RS>  I'm just working with what I got. I don't beleve in going out 
 RS> and  buying something becuse it's new and supost to be 
 RS> better.I've been  told from a few repair shops that with adding 
 RS> the win95 support it  caused major problems with version 4.  
 RS> I'm running a 486-33 and would rather run something for that 
 RS> class of machine.It's not a good sign when a company won't 
 RS> support an old version of a program. 
 MB> You must understand that newer releases of NT run 
 MB> faster and on less hardware. Because of heavy 
 MB> complaints about its performance, the internal 
 MB> architecture of NT has changed such that a certain 
 MB> amount of robustness has been traded off for increased 
Mike, I don't know how long it's been since you ran NT 3.1, if ever, but as 
does NT 3.5x, NT 3.10 -definitely- runs with much less hardware than NT 4.0. 
I ran NT 3.10 for at least a year with a 486-33 SCSI and 16 meg of RAM. It 
was fine as a file server and did ok running my 16 bit Windows and DOS apps. 
Bukus faster file server than WFWG.  NT 4.0, as best I can tell, needs 8 to 
16 meg more meg of Resources to get anywhere near comperable performance to 
NT 3.51 SP5. NT 3.51 SP5 is faster than NT 3.10, but NT 4.0 is a pig compared 
to NT 3.51 (which is why I have kept my NT server 4.0 on the shelf and am 
sticking with NT 3.51 SP5). I don't think even 64meg of RAM is enough memory 
resources for NT 4.0 server (NT 4.0 wks just barely gets it's heart beating 
with 32meg of RAM and is a lot better with 64meg).
I don't remember how much faster NT 3.51 SP5 is than NT 3.10 (SP3 I believe 
is the latest SP for 3.10) but as I recall there really wasn't all that much 
differnce. NT 3.50 was slower than NT 3.10 and needed more RAM, NT 3.51 
needed more RAM than 3.50 and was slower until SP3 or SP4 came out. After SP4 
came out NT 3.51 was quite fast compared to older versions and is still much 
faster an less resource hungry than NT 4.0. I'm still waiting for a service 
pack for NT 4.0 to come out that will make it perform anywhere near as 
relibly and as quick with the same resouces as NT 3.51 SP5. 
Anyway I ran NT 3.10 dual booting with WFWG for awhile, which he could do if 
he want's to try it out and see. Just depends on what he is doing and where 
he wants to place his performance emphasis. NT 3.10 is a far better faster 
file/print server than WFWG and is also much more stable. If he needs a cheap 
better performing more reliable network file server than WFWG, NT 3.10 may 
fit what he is doing better than any other version of NT as it is less RAM 
hungry than all newer versions of NT. Also as you pointed out, NT 3.10 isn't 
as WIN32 compatible as NT 3.51 SP5 and NT 4.0, but it is at least as 
backwards compatible with old 16 bit Windows apps as any of the newer version 
of NT are (at least as I recall anyway).
Of course, probably his best shot would be to upgrade to Windows 95. Even 
Windows 95 is one hell of an improvement over DOS/WFWG in both network speed 
and reliability. 
--- Maximus/NT 3.01b1
---------------