I am trying to install OS/2 Warp 4, Windows 95, and Windows NT Server 4 on my Compaq Presario 4814, a 233 Mhz Pentium with MMX 160Mb RAM 2 6 gig HDD's, a DVD-RW and probably a CD-RW.

Why these OS's?

1.I'm a nerd and I like to play with computers.

2.Mid-90's software is starting to pile up in the thrift shops - cheap - and if I can't get it there, well, I uh, probably shouldn't mention that web site...;)

3.Mid-90's OSes fly on late 90's hardware. Forget the thrift shops, I found this thing in the alley!

So, what can I do with NT? Will it run all Windows '9x software? What is the latest version of Internet Explorer that will run (fast @ 233Mhz?) on NT 4? Is NT 4 as fast as Win '95?

Is it compatible with MS Bob?

A lot of non-M$ '9x software will run within NT4; but always wise to check first as occasionally there is one that may not... And likewise "most" M$ software of the '95/'98 vintage will run under NT - but again always wise to check first...

IE5.5 will run on NT4 and '95/'98; as will IE6.

Is NT as fast... as '95? Depends a lot I guess on what you're running - and how much RAM you give NT to play with? Personally I didn't notice any differences in performance between '95 (or '98) compared to NT4 in general use... And that was on (Dell Dimension) multi-boot system (P-2/233 - 128Meg RAM - later upped to 384Meg) with all the M$ OS of the time installed...

Worth remembering too that each generation of M$-Word gets heavier (more bloated etc.) than the previous; and consequently will generally be more demanding etc. on resources.. A test published some years back showed that a 2086 runnng Word-2 was faster for general word-processing etc. than a later system with later version(s) of Word... The earlier Word-2 was pretty simple appparently in terms of code...

The same is said to be true of IEx as well; the more recent the IE the more bloated it appears to be etc...

Remember too that if installing a multi-boot - NT cannot see/access fat32 unless you use a suitable add-in util; likewise '9x cannot see/access ntfs - unless again you use a suitable util. Also the active Primary partition will have to be fat16 (max of 2Gig) in order for a multi-boot to work - without recourse to an add-in boot-util.
So create that "essential" fat16 active Primary first (it can be little as 125Meg - perhaps a little more - say upto 500Meg) - for boot/startup files only for all installed OS; balance of drive as Extended... and sub-divide into logical-drives for each OS which then format and install OS accordingly.

Ideally put any intended ntfs areas at the end of the drive was a typical arrangment/advice in the days of NT/multi-boots. Typically order was: fat16 (max 2Gig); fat32; ntfs.

Remember that only NT/W2K etc. can see a 4Gig fat16 partition...

Make an ERD (for NT) as soon as you have it all setup; keep it current and safe.

MS-Bob... no worthwile experience/input there - sorry...

Sounds good so far. Idealy, I'd be putting NT (or something - another reason for this multi-boot experiment is to find an OS I like, compatability, etc.)on my 486DX4-100 ThinkPad. It can have up to 40 MB RAM, and it has an 800 Mb hard drive. How would it work on that?

Speaking of hard drives, will Microsoft Plus for Windows '95 work on NT? With drivespace 3, I really do get 2:1 compression. The 540 Meg drive in my ThinkPad 360CSE (DX2-50, Win '95) is a little over a gig! :)

About MS Bob - It's easy to see why it wasn't a huge commercial success, but why does _everyone_ *h*a*t*e* it?

On the other hand, maybe I only mention it to iritate the violently anti-Bob majority. But I probably wouldn't harass them over it if they weren't so nasty about it... :/

NT will work on the IBM - but may be a little slow; mainly due to the max RAM you can have on the IBM...

NTSvr prefers at least 64Meg (evn though M$ may say 32Meg) - and more is nicer.

M$-KB re' NTWS/Svr:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/126...

'95 Plus on NT??? Seriously doubt it; different OS entirely...

There is good advice here in this thread so far, so I will add what I can:

Several of the useful components in MS Plus! were included out of the box in NT 4, like high color icons, showing window contents while dragging, the pinball game, etc. Other things from 95's Plus! will not work, like DriveSpace, as NT already has its own form of compression with NTFS. Most Windows 95 software will run on NT, although some games have issues with NT. Since you also plan on running 95, that should not be much of an issue since you will be getting the best of both worlds.

As for IE, there is no compelling reason to limit yourself to it (unless you want to) since there are far better browsers that will run just fine on NT, like Opera, Firefox, etc. Overall, I think you'll find NT and OS/2 can be a little picky at first, but once you have all the right drivers and software, they are very stable and reliable.

I love Windows NT4. You can run Firefox 2 and IE6, and with a few permissions here and there it can be made a relatively secure OS.

It's so great for nostalgia. I have it in a VM on my Mac and I love playing with it. Very fast and lean for its time.

95 and 98 were quite fast too (98 not so) but not near as stable/secure.

>>>>>>>>As for IE, there is no compelling reason to limit yourself to it (unless you want to) since there are far better browsers that will run just fine on NT, like Opera, Firefox, etc. Overall, I think you'll find NT and OS/2 can be a little picky at first, but once you have all the right drivers and software, they are very stable and reliable.<<<<<<<<

Quoted for the god damn truth.

Why serve in heaven when you can reign in hell?