re: Would NT4 questions, if any, be on-topic in this forum?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 10:26 am
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Kiwi
(2209 messages posted)
With the passage of time, in my mind, NT4 had shifted from being truly more contemporary
with Windows 3.1, which is where it seems to be technologically (now seen
as that, after some research), to have seemed as if it had fit between W95 and W98.
But as you say, the prospects of using NT4 are depressing. It really is backward
-- not even capable of booting from FAT32 through its last service pack.
The game is a flying sim, Freespace -- the SF fighter sim, and in the past, when
I've tried anything similar on vastly newer hardware than matches to such games,
the controls are so twitchy that the simulation is a failure. I had my last salaried
position when the game and Win98 were new, and was putting in long hours for a very
unappreciative and unrewarding employer.
I missed most of the entertainments of the day. My own old PCs then were a P1/233
MMX, and a P2/400, and the original MBs from both of those failed to survive 'till
now. The P2/400 was in an Intel MB, the last such I'll ever use; the P1/233 was
using some now unknown brand, "VIP", for its mainboard. But not too long after I
had set those two aside, I had exposure to my first ALi Aladdin board, a Biostar
M5ALA.
I never got either the network nor the USB ports to work on either of two M5ALAs,
and had trouble with using my older nVIDIA video cards / drivers as well. Nevertheless,
that P5A received nothing but the most glowing reviews back in its time frame. Now
that I have time for games, and a sizable collection of outdated PC components in
my shop, I've obtained copies of some interesting-sounding oldies from that "too-busy"
part of my life. Freespace and Arcanum are the first two I'm going to try.
But neither of two P5As is very good at keeping track of its NICs, not in Win98 especially,
but will also lose track when running Win2K. I blame the chipset. I really didn't
want to actually have to spend money on anything but my old games, either. Nevertheless,
for $4-$6 each, plus $2.50 - $3.50 shipping, I bought three sound cards, and finally
got a Turtle Beach Santa Cruz to work.
Wrapping up a long & rambling story, instead of the P5A, a Soyo SY5-EMA+ (Via MVP3
chipset) seems a much more likely platform now. Thanks for the reply.
.
Kiwi
**
On Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 4:11 pm, C K wrote:
>What game are you trying to run? NT4 isn't plug and play for hardware as is W2K.
> I had to configure the hardware in NT. Try working with NT and you will be glad
>for W2K, which had the installing and hardware configuration routines that Win 9X
>did.
>
>I still have a P5A that runs Win 9X and W2K without a hiccup (512 meg of RAM).
Finally
>going to give it away. But it was a great little machine and always stable even
>if it was a little slow. If you are having issues with your installs on it, you
>well may have a board that is going bad, or a piece of hardware that is causing
issues.
> I have mine overclocked from 500 to 550 on the processor and not a problem with
>BSODs or corruption. I did however find that UDMA wouldn't function right in Win
>98 or Win NT, but would function correctly with W2K on the ACPI HAL. It was to
slow
>for XP and the Standard PC HAL had to be used as the ACPI HAL wouldn't work. SO
>the P5A is best suited for Win 9X or W2K, but not NT or XP IME..
>
>You might get lucky to find help with NT4 here, but don't count on it. It was a
>bear to work with and I for one couldn't wait to see it go. It will NOT be game
>friendly in my experience. W2K was better, but not as good as Win 98 SE on a good
>stable hardware platform. IME
>
>Games got the proper support in Win XP Home finally. But you needed more hardware
>horsepower as compared to Win 98.
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  |  | re: Would NT4 questions, if any, be on-topic in this forum? (Kiwi: Wed, May 27, 2009, 10:26 am) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum
|
|
