atomice (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Key people

Where are they in the article? I mean, the development personal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintceas (talk • contribs) 02:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Screenshot should be reverted (again)

An edit war regarding the main screenshot for this article ended with the new, non-default (custom themed) image, remaining, and the inability for a non-administrator to revert to a prior revision. Can we get a consensus to restore the original image here? Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

What version has the screenshot you'd prefer? Jeh (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@User:Jeh: The oldest version you can see there, that of 03:47, 21 September 2010. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The version we have isn't “non-default”. Windows NT 4.0 uses those high-colour icons on systems with support for them. —ajf (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@User:Ajfweb, it is most certainly non-default. Those icons are never used automatically on any version of Windows – you have to go and choose the theme manually. Furthermore, the icon style clashes horribly with the networking icon, which isn't themed. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mdrnpndr: Ugly as they are, the Windows 95 Plus! pack added these as the high-colour variants of the “normal” icons. They aren't a separate theme, they're part of the icon data. In fact, Windows NT 4.0, so far as I know, does not support the Plus! pack themes. But NT 4.0 does incorporate the rest of the 95 Plus pack!, and as part of that, NT 4.0 does use high-colour icons by default. So if you install it on a system with driver support for high colour icons, you get them. Thus the screenshot. —ajf (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@User:Ajfweb, could you provide a link with more information on this? I'm still quite certain it doesn't switch the icons by default, but I remain open to being convinced otherwise.

Isn't having the icons on the screen in particular places, the Start Menu open, File Manager and "About" open, etc., also "non-default"? I'm just not seeing anything here that needs to be fixed. Jeh (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@User:Jeh: No, we're talking about the alterations made to the stock theme here. Opening and closing windows (especially since it's done to demonstrate more features) has nothing to do with that. I don't see any moved icons in that screenshot either. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing anything that needs to be fixed. Much ado about next to nothing. Jeh (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Windows 2000 only supports 32-bit x86 architecture

During the development span of Windows 2000, Microsoft abandoned other architectures found on Windows NT 4.0, expect 32-bit IA-32 architecture and fully developed for 64-bit Alpha architecture. Later when Compaq was acquired by HP, they had an optimistic plan to replace 64-bit Alpha and 32/64-bit PaRiSC architectures with IA-64, and Intel also planed to succeed the then-current 32-bit IA-32 processors with Itanium too. Microsoft later abandoned the in-development 64-bit alpha edition of Windows 2000, right before it was released in early 2000. After Windows 2000 released, Microsoft develop their Itanium edition of Windows on the Windows 2000 codebase, but there is no Windows 2000 Itanium edition at all, no matter alpha, beta or RC and so forth. The only beta edition of Windows 2000 Advanced Limited Edition for Itanium processor is essentially based on the then-future Windows Server 2003 rather than Windows 2000. So for Windows 2000, there is only one architecture supported, and that is 32-bit IA-32 or x86. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.53.106.51 (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue of Windows 2000 for Itanium is a matter of debate. Your claim of ~"none at all" is wrong; there was a preview release of Windows 2000 for ia64 at 2000 PDC, and this was build 5.1.2195.1620 - far in advance of the Server 2003 codebase.

But that's not the main point here.

The main point is that this comment about Windows 2000 dropping support for other than x86 is simply irrelevant to this article.

This article is not about Windows 2000. It is not about the progression of CPU architecture support in the Windows NT family. It is about Windows NT 4.0.

See, that's the title of the article - "Windows NT 4.0". The comment that "support for other than x86 was dropped in Windows 2000" does not tell the reader anything about NT 4.0, and is therefore irrelevant to this article.

The comparisons to Windows 95 can be seen as relevant because 95 and 4.0 were marketed during overlapping time periods. But it is not the purpose of each article describing the NT family to cover what happened in the next member of the family that follows it. That material belongs in the Windows 2000 article.

btw, "Please discuss on the talk page" does not mean "make your point there and then go right ahead and revert to your preferred version again." Per WP:BRD, your very next step after you have been reverted should be to discuss on the article talk page, not to revert again. And "discuss" means post your justification and then wait for a discussion and a conclusion. The article should be left in the state it was in before your edit until the content dispute is resolved. Jeh (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

5.1.2195.1620? Wow, what is the codebase of Windows Whistler, you just said nothing serious and important at all. Your edits on this article could have gone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.53.106.18 (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The build number puts it solidly in the 2000 LOD. Look here: [1] You see, the earliest Whistler builds were even being called 5.0! But they all had build numbers above 2195. You'll notice btw that service packs don't change the build number. When MS ships a base product like Windows 2000, they fork the codebase. The main LOD continues onto the next major version (which would be XP in this case), and the build numbers progress in that line. The fork is the basis for service pack development, and MS does not increment the build number in that line. You can tell when a service pack is based on a given codebase by the fact that the build numbers match. Well, build 2195 matches the 2000 codebase, showing that (unless MS made up a special rule for handling build numbers just for Itanium development) the preview release I spoke of was in the 2000 codebase LOD. It is also well known that MS's internal development of Itanium support long predated XP/2003 ("Whistler").

But again, whether or not there was an Itanium version shipped, under any terms, that was built from the Win2K codebase is not the key point here. The key point here is that Windows 2000 is not the subject of this article. The comment that Windows 2000 dropped support for platforms other than x86, however true, has no relevance to NT 4. Jeh (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I have completely no ideas what you were talking about, but as I read what you edited or censored is really important and sensitive. Would you please take a look at what you edited from here. You removed and/or modified two things

First, you removed "since it is a 16/32-bit hybrid OS". It is very important thing here, it was provided to differentiate the essential differences between Windows 9x and Windows NT.

Second, you removed "Windows 2000 would later drop support for the other architectures leaving it to just x86", and added "(x86, MIPS, Alpha)" after "NT 4.0 can run on multiple processor architectures". This article or wiki item does focus on the Windows NT 4.0, but it provided important information on the difference between Windows NT 4.0 and its succeeded product, Windows 2000. This is very important, because you have no chances to upgrade the IBM PS/2 PowerPC from Windows NT 4.0 to Windows 2000, but you can upgraded the workstation based on AMD or Intel x86 processors from Windows NT 4.0 to Windows 2000. So you removed the most important things here too and made a big mistake that you just told the audience that Windows NT 4.0 supports only three architectures, x86, MIPS and Alpha. But what version of MIPS it supports? 64-bit applications are supported by the Windows NT 6.0, because Alpha is a 64-bit processor? My workstation is based on PowerPC and it did really work with Windows NT 4.0, why you did not mention PowerPC architecture? You failed to answer so many questions, and make this article less compressible than before. So you need to go away with your edits right now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.53.106.18 (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

First, I removed "since it is a 16/32-bit hybrid OS" from the sentence "By comparison, Windows 95 fails to boot on computers with approximately more than 480 MB of memory since it is a 16/32-bit hybrid OS." The problem is the word "since". "since" is like "because". Put simply (in deference to you, who claim to "have completely no ideas what you were talking about", so I will explain, as simply and as carefully as possible, what this sixth-grade-level word means), when you write "a, since b", or "a, because b", you are saying that b caused a.

So, the sentence as I quoted above is claiming that the "16/32-bit hybrid OS" is the reason that 95 fails to boot on a system with 480 MB of RAM.

Now, it is true that Windows 95 is a 16/32 bit hybrid but... that's not the question. Nobody ever said it wasn't a 16/32 bit hybrid OS. But the claim in the sentence above - that the 16/32-bit hybrid nature is the reason for the 480MB RAM limit - is wrong. (It also is not supported by the reference. In fact the reference doesn't even mention the word "hybrid" nor mention 16 bits.)

This is such a basic point of English comprehension that I can only assume you simply are not reading the responses here. Or else you don't care: You're just determined to oppose the deletion, even though if the sentence is allowed to stand with "since it is a 16/32-bit hybrid OS," it is making a claim that is flatly untrue. i.e. you are opposing this deletion for reasons having nothing to do with reliable sources or facts.

Aside from that, the point that W95 is a "16/32-bit hybrid OS" - i.e. there are 16-bit components in its kernel, while NT has none of that - could be considered a valid point of comparison here. But it's not going to be stated as the reason for the 480 MB RAM issue, because it isn't the reason, not by the reference given nor by any reference I can find. If you can find a reliable source that supports the claim, well, let's have it.

Second: 1) That I omitted PowerPC from that little list is irrelevant to whether or not Windows 2000's changes are relevant here. Enjoy your little victory dance at finding a trivial omission of mine. It won't change anything. 2) No, I didn't mention what version of MIPS it supports. I also didn't mention which x86 processors it didn't support, etc. BFD. 3) I have no idea what you're talking about re "64-bit applications" and "NT 6.0". Did you mean NT 4.0? Yes, Alpha is a 64-bit processor and did not have a 32-bit mode, but Windows NT through 4.0 ran it using 32-bit virtual addresses (sign-extended to 64), but with 64-bit registers. This is the same way VMS ran on the Alpha before VMS was ported to 64 bits. I explained this a while back in a talk page discussion, but I don't know where now - if you actually care about learning something, as opposed to harping on every tiny error or omission you think other people make (which is clearly an attempt by you at distraction from the real points of discussion), you can probably find it.

All of the above paragraph is irrelevant to whether or not we should mention that Windows 2000 was x86-only.

3) The real point: This is still an article about NT 4.0 and the fact that its successor dropped support for other-than-x86 is irrelevant to this article. Even in context of the comparison to Windows 95, it's still irrelevant, since Windows 95 was no longer the "other MS operating system" by the time Windows 2000 came out. By then, Windows 95 had already been replaced by Windows 98.

The edit that added this little tidbit about 2000 only supporting x86, factual though it is, was an example of topic creep. That information is already in the Windows 2000 article where it belongs. It is not the responsibility of each article that covers a member of the NT family to cover the entire family, or even the subsequent member. Jeh (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, p.s.: re your statement "I have completely no ideas what you were talking about" - well then, I would say you are intellectually, or technically, or linguistically incapable of functioning as an editor here. (Maybe just one of those, maybe two, maybe all three.) The vast majority of other editors with whom I interact here have no trouble understanding my writing (even if they disagree with my points). I respond here only for benefit of other editors who may be reading. Jeh (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support deletion. The first deletion ("since it is a 16/32-bit hybrid OS") fails verification. The second deletion ("Windows 2000 would later drop support for the other architectures leaving it to just x86") is simply off-topic. —Codename Lisa (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

NT 4 kernel source code on GitHub

Hello, everyone

Revision 781336867 and revision 781336628, both by Arnon81, claim that Windows NT 4 kernel's source code has been published to GitHub, linking to the alleged GitHub repo in support of the statement. The problem with this contribution is the GitHub repository in question does not belong to Microsoft (Microsoft has one), the source code does not have any evidence (like a digital signature) that it is indeed what it claims to be, and since no one has seen Windows NT 4 kernel, this code could be the source code of literally anything, including worthless garbage. Even if it was genuine, it might be copyright violation.

So, to cite our policies, we are dealing with a self-published source which is either fake or genuine. If it happened to be genuine, we are inserting an external link to pirated material. Both are unacceptable.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Windows 95#Logo problem

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Windows 95#Logo problem. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Codename Lisa (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Section

You should Add the Date when Full Support ended Since Windows NT 4.0 Has a Plan that Extends Support Up until 2006-2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoKids123 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite a source to back that up? Herbfur (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I Will find the Source for You.---LeoKids123 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Here it is! https://www.controleng.com/articles/goodbye-windows-nt/ LeoKids123 (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems credible to me. I will add the info. Thank you,Herbfur (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Does NT4 really have 7 Service Packs?

I was going to edit this right away, but, having looked at the edit wars in the history, I thought this is too heated to change it without discussing.

As of typing of this message, it states "Windows NT 4.0 received seven service packs during its lifecycle, as well as numerous service rollup packages and option packs." Now, was it actually 7? The table on right states there are SP1-6, then 6a and then Security Rollup for 6a. SP6a release notes state that it was made mainly because of one compatibility problem, MS also added 2 updates as a "bonus." In my opinion, just like SP1a for Windows XP (which is SP1 with Microsoft Java VM removed), this shouldn't be treated as a separate Service Pack, meaning there are actually 6 of them and not 7. Oscareczek (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Change the Comparison with Windows 95 to Comparison with Windows 95 and Windows 98.

I think we should change the Comparison with Windows 95 section to Comparison with Windows 95 and Windows 98. I have a good reason for it, Windows 98 came out in 1998, Windows NT 4.0 was still the current version of Windows NT as version 5.0 (later renamed to Windows 2000) was still under development and wouldn't be released until 2000. Agree or Disagree. --174.91.77.214 (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Windows NT 4.0 Workstation logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)