• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    382 months 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      112 months ago

      60% of the time, it works every time.

      Of course, 60% was a hell of a lot more than 95 managed, so still impressive?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      102 months 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
        link
        92 months 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 months 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.

  • @Glowstick
    link
    English
    162 months ago

    Boy, in 1994 this would’ve been huge!