Talk:Windows NT 4.0

message: 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)
thread_title: Version 4.5?

message: 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)
thread_title:  32-bit operating system 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Windows NT and its lessening of its microkernel architecture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "the fourth major release" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hardware support 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too many gaming references 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NT 4 Screenshot. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  workstation -> server 

message: 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)
replies: text: Just FYI, this has been fixed. — Wenli (reply here) 02:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discontinued categories 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overview section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Key people 

message: Hello, everyone
 and , both by , 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)
thread_title:  NT 4 kernel source code on GitHub 

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

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does NT4 really have 7 Service Packs? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Change the Comparison with Windows 95 to Comparison with Windows 95 and Windows 98. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion