• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Windows 1.0 - 2000, NT 4.0, etc.

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

wagex

Chapstick Eating Premium Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
@c6 now is your chance! haha jk

pretty neat, i bet hardware to run this is becoming super hard to come by anymore. :(
 

c627627

c(n*199780) Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2002
@c6 now is your chance! haha jk

pretty neat, i bet hardware to run this is becoming super hard to come by anymore. :(
:D Those have been archived in my personal collection for many years now. :D
There are multiple computers on every floor of my house with every Windows OS since Windows 95 installed on them, including Windows 95.
I no longer update their drive images though. :D
 
OP
Culbrelai

Culbrelai

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Virtualize

Yeah I have personally tested almost every one of the ISOs from that site and they do indeed work in VMs, I'm sure they'd work if you actually had hardware for them as well XD although floppies for boot disks might be hard to come by.
 

knoober

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Yeah I have personally tested almost every one of the ISOs from that site and they do indeed work in VMs, I'm sure they'd work if you actually had hardware for them as well XD although floppies for boot disks might be hard to come by.

I had real problems with the WIndows 98 SE (and all other versions) from that site. Is there a step I was missing. I pretty much tabled the project when it didnt work out of the box with the intention of going back to it later. Whats the special sauce in this case ? Thanks in advance
 
OP
Culbrelai

Culbrelai

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
What was the issue? I had several issues installing DOS-based operating systems (95,98,ME) but in the end I prevailed. You need to make sure that you don't have too much RAM for them, not too many CPU cores, etc. Describe your issue and perhaps I can help.

Anyway, Here's NT 4.0, which I didn't really know where it fit in the Windows lineup so I was curious. Apparently it's like Windows Server 1995 lol, it supports unusually large amounts of RAM for the time period (Windows 95 will not boot above ~480MB RAM). Windows NT 4.0 (the server editions) support up to 64GB of RAM Q_q (Workstation only supports 4GB).

Note how it measures RAM in KB lol

Strange stuff where the CPU would be.

O0vwSxi.png

Here's Windows ME

Gets the CPU right, measures RAM in MB (although it's 5 years newer than NT)

Never really used ME either, apparently it was a flop like Vista/8. My dear old grandpa who taught me about computers (I am 22 now, was 6 in 2000) had a 95 and 98 computer ($3,000 at the time, very expensive lol) and then skipped right to XP later. I remember playing Duke Nukem 3D on Windows 98 =P good times.

3tA2y3o.png

Arranged in my head:

Windows 95 - buggy/unstable, though innovative start menu.
Windows NT 4.0 - Meant for professional market, more stable than 95, no support for PnP. Later OS's use many features originating from NT 4.0 including Remote Desktop.
Windows 98/98SE - fair success, more stable than 95. Incremental upgrade to 95 with little innovation.
Windows ME - flop, last DOS based Windows, final version in Windows 9x lineup, poor stability.
Windows 2000 - success, intended for pro market. Paved the way for Windows XP. Quite stable.
Windows XP - Combo of ME/2000 with 2000s stability and ME's consumer focus. Fantastic stability, compatibility. Security holes so large you could drive a VW bus through. Major success still, lasting well over a decade with around 65% of all Internet connected computers running it at its peak.
Windows Vista - fairly substantial flop. Fancy Aero effects. Nagging UAC. Poor compatibility, high system requirements.
Windows 7 - Vista SP3, more or less. Toned down UAC. Better compatibility. Great game performance. Windows XP replacement.
Windows 8/8.1 - another large flop. Removal of start button, failtastic 'apps' which are, for the most part, nothing more than dumbed down web pages. Worse performance on many games compared to Windows 7.
Windows 10 - yet to be seen. Multiple security hazards plague it, including ScamDrive integration, Cortana, literally 11 pages of privacy settings spread around OS, two different control panels, advertising in start menu, removal of update control, etc etc
 

knoober

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Ill make a thread about what the issue was then, or post back here. Like I said I kind of walked away from it because there were more pressing matters. Basically it just wouldnt install. The installer would freeze and I restarted a few times and finally got in but then it started to loop. I would direct it where to install and it would copy files (or whatever Win98SE calls it) and then I would get put back at the begginning of the install. From reading I have done (confirmed by your comments) I suspect I tried to make the hard drive to large or allocate too much ram. I pretty much just wanted to play Duke Nukem again :)
 

Pinky

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Location
Narf City, USA
Ill make a thread about what the issue was then, or post back here. Like I said I kind of walked away from it because there were more pressing matters. Basically it just wouldnt install. The installer would freeze and I restarted a few times and finally got in but then it started to loop. I would direct it where to install and it would copy files (or whatever Win98SE calls it) and then I would get put back at the begginning of the install. From reading I have done (confirmed by your comments) I suspect I tried to make the hard drive to large or allocate too much ram. I pretty much just wanted to play Duke Nukem again :)

No need for all that fuss... ;)

http://playdosgamesonline.com/duke-nukem-3d.html
 

c627627

c(n*199780) Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2002
Windows NT 4 was a predecessor to NT5 aka 2000, multi-user operating system. Back in those days know as "for businesses"
Windows 95 > 98 > Me > the end of single user Win9x family.