I do have a particular interest in Windows NT 3.51 due to Citrix WinFrame. However if it is the usability / workflow of Windows 3.11 that people like, then this is a good option, especially since the NT kernel is slightly easier to virtualise (even though it is more complex than the MS-DOS based 3.1). Though you are correct the similarities are fairly cosmetic. But because of this, NT 3.51 was a solid release, and our customers loved it." - David Thompson, Vice President of the Windows Server Product Group. "After Daytona was completed, we basically sat around for 9 months fixing bugs while we waited for IBM to finish the Power PC hardware. My main source for the "bug fixes due to waiting on IBM" is here: Indeed NT3.5 and NT3.51 look similar to Win3.11/WFWG3.11 but it's only skin deep. You did need a minimum of two external mirrored SCSI shelves, two SCSI host controllers in each server with SCSI repeaters in addition to whatever booted the local boot drive.
#Dosbox windows 3.1 mouse not working 64 Bit
NT 4.0 is also notable for having a 64 bit Alpha version and the first Clustering using any pair of ordinary NT servers. You can also run NT 3.51 Program Manager and File Manager on NT 4.0, and there was an Explorer Shell Preview for NT 3.51. However I'd be surprised if IBM did the NT3.5 addition of Power PC. The NT 3.1 was for IA-32, Alpha, MIPS, no Power PC. It ran on IA-32 (x86), Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC from launch. I thought NT 3.51 came out in 1995 (because of Win95) and just had a few APIs added. MS had an MS OS/2 in 1989, briefly after parting company with IBM. By 1991 OS/2 had the Display Manager that looked like MS Program Manager.
So maybe you are thinking of NT 3.1, but I don't believe IBM ported NT 3.5 or NT 3.51 to Power PC or anything else. Ironically Office 95 isn't even fully 32 bit. NT 3.51 is simply NT 3.5 with the "fake" 32 bit API calls that MS added to win 95 so that office 95 wouldn't run on Win3.11/WFWG with Win32s.
0 kommentar(er)
