Anyone still use this os?

[flamethrower205]

Well, do u people?

What if your life moved.....2 inches to the left?

 

[Novakain]

Yes.

About 300 of our PC's, and ALL of our Wintel servers still use NT4. The rest of our PC's are using Windows 2000 with SP2 installed. Those machines we have that have WinNT installed on them started to be rolled out early 2001. We didn't install Windows 2000 on our new PC's until SP1 was released, because we really don't trust Microsoft to release a new OS without a major amount of bugs in it.

My machine at home uses XP, and compared to Windows 2000 I think it looks really pretty. But at work there's no advantage that we can see in spending time and money upgrading all of those PC's to Windows 2000/XP. Only our servers will migrate to the Windows 2000/Exchange 2000 environment to take advantage of active directories. And even then only those required to get a native Windows 2000 Domain happening.


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Novakain on 12/25/01 04:24 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[flamethrower205]

Yeah, but NT is so damn slow! Win2k is very nice though.

What if your life moved.....2 inches to the left?

 

[Novakain]

Yes, but if we upgraded to Win2000, all of our employees would have no excuse not to work faster. :lol:

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Novakain on 12/26/01 00:42 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[flamethrower205]

lol. true.

What if your life moved.....2 inches to the left?

 

[Ron_Jeremy]

What do you mean NT4 is slow? I assume you are talking about IDE disk performance? Most peeps never set up NT to use DMA.

Cheers,

Ron_Jeremy

If you loan a friend $20 & never see them again, it was worth it.

 

[flamethrower205]

Overall it seems to have a sluggishness to it.

What if your life moved.....2 inches to the left?

 

[Ron_Jeremy]

Can't (won't) agree with you on that one either. NT4 W'Station is one of the lightest "real" OS's you'll put on your computer, & even a Pentium 200 will run it quickly. Try that with Win2K & make a comparison. If it seems sluggish to you, then you have a configuration problem(s).

Cheers,

Ron_Jeremy

If you loan a friend $20 & never see them again, it was worth it.

 

[flamethrower205]

My school used NT4 for a year on all sorts of comps, ranging from 166MHz to 700Mhz. All were slow (and the server was very, os that wasn't the problem).

What if your life moved.....2 inches to the left?

 

[Ron_Jeremy]

<b>My school used NT4 for a year on all sorts of comps, ranging from 166MHz to 700Mhz. All were slow.</b>

All were slow? Like I said, if it seemed sluggish to you, then the pc's were not setup correctly. Try running Win2K on a 166MHz pc for yourself to see how "fast" it is.

Cheers,

Ron_Jeremy

If you loan a friend $20 & never see them again, it was worth it.

 

[Novakain]

That may be, but regardless of footprint, I like Windows 2000 for its extra features and support of newer technology: Computer management, Device manager, Plug & Pray, Defrag utility (albiet crappy), pathping, USB support, etc.etc.etc. As everyone knows, Windows 2000 is really just a later version of Windows NT, and if someone were to give me the choice of running Windows 2000 or Windows NT on a PIII-866MHz machine with 128MB RAM, I know which one I'd go for.

 

[Smilin]

Yes. We are about 90% NT, 9% 9x and about 1% w2k here at work. NT still gets the job done just fine.

I'm using 2k server, xp pro and redhat 7.2 on the home computers.