MB> Chris Holten wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:
 CH> Mike, I don't know how long it's been since you ran NT 3.1,
 CH> if ever, but as does NT 3.5x, NT 3.10 -definitely- runs with
 CH> much less hardware than NT 4.0.
 MB> I'm not talking about user perception, but unattended 
 MB> operation as a file server.  In that capacity, NT 3.1 
 MB> is very slow compared to later releases.
That is a quite general statement that a person with your networking 
knowledge should know is not an absolute "truth" and needs to be qualified 
specific to the individual case. On small 10 user or less 10bt ethernetworks 
with older hardware NT 3.10 is definitely not slower as a file/print server 
than newer versions of NT. In fact with a 486-33, NT 3.10 might even be a bit 
faster than than newer NT versions and -certainly- as far as networking, it's 
going to be faster and more stable than 16 bit WFWG 3.11!! I -personally- 
used NT 3.10 for over 1 year (which you obviously haven't), found that NT 
3.10 as a file/print server in a small 10bt network on the same 486 class 
hardware, isn't a damn bit slower than NT 3.5x or NT 4.0 (or noticibly slower 
than novell 2.x and 3.x for that matter with 16 meg or more of RAM) and 
certainly it is a -bunch- faster and more stable and secure than 16 bit DOS 
and Windows for Workgroups which also has a 10 user limit and practically 
-no- security at all. Methinks you are unrealistically and Ideally comparing 
to something other than what the guy was going to be running in his network 
and the amount of money he had to spend (NT 3.10 had already been paid for) 
and the hardware he had to run it on (NT 4.0 needs a -bunch- more hardware 
resources and faster disk hardware speed than NT 3.10 ever did). If he is 
using WFWG as a file server, he can't have over 10 users. "Unattended" 
operation and stability as a file server was NT 3.10 greatest point. The fact 
of the matter is that NT 3.10 was optimized for network throughput at the 
expense of desktop application speed. The only think NT 3.10 was slower at 
than WFWG 3.1x was running desktop apps. As a file print server it was 3 to 
10 times faster than WFWG.
And, I have found NT 4.0, even with service pack III to be less stable and 
far more resource hogging than NT 3.10 or 3.5x which is why I only run it on 
workstations and not as a file server, instead using NT 3.51 SP5 as my file 
server.
 MB> My advice stands: NT 3.1 is completely unsupported by 
 MB> Microsoft, it has huge and well known security holes, 
Actually NT 3.10 is supported about the same as Windows for Workgroups 3.1x. 
Of course support by MS for both NT 3.10 and WFWG has essentially been 
stagnent for quite some time new.
 MB> and the components which will be most heavily stressed 
 MB> in a server are peformance bottlenecks.  It is 
 MB> reasonable to use NT 4.0, and it is also reasonable to 
 MB> use NT 3.5 in a network server, but I think using NT 
On a 10 user or less 10BT network, what the hell "components" are you talking 
about that will be "bottlenecks"? 
 MB> 3.1 is a clear and obvious mistake.
Mike, from your very biased negative comments about it using terms like 
"disaster" and "obvious mistake", it's obvious to me that you really don't 
have any close experience with NT 3.10 and probably not all that much with 
Windows for Workgroups as a file/print server in a small network either (or 
you forgot a lot). Shoot we are only talking about a small LAN (Not WAN) 
network, and an already purchased copy of NT 3.10. It isn't like he was 
setting up a 1000 user site with all the bells and whistles. All he wants to 
do is share his goddam hardrive and printers with a few other LAN users. In 
that situation, if he is seeking better network performance and stability 
than his present WFWG file/print server setup affords him, NT 3.10 would be 
well worth trying. As a network file/print server it will be much more stable 
and much faster than WFWG. The only place it will be slower will be running 
destop apps from the local console, but even doing that, it will be -much- 
more stable than WFWG. It will probably run most of his 16 bit Windows and 
DOS apps, but it may not run all of them ("backwards" compatibility is about 
same boat as newer versions of NT). The only 16 bit software I have found 
that newer versions of NT run that 3.10 didn't was 16 bit FAX programs, and 
to get a higher level of backwards "compatibility" for that, you had to go to 
at least NT 3.51 Service Pack III). Since he is running WFWG he won't have 
any 32 bit apps that may not run as compared to newer versions of NT. NT 3.10 
will migrate his WFWG Desktop and has a boot manager to allow him to dual 
boot between WFWG/DOS and Windows NT should he desire. 
--- Maximus/NT 3.01b1
---------------