Trying The Earliest Windows NT Build - 196.1

[@xXxNoisemaker]

So this was the result of that famous "breakneck race"! I recommend everyone that hasn't done so read "Showstopper!" to fully appreciate what we can see here.

[@DavidWonn]

7:43 Taskman in NT 3.x behaves very much like it did in Windows 3.x in that it only shows up when you press Control+Escape or when you double click the desktop (as opposed to taskmgr, introduced in NT4.)

[@kbhasi]

(3:07) I feel as though the GUI portion was taken from whichever Windows 3.1 beta build was being flighted at the time, in which it would've likely been an early beta, rather than a late beta.

[@THE_CARBON]

Lol

[@leap123_]

The WINBez demo is probably the base for Mystify screensaver

[@ItsYogSothoth]

Makes me wonder how it would react to upgrade to first ever officially released NT version

[@DanTDMJace]

@@dessnom4333 😡 From a user standpoint, yes. But Windows NT works a LOT different than Windows 3.x

[@_lun4r_]

@@DanTDMJace upgrade it to Windows NT 3.1, that exists

[@mikem9536]

@@DanTDMJaceWindows NT 3.1 is the first major release of the Windows NT operating system developed by Microsoft, released on July 27, 1993.

[@Lofote]

probably not good, as the final version used a completely different directory structure.

[@Aeduo]

I don't think Windows OS "upgrades" were much of a thing yet. Typically things just installed over what was there and reconfigured itself and maybe just appended to what was there in various Windows INIs. I think windows 95 was the first that really did a specific "upgrade" install that kinda took an inventory of installed applications and application configurations from the previous version and made an effort to move everything over.

[@celestemangonya]

it's pretty cool to just see people's names randomly throughout.

[@HBC101TVStudios]

That is not a DOS prompt at 4:18. That’s a command prompt for the Windows NT’s Win32 subsystem. Windows NT cannot natively run DOS applications. NT Virtual DOS Mode or NTVDM is required to run DOS applications on NT.

[@Lofote]

Strangely the icon says DOS, strange that they chose that icon

[@_kitaes_]

​​@@Lofotethat same icon is used for command prompt on nt 3.x (well not the same, but it says "MSDOS")

[@steeviebops]

@@Lofote It is funny; despite not being real DOS, they used the MS-DOS logo as the command prompt icon even up to NT 4.0. It only changed in Windows 2000.

[@NewRepublicMapper]

The Beginning of the Legendary NT

[@ninteenth]

Theres Now Another Early Build. AkA The Early April 1991 Build! this build was just leaked.

[@ninteenth]

Early Enough To Still Have The Remnants of the NT OS/2 PROJECT!

[@ninteenth]

Maybe it’s the only build of NT OS/2 available!

[@NourMostafa_Productions]

"Today we're gonna try the earliest build of windows NT" "You're gonna need a full installation of DOS" *But you didn't have to cut me off*

[@danieleremin1924]

5:19 Wait, there was a version of windows that let you log on to the SYSTEM user??

[@user-ze3ui8ur9h]

you can log on to SYSTEM in all versions.

[@danieleremin1924]

@@user-ze3ui8ur9h Didn't know that. But not *all* versions let you fully log on.

[@bwp70]

This beta was BEFORE Windows 3.1 was released!

[@АртемАртем-и9ж]

Yes

[@HailAnts]

For non-geeks, originally Microsoft and IBM were working on OS/2 together as partners. This is a result of that. But then Windows 3 and then 3.1 took off in the home PC market. IBM said, _'That's nice, but let's keep working on the future, OS/2'_ but Microsoft said, _'Nah! We're sticking with Windows'._ Even though they knew it was an inferior product Microsoft owned Windows, IBM owned OS/2. Lots of legal wrangling occurred, all IBM code was removed from Windows (and vice-versa) and the two companies went their separate ways (acrimoniously). IBM continued developing OS/2 for a couple of decades, and it was superior in every way. But not in any way that was radically obvious for the average consumer. Microsoft also made deals with all the PC hardware manufacturers where in order to get deep discounts on bulk sales of Windows they had to pay a licensing fee to Microsoft _for every PC they sold,_ regardless of whether it actually had Windows installed or not. IOW if you bought a new PC from Dell or Gateway or HP it came with Windows installed for free, OS/2 cost extra. Meanwhile IBM just started pushing their new PS/2 hardware (with OS/2 included). But the PS/2 was viewed as nothing more than a kludge, just a new hardware standard that wasn't better in any way, other than IBM retained the patents on it. So it failed. And in the few markets where the PS/2 hardware did have sales, schools and colleges, it was sold with Windows installed because the customers wanted it. Microsoft didn't equal the rock solid stability, 32-bit architecture, and other advanced features of OS/2 until nearly 20 years later. They finally combined the core kernels of Windows 9x and Windows NT with Windows XP in 2001 (Windows 2000 had them, but it was never marketed to consumers). Today OS/2 still exists in niche places. IBM mainframes come with a laptop built-in as their control panel running, you guessed it, OS/2!

[@unavailable292]

5:40 of course it will be. Because it was the beginning of a new kernel era.

[@masonthedunce3711]

The file system hierarchy looks a lot like a Unix file system hierarchy, hmm

[@NTDEV]

From what I've gathered, at this stage the NT kernel and the drivers have the COFF executable format, which is mostly UNIX specific. PE (Portable executable) wasn't introduced yet.

[@masonthedunce3711]

@@NTDEV Would be really interesting to see these executables try to run on Windows 10. Maybe running them under Unix/BSD or Linux would yield results. I’ll have to try it out!

[@NTDEV]

I actually tried them in Win10, and it says that they aren't Win32 executables. I haven't tried them on Linux, though :)))

[@masonthedunce3711]

@@NTDEV That would be interesting. I'm sure that libraries are missing under Linux/Unix so it might not run completely. Syscalls are also different so there might be some weird stuff going on lol

[@daxxter4182]

every ntdev video be like "Hi there, it's NTDEV."

[@dracenmarx]

1:05 What's that on the screen in the background? Some debug output with assembler codes?

[@NTDEV]

That's how it writes the boot sector, using the debug command

[@นาย3อ]

@@NTDEV Hey What is the music at 2:07

[@Windows_NT_Dude]

It actually does have a version, it's called VERSION

[@jdmulloy]

It looks like you're using 86Box. What hardware settings did you use? It's hanging at the gray loading screen with ==== at the bottom when I try to boot it.

[@jdmulloy]

I got it to work by using an IDE hard drive instead of SCSI. I set it up with SCSI because the BetaWiki page for the October 91 build said to use SCSI, but this build seems to only support IDE drives. I figured this out by reading the README which says it only works on 386 and 486 Compaqs. betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1_October_1991_build

[@irridesu]

@@jdmulloy Thank you, I was having the same problem

[@hdfsyu]

Which virtual machine software are you using? Because when I install NT I reboot and it says: Boot [D]os or [N]t? I chose n for NT then it said: Internal error: cannot allocate memory then it says: Remaining heapsize = 3784 - failed request size = 0. Im thinking this is the bootloader failing EDIT: I used 86box and it started working perfectly fine

[@hye181]

for anyone's future reference, this error is caused by the partition being too large (larger than ~300MB will cause this)

[@tilsgee]

@@hye181 is it because of being 8bit/16bit problem or what? So they can't handle more than 300 MB?

[@hye181]

@@tilsgee NT is 32-bit; replacing 16-bit DOS/Windows was one of the reasons it was written. My best guess for what causes this problem is that the bootloader tries to read the entire FAT (file allocation table) from the disk partition into a block of memory allocated on its heap, but has a really primitive memory allocator that probably can only access the low 640KB of RAM, so when the FAT is too large it runs out of memory and crashes.

[@UmarBlox5124]

Well the title aged like milk

[@ziomekzmiasta9292]

Windows 10 probably have some source code of it

[@77x5ghost]

i wonder how i can run this on pcem shuttle hot-557 is too new for this currently trying awad SiS 496/497 with a i486/33 i can't get past the boot loader

[@kovacsdavid4362]

I got past the bootloader and it "worked". (Worked is a bald statement, since the only thing that works is my mouse, keyboard's dead in the VM). I used a 486 and an Award WinBios for it to work, and the DOS toolkit or whatever it's called for MS-DOS 6. And yeah, it still crashes on every corner, but it kinda works, so that's cool.

[@seventone4039]

You can run it also in Virtualbox but you need to specify a acceptable cpu with vboxmanage to make it work. You need MS-DOS as template and edit the config til it works.

[@77x5ghost]

@@seventone4039 i forgot about this comment lmfao i managed to get it running on an intel classic machine with a 486dx on 86box

[@Schule04]

Solitaire seems to be the weird version with the hidden menu. What hardware did you run it on?

[@АртемАртем-и9ж]

486DX2, 16 mb RAM, 128 mb HDD

[@seventone4039]

This version runs for me in Oracle Virtualbox 6.1. The ZIP Archive is named as Comdex 1991 version. It crashed regulary but you can do programming with nmake + cl and do simple stuff

[@cleverking2003]

What's the music at 2:07?

[@นาย3อ]

I dont know

[@นาย3อ]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nIOngqier9t7aJI

[@Com_Exp]

I found! kzbin.info/www/bejne/fX-UYot7qbyVe7c

[@bigsof7381]

@@นาย3อ if you don't then don't renspond

[@Jessycakeboi]

@@bigsof7381 i don't know

[@xanderplayz3446]

0:00 this song reminds me of os/2 tbh

[@Certifiedinsurance]

Have you tried LFN(long filename creation) on FAT16 or NTFS for this test build or winNT 3.1 ? I know VFAT got introduced at win NT 4.0.

[@Lofote]

Vfat got implemented already in Windows NT 3.5 Windows NT 3.1 final had no long filename support on FAT. NTFS was not implemented in this alpha version

[@Certifiedinsurance]

@@Lofote Thank you for solving all curiosity. NT alpha without NTFS; seems to be not worthy to try in VM for my entertainment.

[@АртемАртем-и9ж]

Which music used 2:07?

[@นาย3อ]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nIOngqier9t7aJI

[@PutHandleHere11]

Can I have the Vm for VMware?

[@FridiNaTor]

Very interesting NTVDM didn't exist at this point, or alteast on this build. If it does it is not automatic.

[@danieleremin1924]

6:39 Isn't ImagEdit the same thing as paint?

[@DavidWonn]

YT loves to delete my comments. It’s a separate program capable of creating icons and cursors, though there is some overlap of capabilities with Paintbrush.

[@jik7864]

It's written "NT 32-bits Windows v1.196". So Windows NT 1.1 did exist !!!

[@HBC101TVStudios]

Back then it was known as NT/OS2..

[@HarmlessBongo1]

The first portion of the setup worked but when i restarted i got a "memory not allocated" error

[@electroman1996]

How much RAM does your VM have?

[@LuisTechBoom]

@@electroman1996 it does also to me and even with 2 gb ram does not boot

[@hye181]

​@@LuisTechBoom this error is caused by the partition being too large (larger than ~300MB will cause this)

[@TorutheRedFox]

NT _Mode_ ? what?

[@Kiki79250CoC]

Early versions of Windows were DOS based, and NT mode was just the new kernel used to run Windows, separate from the old monolithic DOS kernel. Current versions of Windows are based on the NT kernel. For example: Windows 10 is "Windows NT 10.0"

[@TorutheRedFox]

@@Kiki79250CoC I know I just find it weird that they call it a "mode"

[@steeviebops]

Early versions of Windows had different operating modes depending on the processor type you had. Real mode, standard (286 protected) mode, or 386 enhanced mode. I'd imagine that NT Mode is probably used in place of one of these three if the mode is queried by an application.

[@aldwinpanny10]

It looks like Windows 3.0.

[@fantashokata]

More like OS/2 1.3.

[@johntoemilytransitionvlog9418]

My boot files is not contiguous blocks what I to do?

[@NTDEV]

Run defrag

[@johntoemilytransitionvlog9418]

@@NTDEV Run Defrag on boot files

[@АртемАртем-и9ж]

You must use Pcem or 86box

[@cirkulx]

This is where Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1, and Windows 10 started. If this build didn’t exist, I’m pretty sure Windows NT wouldn’t even exist.

[@ziomekzmiasta9292]

Windows 10 probably have some source code of this beta and even OS/2 - no one makes operating system from blank sheet

[@cirkulx]

@@ziomekzmiasta9292 there is some Windows 3.0 in Windows 10

[@ziomekzmiasta9292]

@@cirkulx Windows Vista has file progman.exe (Program Manager from Windows 3.0), maybe Windows 10 too

[@cirkulx]

@@ziomekzmiasta9292 in 64 bit? It would be useless there, but is it there?

[@cirkulx]

Is it just 32 bit Vista or just 64 or both?

[@leap123_]

Version VERSION

[@GreggyMcfly]

I just got it working on 86box.

[@Certifiedinsurance]

Does it support NTFS ?

[@seventone4039]

No, fat only in this version

[@HBC101TVStudios]

@@seventone4039 and also HPFS, OS/2’s file system (since NT 3.1 is based on the older Microsoft OS/2 2.0 kernel)

[@vascomanteigas9433]

NTFS was implemented on later betas. Still the first version of NTFS was ready at the comercial release.

[@ages2001]

Now, try this build with UEFI Boot. XD

[@_GhostMiner]

If you can make bootable efi file then it may be possible 😄

[@_zproxy]

needs areo glass

[@TugAndThugComputing]

Based on DOS? WOW!

[@ifrit05]

It’s not you need DOS to install it after that it’s running on the NT Kernel

[@TugAndThugComputing]

@Cirrubec Aah, So it's a hybrid kernel and a multiboot kind of thing.

[@АртемАртем-и9ж]

No, Windows NT not based on DOS!

[@seventone4039]

No. The install script requires MS-DOS to get NT running, but if it runs it does not need MS-DOS anymore.

[@_lun4r_]

It still runs the NT kernel but it multiboots itself with DOS so you can select either one to start up

[@CBFNetworksArchive]

Request: Making installable ISO of Windows 10 x

[@CatsRobloxOther2nd]

Fun Fact: NT Was Originally Being Developed For OS/2 And Not Windows

[@genericobjectshow3440]

Fun fact: You can properly capitalize sentences.

[@fantashokata]

This build looks like build 239.

[@АртемАртем-и9ж]

... or October build

[@nangld]

That ugly flat design makes it look like Windows 11.

[@_kitaes_]

i mean it was made when ussr was still around

[@unavailable292]

Isn't that the Windows NT October 1991 release?

[@АртемАртем-и9ж]

No, it's Windows NT September 1991 Build (1.196)

[@anidnmeno]

"netbuei"