• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Best Operating System on Pentium Gear

Differences of both file systems from the creator: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/100108
Of course you can ignor the note at the top re NT4 not being able to access fat32 or accessing HPFS drives ;). There's also HPFS386, also a MS developed file system, used primarily in server variants of OS/2 and IBM eventually ported their JFS to OS/2.

Apparently NT 3.1 and 3.5 can be installed on a HPFS partition.
 
Last edited:
From what I gather from the link, my assertion that NTFS is, in at least some way, based upon HPFS, is true. Is the limitation of "performance degredation" on drives over 400MB serious? I.e., what about a 1GB disk? What about a modern 500GB disk? If the performance degredation isn't too serious, and/or isn't exponential with drive size increase, it could be superior speed-wise for a modern box.. If not (more likely, methinks), then at least perhaps worth a look for small embedded stuff, i.e., CF disk-based systems, portable USB, ZIP disks (for those of us who still use them... I do!). The wasted effort of my machine(s) on security I don't need or care about has long vexed me.

I shall Google about this...

Edit: The only information I could find in a quick search was that the driver you can dig up for HPFS only supports drives up to 8.3GB, but would function on OSes as new as XP (and thus we can infer 32-bit Vista and Windows 7, and likely 64-bit with some coercing). 8.3GB is enough for some applications.. but could it be booted from? *that* is an experiment worth investigating.. Is anybody here knowledgeable of HPFS, i.e., did you use it when it was current? I could use some advice in the aforementioned concept:

- Could NT4 boot from HPFS?
- Could 2k?
- How does an HPFS boot function, is it the same typical NTLDR->NTDETECT.COM->etc. routine?

If 2K could then perhaps we have newer drivers and possibly latent boot capability in at least XP. If it uses the same boot chain then perhaps a modern OS could be coerced into doing it via replacement of a basic component or two, just NTLDR perhaps.

If none of that is feasible, it's possible that you could chainboot like I suggested with 98SE on NTFS - do a tiny NTFS partition, boot the kernel up, and then load an HPFS driver and load the rest of the OS and run from an HPFS partition for everything.

Infinite possibilities! :D I love OS modification..
 
Last edited:
I've got os/2 v4 fp14 on a 4 gig hdd split into 2 x 2gig partitions. Functions fine. Just used it to test out that a machines cdrom was functioning correctly. The NT4 box wasn't accessing cds. Turns out I had to enable a few services, fresh install by the previous owner, which had me scratching my head for a bit. Got a Kingston usb pen drive being accessed using NTFS and FAT16 file systems. Yeah so some of the things spouted in MS KBs can't be taken seriously.

I guess the thing about using an OS on a file system it's not "natively" designed to handle/support is disk management tools. In saying that by all accounts NT4 is really a reshelled NT 3.5x (only Fat and NTFS in the installation routine of both though) so it's probably quite possible to fudge an install of that on to HPFS.

Edit: Just for the hell of it I loaded NT 3.51 on a fat16 partition an tried convert.exe to see if it would do anything, pinball.sys loading on boot up of course, but no joy. Next step is to see if converting it using Partition Magic 4.0 will work. Catch is I have to install win9x before I can load Partition Magic. Something I wanted to avoid.

Edit2: Hmm turns out there's a text partitioning utility on the PM 4.0 cd, pqmagict.exe that can convert to Fat32 or HPFS so will give that a shot.

YIP! Worked a treat! NT 3.51 booted up fine on the HPFS partition and shows up in the Disk Administrator as you can see as well as File Manager.
 

Attachments

  • HPFS.jpg
    HPFS.jpg
    93.1 KB · Views: 1
  • ntfm.jpg
    ntfm.jpg
    70.3 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
Its' easy enough to do the same to NT4(SP1). Once NT4 is installed you put NT 3.5x pinball.sys in the \wnnt\system32\drivers directory then run a file HPFS_NT.EXE. This is available in HPFS_NT4.ZIP It places the appropriate entry in NT4s registry. Reboot to make sure pinball.sys is loaded in Devices in Conrtol Panel. Boot to Dos, do the Fat16 to HPFS and you're away as you can see from the screen shot.

Just mucking around moving and deleting files. Comes up with an incorrect path error but still moves items to the recycle bin. Doesn't happen on the fat partition though. Wonder if some registry entry will sort that out? Of course when I installed NT it said the HPFS partition was corrupt or unformatted.
 

Attachments

  • nt4hpfs.jpg
    nt4hpfs.jpg
    69.1 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
I've always wanted to try getting DirectX running on NT3.5x, because I love the old Win3x interface but want to see games like StarCraft running in that interface.

Alternatively, downgrade NT4 to the NT3.5x interface to achieve the same effect. I did try this once, but at the time I barely knew anything about even modern NT internals, much less NT3/4. My knowledge of 3/4 is still lacking but I know far more about the driver structure and such of NT now.

What are your thoughts on those concepts, since you seem to be far more experienced with early NT than I am (I was using Win3x and 9x at these points in time).

With regards to your HPFS experiment, if shift+del exists in NT4 (I don't recall if the 95 interface had this or if it was introduced with 9x/NT5) does that work? If so you could probably (I say probably because my knowledge of the registry starts at 98SE/2K, and a bit of 95) registry hack the recycle bin out of the picture for a more seamless experience with HPFS on a system like this.
 
Shift-Del works fine with no error messages. Program Manager is avialable for NT4, it's well documented, but getting it to look exactly like 3.5x would take a bit of effort. I'd imagine someones given it a shot in the past though just to prove it could be done.
 
Not sure why everybody always assumes I mean progman when I say "3x interface" - I mean the window manager and it's decorations. I realize you allowed for that in your response, just making a general statement..

I tried to do it with no success.. if anybody finds some documentation on this let me know.
 
Probably because Progman IS the 3.x interface/deskstop enviroment.

Just installed fresh Nt3.51 install on an existing HPFS partition.
 
Last edited:
I think he is referring to the actual window manager.... how the windows + widgets are drawn. NT 3.51 was unique in that it was full Win32, but retained the old Windows 3.x look and feel.
 
It might just be a matter of running Progman along with some different dlls to change the way NT 4 displays widgets to get the 3.x look. But as I mentioned earlier though it may take a bit more effort. There were kernel changes between the two versions that changed the way graphics were handled.
 
Last edited:
I think he is referring to the actual window manager.... how the windows + widgets are drawn. NT 3.51 was unique in that it was full Win32, but retained the old Windows 3.x look and feel.

Maybe my memory is bad from years ago but I seem to remember the issues of Byte describing Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5 as being fully 32 bit as well when released.
 
All Windows NT incarnations are fully 32-bit. "NT OS/2" as it was called was designed from the ground up to be a 32-bit OS and leave 16-bit behind, unfortunately for Microsoft and IBM, nobody wanted that yet (except those who ended up embracing NT server, but I'm speaking from a client perspective).

The thing is DirectX isn't designed to be installed on any older OS than Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0. This means that without some sort of magic I've not got up my sleeve, getting DirectX and the 3x interface to work together is much more likely to work on the NT line (other alternative is Windows 3.x, and it isn't promising, as most games wouldn't be compatible with Win32s anyway), and I'd think more likely to work on the latest NT with that interface than an earlier one - i.e., NT 3.51. It's very close to 4.0, but I'm not familiar enough with it's internals (as I am with XP and above) to do such vast modifications - in either direction. The options are to get DirectX to work on NT 3.51, or to get the NT 3.51 interface to work on NT 4.0 - either way I've not been successful.

If nobody else is interested in that topic, perhaps I'll just have to do some brute force research of their internals, but that won't be too interesting, so I was hoping someone already familiar would give it a go.. :/

Anyway I recall changing out a few files on NT 4.0 to try to get the interface to shift, and only ended up breaking the OS. Perhaps it would be easier to get a DirectX installer and run it on NT 3.51, and continue to replace 3.51 files with 4.0 files until it ran happily, and then see if games will run (StarCraft in particular is my target)?

It's a shame that it's so much work to get an NT system to run on DOSBox, as compared to a 9x one, because then I could do some of this work on my little netbook-level-power slate, as DOSBox isn't as slow as a full VM on that hardware, and with DOSBox you can mount a folder, and use the real filesystem as your filesystem, meaning file replacement is simple as pie. That means it's relegated to desktop research, most likely, and the annoying manual replacement.. Although VHD mounting could make that easier.

On another note, I tried replacing the XP-32 NTFS.SYS with one from Win7-32. For the record of our minds and searchers everywhere, it does not work. It is detected as a corrupted file and thus isn't a drop-in replacement as I hoped. There's been too many changes. Will have to look into Longhorn incarnations, maybe there's one in there with some speed improvements that's still compatible (Longhorn is a treasure trove for XP modding).
 
Last edited:
Display drivers ran in ring 3 in NT3.51 (IIRC), so video was much slower than under NT4.
 
Just picked up a Dell GMT-5166. Pentium 233mhz w/mmx, in perfect working order. Came with Win2k, which works great, but I plan on making it a OS2 3 or 4 server.
Gonna resurrect my old WWIV bbs, play some trade wars, brush up on my c++. Somebody stop me!

Unless I am mistaken, this is as good as the Pentium I ever got
 
Just picked up a Dell GMT-5166. Pentium 233mhz w/mmx, in perfect working order. Came with Win2k, which works great, but I plan on making it a OS2 3 or 4 server.
Gonna resurrect my old WWIV bbs, play some trade wars, brush up on my c++. Somebody stop me!

Unless I am mistaken, this is as good as the Pentium I ever got

It's even too much: that MMX fad is not retro enough. :D
 
OS/2 will run really nicely on a Pentium 233. I even ran it a little on 233 and 266 MHz P2s, but that's as fast as I ever got. By the time the P2 came around, OS/2's time was just about done. I spent most of my OS/2 days with a 66 MHz 486 and 75 MHz Pentium.

Now you're making me wonder how OS/2 would perform on a machine with a >200 MHz CPU and a compact flash card for a hard drive. Hmm...
 
OS/2 is sorta still around with eComStation. The only problems I had with my last attempt at OS/2 were drivers for newer hardware for the installer to work and detect the drive properly. Had to update a few files on the floppy disks although I think that's pretty well documented online. Later I ended up with nic issues but that turned out to be a bad network card I think not the drivers which surprised me.

Either way yes I'm sure it would scream on some newer gear. It's pretty light weight as it is plus it can run 16-bit windows apps. I wonder if one could get Windows 3.11 with win32s installed under it?
 
I would be interested to know how well Aros runs on the old Pentium, I've only run it on 1Ghz+ PCs with 256MB RAM or more, but I'm sure it will run in 64MB RAM, and it's pretty quick. You can download a CD or DVD ISO of the boot disc and load it up to see if it works, kind of like a Linux distribution, except Aros has nothing to do with Linux, BSD or Unix at all, it's a completely different Operating System written from scratch as a re-implementation of the greatest classic OS of them all, AmigaOS. We all know that AmigaOS had pre-emptive multitasking and a highly customisable colour GUI desktop back in 1985, which evolved until 1992 when Commodore went bankrupt and development ceased. An open source effort was started to recreate the AmigaOS on modern hardware at that point, while AmigaOS itself was picked up and updated several times and is still sold as a commercial OS for specific PPC hardware. Aros doesn't have anywhere near the developer support of Linux, Haiku and other open source OSs, but it's surprisingly usable and has plenty of programs to try out, and a decent web browser which just lacks a Flash plugin.

Anyway, the best distribution to try would probably be Icaros Desktop. It's a free download, and there's no risk trying the boot CD, and it can even be installed to a USB stick if your PC has a USB card in it, so it won't touch anything on the internal HDD.

Read more about it and download it here http://icarosdesktop.org/
 
Back
Top