Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Pulls Plug for Support on NT4

CowboyNeal posted more than 11 years ago | from the being-put-out-to-pasture dept.

Windows 611

seymansey writes "According to and, Microsoft has apparently announced that as of the end of June, support for the now aging NT4 OS will be pulled. NT4 Server users have until the end of 2004 for support. Windows 98 users will be the next on the list for axed support too. Of course, Microsoft will still provide its knowledge base, but we wont see any more patches, etc. developed for the OS. After 7 years, it's kind of sad to see NT4 go."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good Ridance (-1, Troll)

Walrus99 (543380) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309825)

How sad :-(

Oh? (-1, Troll)

jabbadabbadoo (599681) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309828)

"After 7 years, it's kind of sad to see NT4 go"

Why is that?

Re:Oh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309903)

totally agree..

why is it sad to see it go ?

I wont miss it.

Viva La Linux Baby.

Re:Oh? (1)

aftermath09 (521504) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309996)

Sad? I'm not sure I'm going to shed a tear for an operating system that has caused many headaches for sys admins across the world. There is, after all, a reason there were six service packs ;-) I think the sooner the world can purge servers of nt4 the better.

After we finally got the thing stable.... (5, Funny)

5.11Climber (578513) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309830)

they're going to pull the plug! Damn!

Re:After we finally got the thing stable.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309956)

coincidence that Strom died the same day they "pulled the plug"? Conclusion = Strom was actually the world's most advanced NT cluster.

Re:After we finally got the thing stable.... (1)

uberdood (154108) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309970)

Stable? Can you say "port 135"? M$ pulled the plug months ago.

Simoniker kills Stron Thurmond to free his kind ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309831)

Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban []

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

Laws forbidding homosexual sex, once universal, now are rare. Those on the books are rarely enforced but underpin other kinds of discrimination, lawyers for two Texas men had argued to the court.

The men "are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote.

"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," he said.

Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), David Souter (news - web sites), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy's rationale.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) dissented.

The court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.

"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

Although the majority opinion said the case did not "involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter," Scalia said the ruling invites laws allowing gay marriage.

"This reasoning leaves on shaky, pretty shaky grounds, state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples," Scalia wrote.

Thomas wrote separately to say that while he considers the Texas law at issue "uncommonly silly," he cannot agree to strike it down because he finds no general right to privacy in the Constitution.

Thomas calls himself a strict adherent to the actual words of the Constitution as opposed to modern-day interpretations. If he were a Texas legislator and not a judge, Thomas said, he would vote to repeal the law.

"Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources," Thomas wrote.

The two men at the heart of the case, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were each fined $200 and spent a night in jail for the misdemeanor sex charge in 1998.

The case began when a neighbor with a grudge faked a distress call to police, telling them that a man was "going crazy" in Lawrence's apartment. Police went to the apartment, pushed open the door and found the two men having anal sex.

"This ruling lets us get on with our lives and it opens the door for gay people all over the country," Lawrence said Thursday.

Ruth Harlow, one of Lawrence's lawyers, called the ruling historic.

"The court had the courage to reverse one of its gravest mistakes and to replace that with a resounding statement," of gay civil rights, Harlow said.

"This is a giant leap forward to a day where we are no longer branded as criminals."

As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law. In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts.

Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four " Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri " prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws as well.

The Supreme Court was widely criticized 17 years ago when it upheld an antisodomy law similar to Texas'. The ruling became a rallying point for gay activists.

Of the nine justices who ruled on the 1986 case, only three remain on the court. Rehnquist was in the majority in that case " Bowers v. Hardwick " as was O'Connor. Stevens dissented.

"Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today," Kennedy wrote for the majority Thursday.

Kennedy noted that the current case does not involve minors or anyone who might be unable or reluctant to refuse a homosexual advance.

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Their right to liberty under (the Constitution) gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

A long list of legal and medical groups joined gay rights and human rights supporters in backing the Texas men. Many friend-of-the-court briefs argued that times have changed since 1986, and that the court should catch up.

At the time of the court's earlier ruling, 24 states criminalized such behavior. States that have since repealed the laws include Georgia, where the 1986 case arose.

Texas defended its sodomy law as in keeping with the state's interest in protecting marriage and child-rearing. Homosexual sodomy, the state argued in legal papers, "has nothing to do with marriage or conception or parenthood and it is not on a par with these sacred choices."

The state had urged the court to draw a constitutional line "at the threshold of the marital bedroom."

Although Texas itself did not make the argument, some of the state's supporters told the justices in friend-of-the-court filings that invalidating sodomy laws could take the court down the path of allowing same-sex marriage.

The case is Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102.

About damn time! (3, Funny)

w.p.richardson (218394) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309833)

I still have to use NT 4 at work. It sucks to have to sync my Palm Pilot with a serial cradle! Yay 1987!

Re:About damn time! (1)

Pflipp (130638) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309993)

We still have NT4 at home. And it still looks and feels quite modern (although yes, people are complaining). So I was kind of surprised to realize that Win98 actually came after NT4.

(Not that I care, I use neither myself.)

s/home/school/g (1)

Pflipp (130638) | more than 11 years ago | (#6310012)

"home" should be "school" there.

(I mean, before I've got someone at my door asking about my licence for my home PC...)

The devil you know (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309998)

I'm not convinced this is a good thing. While I generally think MS got Win2K right (though not XP), several people in my office still explicitly request NT4 on new machines. One guy who works on my team is considering this now, after spending a week chasing a bug somewhere on his WinXP box that causes it to reset without warning when running some essential software. Sometimes, better the devil you know really is good advice.

ahhh. (1)

cfscript (654864) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309834)

no wonder there's been such a madhouse rush to move to 2000/xp here at DoS.

nt is dead, rot in hell you log of..

yawn.... (-1, Offtopic)

quiklilo71 (557049) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309835)

First Post? Are you serious? NT needs to die anyways.

Re:yawn.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309850)

you, uh, fail it?


YOU FAIL IT! (624257) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309857)

They should pull the plug on FAILURES like you! This is not the first post!



Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309900)

Good to see you're still in action.

Upgrades? (3, Interesting)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309837)

Once a product ceases to be supported, does "migration" to a newer product from it become unsupported?

Re:Upgrades? (1)

5.11Climber (578513) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309860)

Not as long as Microsoft can get your money! I think that this is true of most software packages. I just upgraded some software at a company that was two versions out of support!

Re:Upgrades? (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309973)

Hrm... I can't see M$ backing out of supporting migration to a newer version of a product they create/control. I mean, if they don't help with it, there's always the chance they'll lose the customer to another company, or to an Open Source solution.

They may do some bone-headed things, but I can't see them being this stupid...


Re:Upgrades? (2, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6310014)

" Once a product ceases to be supported, does "migration" to a newer product from it become unsupported? "

Excuse me, what is a 'supported upgrade"? Could you inserted a Windows XP prof CD into an NT4 system and Click 'upgrade'? And would that 'upgrade' your mail, contacts, viruses (?), screensavers, settings, apps etc.?

Microsoft's interpretation of support implies merely a LipService, and a tiny discount on upgrade pricing.

sad to see it go? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309838)

you aren't a ./ reader - are you?

Strom Thurmond, dead at 100 (-1, Offtopic)

Compact Dick (518888) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309842)

I just heard some sad news on the radio today - U.S. senator Strom Thurmond [] was found dead in his Edgefield home last night [] . There weren't any more details yet.

I'm sure we'll all miss him - even if you weren't a fan of his promoting segregation and oppressing civil rights there's no denying his contribution to the political transformation of the South and the Slashdot trolling scene. Truly an American icon.

He shall be missed :'(

Re:Strom Thurmond, dead at 100 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309944)

Excellent work sir!!

tehehe shiite muslims

But really, the U.S. Senate != Nursing home

Possible (5, Funny)

pasi (518572) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309843)

And now Microsoft will turn it to Open Software so volunteers can start an own fork of it and continue deveploving it. .. and will win eurovision song contest and soccer world championship. And SCO will be popular again.

OR, then not.

After 7 years... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309847)

It is kind of sad to see Linux kernel series 1.99 go.

Even more Microsoft sympathy? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309849)

Yesterday and today, the Slashdot front page has been fairly apologetic and sympathetic to Microsoft's cause. What, are we now suddenly an outlet for Windows updates and lamentations over sunset Microsoft operating systems?

Re:Even more Microsoft sympathy? (2, Insightful)

altp (108775) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309920)

That, or, /. is just posting more tech related news than just Linux/OSS news.

Some of us actually have to administer a Windows Network, or at the very least know whats going on in the Windows world.


Re:Even more Microsoft sympathy? (1, Funny)

Hellraisr (305322) | more than 11 years ago | (#6310003)

Or part of their advertising agreement with Microsoft (as /. is covered in .net ads) is that they can't post negative stories about them anymore. ;)

Primary link at Microsoft (5, Informative)

LinuxParanoid (64467) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309852)

A full description of Microsoft's end-of-support, end-of-life policies, including dates for *all* it's OSes, can be found here [] .


Re:Primary link at Microsoft (5, Interesting)

madman101 (571954) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309873)

Those are for desktop operating systems only. BTW, the extensions were announced and heavily covered in the media back in February. "Apparently" announced? Where have you people been?

Other MS lifecycle links (5, Informative)

LinuxParanoid (64467) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309934)

Good point. Here's a better lifecycle link [] at Microsoft, which includes it's Windows server products and a bunch of other server products. For Office and other MS products, you can try this link [] .

--LP, who is 'journal whoring', not karma whoring thank you very much ;-)

Re:Primary link at Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6310005)

All I can say is I'm going to be really sad when Win2k is EOL'd and no longer supported. :-( I've got a nice copy that doesn't require you to enter a serial number into it and I install it on every Windows box I've installed in the last 2 years. With XP I'd have to activate them and probably need to buy licenses. Fuck that! I'm switching to Macs since they don't have a license either.

We still have NT4 servers... (5, Insightful)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309855)

...where I work. Why upgrade a server if it still works? Put 2000 and XP on the workstations, sure, but why replace an already-functional server? As long as it keeps serving files, right?

Now there will be companies like ours scrambling to get 2000 Server or 2K3 server on their servers by the end of next year. And we won't have a choice. Upgrade or lose support. What do you do? You upgrade. :-/

Re:We still have NT4 servers... (1)

caffeinex36 (608768) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309864)

Amazingly enough, we are upgrading our infrastructure to w2k (a thousand or so servers) and not our desktops (nt4) first. Odd. but I guess someone thought it be too....easy.


Re:We still have NT4 servers... (1)

MrFredBloggs (529276) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309879)

> Why upgrade a server if it still works


>And we won't have a choice. Upgrade or lose
>support. What do you do? You upgrade. :-/

Why upgrade a server if it still works?

Re:We still have NT4 servers... (1)

Trigun (685027) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309967)

Security patches are about the only reason. But putting an NT4 box in the DMZ is asking for trouble...

Re:We still have NT4 servers... (4, Insightful)

Matrix272 (581458) | more than 11 years ago | (#6310008)

Because if it stops working, you have to reload it. Reloading W2K is a lot easier and faster than NT4. Besides, maybe, just maybe, sometime in the near future, somebody will want (gasp) a NEW FEATURE! If, and when, that time comes, you'll be stuck. Maybe sometime you'll want Active Directories... except when that happens in 2007, you'll only have worked with Windows NT4 for the last 11 years and will have no clue what Active Directories are, or how to use them... so the learning curve on getting YOU up to speed keeps the company from moving forward.

Sometimes having a server that works isn't enough. Eventually you will need more features or additional security or more hardware/storage. When that time comes, you'll be screwed.

Re:We still have NT4 servers... (4, Insightful)

Talez (468021) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309894)

Killing off NT4 and its old Microsoft LAN Manager "networking" was like killing off the 9x line. It had to be done and it'll hurt now and months later you'll be wondering what exactly the fuss was again.

Re:We still have NT4 servers... (4, Informative)

tsetem (59788) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309911)

If you upgrade from NT4, do it right. Use Samba [] .

The latest version of Samba even allows you to set up your Samba server to be a PDC, and directly migrate your users & groups from an already functioning NT Domain.

Re:We still have NT4 servers... (2, Interesting)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309987)

We have some Samba servers on Red Hat, actually. But we have certain applications that absolutely *require* Windows servers (for one, we use Outlook for mail :( ), plus some of our contracts with our customers actually specify what kind of server and what operating system(s) are to be used to house their data.

Re:We still have NT4 servers... (1)

joshwa1 (651367) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309914)

Do you use support from Microsoft for those NT4 servers anyway? Surely you'll still be able to get security fixes, so why worry whether it's "officially" supported or not? Anyway, the support for NT4 Server lasts longer anyway...

Re:We still have NT4 servers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309954)

Surely you'll still be able to get security fixes
Nope. End of Life. No more fixes. That's it.

Re:We still have NT4 servers... (4, Insightful)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309958)

When you have to maintain 24/7 and 3 9's reliability on limited staff, YES, you *have* to have vendor support. What if something fails that you can't figure out a solution for in less than hour? That's why you pay Microsoft (or Red Hat or IBM or whoever).

Re:We still have NT4 servers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309916)

What do you do ?

Its simple, you replace your aging insecure NT4 box with a Samba box and continue business as usual.

Re:We still have NT4 servers... (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309922)

Where I work, we upgraded all NT4 servers to Linux. Except NT4 Terminal Servers, since the Citrix idiots refused to support NT4 on Metaframe XP, and Win2K EULA and support for Terminal Services is screwed up.

Client migration to Linux is happening slowly, but we've stopped with Win2K and Office97. No Subscription (dis)Advantage for us, sorry.

Re:We still have NT4 servers...and NT4 bugs (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6310001)

Problem is, as I heard a M$ guy yesterday talking about Server 2003, is that 80% of security holes and problems happen in NT4 servers...

What!??! (-1, Redundant)

caffeinex36 (608768) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309856)

You mean....I should UPGRADE?

Man just when I though I had patched it to be secure....pffft...


Re:What!??! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309876)

Huh? There is a secure version of NT4 out there? Where did you get that one?

Joe ServicePack is perplexed... (3, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309859)

Poor Joe has never ever received any support from Microsoft for any of his licensed, legal Windows or Office software. How does this affect him?

Factually speaking, NT4 was the last stable, fast and useful (as in drivers, functionality etc.) OS from MS, that offered a semblance of security.

Anyways, what this means is we have to support Windows ourselves - any difference? I'm more conerned that Citrix stopped support for NT in Metaframe XP - those idiots! For no obvious technical reasons...

WTF (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309866)

Factually speaking, NT4 was the last stable, fast and useful (as in drivers, functionality etc.) OS from MS, that offered a semblance of security.

Maybe you meant to say it this way:

Factually speaking, NT4 was the first stable, fast and useful (as in drivers, functionality etc.) OS from MS, that offered a semblance of security.

Re:Joe ServicePack's views (2, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309886)

I really meant Last. Win2K had more drivers etc, but was slower and broke other code. WinXP was worse than Win2K on both these counts, and introduced more useless baloons as well.

Joe ServicePack has no use for Active Directory, Management Consoles, Bastardized Kerberos, etc.. NT4 security was enough for him.

Re:Joe ServicePack's views (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309999)

"but was slower and broke other code"

Ooohhhhhh...IT broke your code did it?

"NT4 security was enough for him."

Thank you for speaking for everyone Mr. "Whhaaaa, it broke my code"

Why Sad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309861)

Although NT was considered by some to be a stable server platform, there were undoubtedly some nasty rough edges to it - for one thing its hardware support was appalling. Plug and play anyone? Ummm no, don't think so. It also was, on virtually any hardware, one of *the* slowest operating systems I've had the misfortune to use.

2K improved on hardware support a lot, and the performance issue a little and XP is finally 'there' on both fronts.

Yay for Microsoft :)


Re:Why Sad? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309977)

Plug and play anyone? Ummm no, don't think so.

copy the pnpisa.inf right click on it, choose install.... reboot....

magically Plug and pray is now there....

It's had it cince late 1997.

How often... (1)

mgcsinc (681597) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309867)

With the frequency of its new releases and subsequent drops of support, it almost seems as if microsoft should stop pretending to provide support over the lifetime ofr a product, and just refers to a set period of time until the version "expires" from the beginning.

Re:How often... (5, Insightful)

Advocadus Diaboli (323784) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309897)

microsoft should stop pretending to provide support over the lifetime ofr a product

Well, they acutally do provide lifetime support for their products. The only problem is that they define when the lifetime of the product is over.

Re:How often... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309912)

Er...that's exactly what they do. End Of Support: 5 years, End Of Life: 7 years.

Oh Well... (5, Funny)

deadlinegrunt (520160) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309869)

I dropped support for Microsoft too.

Its about time... (0)

Lodragandraoidh (639696) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309870)

My corporate laptop is loaded with NT - and my desktop support won't upgrade the service pack - so no USB ports are useable on my machine...

If they would only let me load a real OS, like Slackware [] , then maybe I could get some real work done, instead of trying to get around the limitations of my box..

Re:Its about time... (1)

throwaway18 (521472) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309910)

> and my desktop support won't upgrade the service pack - so no USB ports are useable on my machine...
Eh? There is no official USB support for NT4 in any service pack. A few peripherals come with a ground up USB implementation for that specific bit of hardware. I seem to recall there is a third party add on that costs money and supports a very limited amount of hardware.

Re:Its about time... (1)

timbck2 (233967) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309931)

No USB ports are useable on any machine running NT4 -- service pack or no.

Re:Its about time... (2, Informative)

Hall (962) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309950)

No Service Pack for NT4 adds in USB support. Co-workers have Palm Pilots, Handsprings, etc and have to use serial cradles... We bought a new scanner and had to install XP on a spare machine in order to use it...

See this KB article:; en-us;196661

It's summary says: Windows NT 4.0 does not support Universal Serial Bus (USB) host controllers. There are no plans to provide USB support in Windows NT 4.0 in a future service pack.

Re:Its about time... (1)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309980)

Hell yes, maybe you could get some real work done like spending hours frigging around with an OS your IS department isn't going to support, and you could also spend ages pestering them on the phone asking why you can't talk to the exchange server anymore.

Cross-platform (1)

shplorb (24647) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309871)

Wasn't NT4 the last version of Windows to be available on platforms other than x86? I know I have a CD-ROM containing it around here somewhere.

I think it was available on PPC and Alpha and maybe a couple of other architectures.

I've never seen Windows on anything other than an x86 - is there anyone out there who's seen it on the other platforms it was available for?

(Also, good-riddance. No USB support. Ughh.)

Re:Cross-platform (1)

wimbor (302967) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309921)

I don't know about PPC but it certainly ran on Alpha. I once saw NT running on the booth of DEC on a local trade show... was really fast.. as you might have expected. And it ran Ms Office (in an emulation layer)! :-)

Re:Cross-platform (1)

johnkoer (163434) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309933)

I believe it was made available for the Alpha chipset. I have never seen it working, but I do remember in the MSDN seeing and x86 (or whatever they called it) and an Alpha CD. I also beleive some or all of the Visual Studio tools were available for the Alpha Chipset as well.

Re:Cross-platform (1)

timbck2 (233967) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309953)

I think it was available on PPC and Alpha and maybe a couple of other architectures.

Nope, that's it, PPC, Alpha, and x86. There was once a rumored SPARC port, but I don't think that one ever saw the light of day.

I've never seen Windows on anything other than an x86 - is there anyone out there who's seen it on the other platforms it was available for?

Yeah, we used to run it on an Alpha here. Nothing really special about it.

Re:Cross-platform (1)

p0rnking (255997) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309974)

It was available for the i386 (/i386 directory) and the alpha chipsets (not sure what else it ran on tho'). Actually, and so did Win98, although the Win98 for Alpha was a seperate version, and you couldn't install it from the same CD as regular one.
And speaking of NT4 and Alpha, I have a magazine around here (PCComputing?), which has NT4 running on a Alpha 500Mhz (when intel was still at 200Mhz) on the cover...

Re:Cross-platform (1)

jiriw (444695) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309976)

Heck yeah ... it was :):) only it was 32 bit, even for the 64 bit Alpha CPU's *sigh*.

Rumours were Intel and Microsoft "aranged" that Intel should first develop a 64 bit processor before Microsoft would market a 64 bit windows, though they had it in their "vaults" all the time.

Ah well ... we have Linux, True64Unix and OpenVMS so who needs a 64 bit Windows version anyhow?

Re:Cross-platform (1)

VCAGuy (660954) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309983)

I believe they also made it available for MIPS as well--but it was dropped 2 months after the release of NT4 because NEC dropped their MIPS workstations. Support for the PPC ended after NT4 SP2. [Although it is funny to reflect on the fact that a Microsoft Windows product used to run on the same processor that MacOS did...]

This isn't too surprising since... (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309878)

Microsoft's stated policy wrt software support is End of Support after 5 yrs and End of Life after 7yrs.

Pulling support? (4, Funny)

DarklordSatin (592675) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309885)

That's funny, there hasn't been a patch for NT4 in a very long time. What support is it that they're not going to be providing anymore.

Re:Pulling support? No.. pulling LipService... (3, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309981)

"What support is it that they're not going to be providing anymore?"

LipService!(TM). Beginning today, MS **will stop** saying that NT4 is affected by a worm or virus. They **will stop** using it in comparisons and benchmarks. They **will stop** Subscription (dis)Advantage programs for NT4 - you will have to pay $200 to get into WinXP Prof and then get the support.

All in all, MS **will stop** making quality software like good ol' NT4.

Warning: LipService will be avbl for versions above Win2K only!

Good Riddance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309888)

I'm sick of this ancienet crappy excuse for an OS, and it's issues.. it's time to look past the 90's with the lamo netbios, WINS, et'all.. it's time to FINALLY start using Active Directory, and GPO's!!!!

Give it up people!, NT40 has to end like now!!!!

NT40 should go the way of OS/2 and Linux 1.3!!!! (VMS and SCO)

Whither WINE? (1, Funny)

LinuxParanoid (64467) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309889)

The big question is this, which happens faster? Wine [] can support any app for a given MS OS, or MS declares the OS so obsolete and unused that nobody uses it?

--LP, who drank his first Wine about a decade ago

Re:Whither WINE? (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309962)

Har har :)

For those not in the know, I should prolly point out that Wine does not emulate any specific Windows version, it does whatever the app needs in order for it to run.

Still, there are lots of APIs in NT4 that Wine still does not support (primarily through underuse though).

sad to see it go? (4, Insightful)

lingqi (577227) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309891)

it's kind of sad to see NT4 go.

I think it should have gone a LONG time ago, NT4 was tricky as a desktop OS because DirectX was pretty much nonexistant. I think once Win2K (and the first two or three SPs)came about, NT was a goner. The sad thing really is what came to replace NT and the like for the future-> XP, longthorn, etc.

NT (4.0) wasn't that revolutionary, anyhow. kernel is about on par with 3.5, and the OS itself didn't become really stable until SP5 or so (SP4 caused crap (read: exchange) to crap out, IIRC), and by that time 2K was just right around the corner.

I will be sad when 2K goes. in my opinion that's so far the best OS microsoft made. (XP drops low on the list b/c the nasty theme and horrible amounts of crap-service that comes pre-enabled, which (especially sys-restore) slowed your computer to a crawl and more).

Re:sad to see it go? (3, Insightful)

flend (9133) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309951)

As a desktop OS for l33t g4m3r kiddies maybe :) However, I think you'll find a lot of NT4 workstation installs in business and academia (my area). You don't need directx to run excel or draw graphs. Upgrading from NT4 to XP is a big unnecessary cost for organisations and a big compatability problem in the interim; incompatability of roving profiles etc.

Re:sad to see it go? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 11 years ago | (#6310002)

NT4 was a corperate desktop. Direct X is aimed at games at that time and games ARE NOT to be used on the job.... well at most jobs.

yes it handled multimedia quite well.. AVID relied on it as well as the other 90% of companies making video editing systems that wanted to support more than 1 processor. and to this day it is still relied on heavily for critical multimedia servers... your video on demand from your cable company runs it.

NT is corperate class software, the other windows junk of that time was consumer class.. that is the biggest difference.

Directed marketing. (1)

Delusion- (153011) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309898)

I presume if you run this through multiple translations at babelfish, you can get the hidden meaning:

Microsoft needs more of you to upgrade to NT to pay its executive salary bonuses, and memory manufacturers are fervently hoping for the same upgrade to NT with the memory upgrades that go hand-in-hand with the move.

If Microsoft wanted progress, it wouldn't redline Windows 95 next, it would redline Windows ME, which was at best the worst of both (win9x) worlds (nt) with the advantages of neither.

This policy could work to linux's advantage.... (2, Insightful)

TyrranzzX (617713) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309901)

Bad economy and Microsoft selling their OS for as expensive as ever? When the support runs out, that's going to be the straw that breaks the camels back, and I'd bet your boss will ask "are there any alternatives" to which you can grow horns and reply "why yes, sir" and show him/her your linux desktop or introduce them to one, using x-windows and staroffice (essentially looking exactly like winxp, accept staroffice is different).

Budgets are tight, and MS is expensive, and I doubt they'll be offering their OS for free to small and medium sized buisnesses. And we all know and have always known that's where MS going byby will start. When the bosses of bigger buisnesses learn from their friends of a medium buisness that they can use linux, they'll bother their IT Staff for a feasability assessment, and try to earn some brownie points for implementing it...

kinda sad... (5, Informative)

imag0 (605684) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309907)

...After 7 years, it's kind of sad to see NT4 go.

After spending two years in MA phone support for NT on laptops I would have to say I am happy the damn thing is finally dead.
Installing NT on anything was time intensive, installing drivers had to go in a particular order or it turned that hardware into a doorstop:

imag0: "You mean to tell me you installed the video drivers before you installed card services and your ethernet drivers?"
Client, quivering after spending the past three hours reloading NT on a laptop: "Uh, yeah."
imag0: "Ok, pull out your boot diskettes again and see if we can repair install..."

A long running joke in laptop support was that NT meant "Not Today". And it was true. Repair installs didn't. Service Control Manager (SCM) was only there to throw cryptic, useless errors at users just long enough to generate support calls and let's not get into how hard Adobe Acrobat and SP4 clusterfucked in some Trident configurations.

Glad it's dead. No love lost here. Burn your cd's and feel happy its gone the way of win 3.11 and MS Bob.

Re:kinda sad... (1)

raind (174356) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309959)

Great, I'm on the way today to wax a nt4 server and after spending most of the day yesterday on a nt4 workstation install I'll be glad if it goes away.

Except we need it. (was: Re:kinda sad...) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309964)

Not my current job, my previous one. We made analysis tools.
Our own hardware, our own stream input cards - and our own software... all, you guessed it, running on top of NT.

These systems were somewhat fragile. We had to use certain brands of CDROM writers, because other brands tended to tie up too much processor time and break our streaming.
Under no circumstances did we want to move to 2k, let alone XP.

Not to mention that we would have had to re-write our device drivers. Which we did not do.

I know this is old news, we all knew it was going to happen - but I can't help wondering how many companies stuck their heads in the sand and ignored it?

An issue of cost... (1)

Lethyos (408045) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309908)

Many people will argue Microsoft has every right to stop patching old operating systems. After all, we don't see security patches for older open source software, right?

While that's true, there's a big difference between using open source software versus Microsoft products when upgrading. Now all of these sites that use Windows NT will be forced to shell out money to get a supported version of Windows (there many not be too many, but they're out there). Hundreds if not thousands of dollars will have to be spent to get the latest server operating system from Microsoft for each instance of NT4.

This tactic is a subtle and effective way to syphon more money from unsuspecting Windows shops. Of course, if you're on NT4, it'd probably be easiest to migrate to an open source server solution...

Slashdot is assimelated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309917)

Slashdot has been assimilated by MS. They all runing now MS. A sad thing in history of the internet world.
They only talk good about Bill Gates and windows while bashing RMS and GNU/Linux.

Slashdot made even a nice icon for Windows promo.

Reactos (1)

Jenova (27902) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309924)

Well, dont feel too bad about losing official Microsoft support for Windows NT, at least we have the fun of trying out ReactOS [] ...
I look forward to those guys coming up with a workable Windows NT clone one of these days.

Technology push market model (2, Informative)

Groote Ka (574299) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309932)

In my opinion, this is a reasonable step; you cannot support all your programmes when you release them in a pace as Microsoft does.

The sad thing, however, it that in the future, you will be forced to migrate, as your license will be temporarilly.

When you are wise, you stick with NT4 as long as possible (very good with Office 97 for an administrative environment) and leapfrog to the version after Server 2003 or perhaps a later version. This is definitely the cheapest option.

It's about time that temporal licences will be prohibited by the courts. IP protection for software is good, whether it's a GPL or M$ license (and in some cases even patents, but with reason and a good system, but that's a little off-topic). However, when it is used to force people to expensive investments time and time again, allthough a company does not need it (e.g. my comment above and my 500kHz AMD K6 works perfectly well for word processing), it's appalling and should be targetted for an investigation. Unfortunately, we all will know how this will end.

sad to see it go? (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309935)

Funny, I dont think any of my NT4 critical systems are going to go anywhere.

as far as support no longer available, Big deal. I can get 3rd party support.

My NT4 servers are going no-where... they all server me very well with 99.9% Uptime and each decoding 24 different MPEG2 DVD quality video streams at once on a Pentium 166.

Until the vendor writes Windows 2000 drivers for these very high end MPEG cards, NT4 is the de-facto standard in cable tv headends for many more years.

sorry, but this is a non-issue for most of us... it doens make the OS magically dissappear.

Re:sad to see it go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309945)

>as far as support no longer available, Big deal. I can get 3rd party support

They're referring to patches and hotfixes you retard.

How many will turn to Linux for their file server? (1)

buro9 (633210) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309936)

If it comes down to an issue of support... and a server is doing little more than serving files...

I wonder how many will now look to re-use their existing hardware and opt for linux...

Rather than upgrade their hardware too, to make the Windows 2003 Server HCL.

I think some of you have missed the point. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309947)

After the best part of a decade, Microsoft are rightly pulling the plug and ceasing to support NT4. Why is that? Well, for starters, how about the impracticality of supporting products that are no longer providing a stable source of revenue. NT4 in the marketplace 'died' when Windows 2000 was at RTM (Release to manufacture; i.e. Given out in preinstaller format to OEMs, start putting it in boxes for sale at stores etc). It's got a somewhat decrepit feature set, with most of it's key technologies (Including IIS, the security model, the domain management structure) being upsurped by greatly enhanced ones.

Now, everyone who's slagging off the moving is citing NT4 as stable, or at least making implications. If NT4 is stable, then lets just let it be. If any new worms crop up, well, tough, buying one operating system in the seven years that the technology sector has seen it's biggest expansion is a pretty silly choice to make. I'm sure there's new worms out for Windows 3.1 out there somewhere, but I've honestly not seen a serious complaint about it for a while.

Perhaps it might not have occured to you that if Microsoft kept pouring it's talented folks down the well in that fashion then it would be detracting from the current crop of products, although given Windows 2K3's relative impunity (A handful of fairly immaterial bugs have arisen in the many months since it's release) it's probably not as big a point as it once was.

In short, if you want to drive a Model T Ford, don't complain when the manufacturer won't sell you parts, provide you with fuel or the blueprints to troubleshoot things yourself. The upshot is that you can buy a more modern care that's got a place in showrooms today, or you can consult independant specialists who will cater to the archane vehicles as long as you pay the dues. ;)

ms has every right (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6309948)

to discontinue support for it. It does cost them money to support it. the thing is, CTO's need to get a clue and realize many of their decisions are now going to bite them in the butt. If a customer refuses to spend the money for the upgrade, what are they going to do? Pay for the cost of the upgrade for the customer?

If I bought an application from a third party and was told it would be supported for 10 years, I would make damn sure the contract included things like what happens when MS stops supporting the OS. It's perfectly fine to use windows, unix or what ever you want, but the decisions need to made by people who think clearly. Not some dork who is the CTO because he went to school with the CEO, but is totally unqualified. Most IT managers suck. Change that, most managers suck period! Very few people are great at managing and many barely have the skills to get the job done. The same is true of programmers and every other profession out there.

If microsoft stops supporting it... (1)

pulse2600 (625694) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309960)

...does that mean we can stop paying to use it? If I want to add an NT server or a fww NT workstations to my network do I have to buy a 2000 license to use it? I think if Microsoft doesn't have to spend any more money on it, than neither should I.

NT4? Who cares? (2, Insightful)

Matrix272 (581458) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309975)

I know a lot of people are nostalgic for the "old days" when NT4 was brand new, and was the best option in the market... as long as you wanted to pay premium dollar for Microsoft's products... but seriously, who cares about it anymore?

NT4 came out 7 years ago... and 6 service packs later, they almost have it working. There are still so many bugs with it, I can't keep track. It's a nightmare to maintain, and nothing is kept in a logical place. Even the log-in key-press sequence (ctrl-alt-del) is anti-intuitive. The graphics are horrible and bland. The hardware support is pathetic, even for its day. To my knowledge, you STILL can't access anything via USB on NT4. It's a system-resource hog (that's kind of given, since it IS Microsoft). Can ANYBODY tell me why they're still using it? The cost for maintaining it over 6 months is more than purchasing a new computer with Windows 2000/XP. What can NT4 possibly offer that Windows 2000/XP (or even Linux) can't? All the other options are easier to work with and/or cheaper.

I don't blame Microsoft at all for getting rid of it. I just wish they would have done it sooner... or even never come out with it in the first place. They could have just continued development on it until 1999 and come out with Windows 2000 and actually had a product that made it worthwhile to put on a server (in some people's opinions).

Good Riddance (-1, Redundant)

jonwil (467024) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309984)

Microsoft should have EOLd Windows NT4 and especially 98/98SE/ME months ago (i.e. when XP came out).

I never used NT4 so I cant comment on it but Windows 98/98SE/ME is the biggest piece of crap I have ever seen. There is no reason on this earth why ANYONE should need windblows 9x/ME anymore unless you have ancient hardware and cant run Windows 2000 or Windows XP.

Microsoft is pretty impatient (1)

Groote Ka (574299) | more than 11 years ago | (#6309991)

Why can't they just wait to release a next OS untill the old one is perfect? They might even learn something from that.

Sad To See NT4 Go? Not Really. (1)

ausoleil (322752) | more than 11 years ago | (#6310011)

After umpteen times staying up all night trying to coax various NT Servers back to life, applying patches and praying and generally overall poor performance realtive to the platform upon which it ran, I am hardly sad to see NT4 go. To me, it is satisfying like watching Ahhh-nald kill off the bad-guy in a Terminator movie. "Hasta la vista, mother @#$%3er!

In reality, it is too late. It was with pleasure I watched NT4 go on my machines whilst under the spell of the Red Hat installer. I've caught up on my sleep now, and viruses? What viruses?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>