Editing Windows NT 3.1 (section)

== Reception ==
Windows NT 3.1 sold about 300,000 copies in its first year.<ref name="ctrueckblick">{{cite web |date=July 27, 2003 |title=Zehn Jahre Windows NT |url=http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Zehn-Jahre-Windows-NT-ein-Rueckblick-301948.html |access-date=2012-06-09 |website=c't – Magazin für Computertechnik}}</ref> The hardware requirements were deemed to be very high at that time; the recommended system requirements of a 486 processor with 16 megabytes of memory were well above the average computer's configuration,<ref name="ct1994" /> and the operating system turned out to be too slow to use.<ref name="IW16Aug1993_S1">{{cite journal | last1=Strehlo | first1=Kevin | last2=Gallie | first2=Rodney | title=Windows NT: a robust server but a poor OS | journal=InfoWorld | volume=15 | issue=33 | date=1993-08-16 | pages=1, 100 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=qjsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA1}}</ref> 32-bit applications which could have used the capabilities of Windows NT 3.1 were scarce, so users had to resort to the old 16-bit applications; however, these ran slower than on Windows 3.1. Estimates in November 1993 counted only 150 Windows NT applications.<ref name="IW15Nov1993_S84">{{cite journal | last=Korzeniowski | first=Paul | title=More than just a print and file server | journal=InfoWorld | volume=15 | issue=46 | date=1993-11-15 | pages=84 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=DDsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA84}}</ref> Common types of software, like [[office suite]]s, were not available for Windows NT 3.1.<ref name="ct1994" /> During the development of the operating system, the API calls were changed so 32-bit applications built on the 1992 pre-release version of Windows NT 3.1 could not be run on the final version. This affected software such as [[Microsoft Visual C++]] 1.0 and Microsoft Fortran PowerStation.<ref name="msq103621">{{Cite web|url=http://support.microsoft.com/kb/103621/en-us|title=Running Visual C++ for Windows with Windows NT|date=November 1, 2006|website=Microsoft Support|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130227071254/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/103621/en-us|archive-date=February 27, 2013|access-date=May 9, 2019}}</ref>

RISC systems with Windows NT 3.1 had an even bigger disadvantage: even though they were more powerful than x86 systems,<ref name="PCMag28Sep1993_S211" /> almost no 32-bit applications or drivers were ported to these platforms.<ref name="ctrueckblick" /> 16-bit applications ran much slower under RISC systems because of the 80286 emulation compared to x86 systems which could run 16-bit applications natively,<ref name="PCMag28Sep1993_S211" /> and DOS and 16-bit applications which depended on 386 calls could not be run at all on RISC systems.

However, not all reception was negative; the multitasking capabilities of the operating system were rated positively, especially compared to Windows 3.1.<ref name="ct1993" /> Compared to the size of the operating system, the installation turned out to be very easy, even though installing from floppies was a very time-consuming task.<ref name="IW15Nov1993_S96">{{cite journal | last=Howell | first=Dave | title=Diary of an NT install: With a small amount of preparation and the right hardware, installing NT is a no-brainer | journal=InfoWorld | volume=15 | issue=46 | date=1993-11-15 | pages=96–98 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=DDsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA96}}</ref> The ''Advanced Server'', intended to be the successor to the unsuccessful [[LAN Manager]] product, was technically much superior to its predecessor, and only failed to gain success because it shared the same problems with its workstation pendant, such as the low performance running 16-bit applications.<ref name="IW15Nov1993_S81">{{cite journal | last=Korzeniowski | first=Paul | title=Windows NT Advanced Server: The new network OS seems to be on a slow climb toward acceptance | journal=InfoWorld | volume=15 | issue=46 | date=1993-11-15 | pages=81 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=DDsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA81}}</ref> The ''Advanced Server'' provided a financial advantage for large networks because its price was not dependent on the number of clients, unlike its competitor Novell NetWare.<ref name="IW15Nov1993_S138" />

With Windows NT, Microsoft entered a market it could not previously address and which was mostly dominated by Unix, Novell NetWare and OS/2.<ref name="IW15Nov1993_S77">{{cite journal | last1=Korzeniowski | first1=Paul | last2=Barney | first2=Doug | title=Which Windows when, where and why? Do you need to know the way to Cairo and Chicago? And how long will it take to get there? | journal=InfoWorld | volume=15 | issue=46 | date=1993-11-15 | pages=77 f | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=DDsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA77}}</ref> A test performed by the [[InfoWorld]] magazine in November 1993, where the networking capabilities of several operating systems were tested, showed that Windows NT 3.1 was seriously lacking in inter-client communication: it could only connect to its own server via [[NetBEUI]]; attempts to connect to Unix, NetWare and OS/2 all failed because no client software was available. For the ''Advanced Server'', only their own client, the Macintosh and, if only limited, OS/2 were able to connect to the server.<ref name="IW15Nov1993_S124">{{cite journal | last1=Perele | first1=Nicholas | last2=Durlester | first2=Nancy | last3=Wonnacott | first3=Laura | last4=Sommer | first4=Dan | title=The interoperability headache: linking disparate clients and servers: The mission: to give each of eight client operating systems simultaneous access to the leading networks and printers in our testing enterprise | journal=InfoWorld | volume=15 | issue=46 | date=1993-11-15 | pages=124–134 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=DDsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA124}}</ref>

Even though the operating system's actual success was only moderate, it had a huge lasting impact. Developers of Unix derivations for the first time strived to standardize their operating systems, and Novell was so concerned about its market share that it bought a Unix vendor.<ref name="ZacharyShowstopper"/>{{rp|page=303}} Manufacturers of [[microprocessor]]s hoped to use the portability of the new operating system to increase their own sales,<ref name="ZacharyShowstopper"/>{{rp|page=303}} and thus ports of Windows NT were announced for various platforms, like the [[Sun SPARC]] architecture<ref name="IW12Jul1993_S8">{{cite journal | last1=Johnston | first1=Stuart J. | last2=Wilson | first2=Jayne | title=Sun, Intergraph to port Windows NT to RISC-based Sparc systems | journal=InfoWorld | volume=15 | issue=28 | date=1993-07-12 | pages=8 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=SDsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA8}}</ref> and the [[Clipper architecture]].<ref name="IW23Nov1992_S16">{{cite journal | last=Johnston | first=Stuart J. | title=Intergraph to port its Unix-based engineering apps to Windows NT | journal=InfoWorld | volume=14 | issue=47 | date=1992-11-23 | pages=16 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=LlEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA16}}</ref> It was recognized that Windows NT would dominate the desktop market as soon as the hardware became powerful enough to run the operating system at an acceptable speed.<ref name="IW22Nov1993_S66">{{cite journal | last1=Kent | first1=Les | last2=Armstrong | first2=James | last3=Nash | first3=Siobhan | title=32-bit desktop operating systems: Finding the right operating system to suit your needs | journal=InfoWorld | volume=15 | issue=47 | date=1993-11-22 | pages=66–83 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=ATsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA66}}</ref> Eight years later, Microsoft would unify the consumer-oriented Windows line (which had remained MS-DOS based) with the NT line with the October 2001 release of [[Windows XP]]—the first consumer-oriented version of Windows to use the NT architecture.<ref name="cnet-xpreview">{{cite web |date=September 4, 2001 |title=Windows XP review |url=http://reviews.cnet.com/windows/microsoft-windows-xp-home/4505-3672_7-6534881.html |access-date=24 May 2013 |publisher=CNET}}</ref>