General discussion

Locked

NT 4.0 and AOL

By redshift ·
I'm having trouble getting AOL to work on a NT 4.0 Workstation (SP6a). It will connect (through it's own devices, haven't tried DUN), but I get no HTTP services, so web surfing is impossible. What is the proper (read BEST)way to set up AOL in an NT 4.0 WS?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

10 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

NT 4.0 and AOL

by chadkerley420 In reply to NT 4.0 and AOL

Try using something other than AOL. I doubt it was designed to run in this environment. If you must remain on AOL, try dual boot to 98 or something that supports AOL.

Collapse -

NT 4.0 and AOL

by redshift In reply to NT 4.0 and AOL

You know, some people just don't get it. If I had my druthers, this client would be using DUN and PPP to connect to a local ISP. But the client wants AOL, and LIKES IT. He picked up on a nice new Dell workstation for himself. Is it my job to tell him that he made a mistake and should have gone with Win98? I think not, and the everage user would **** if I tried to make them use a dual-boot system. He'd be better off ditching WinNT (which he'd gladly do before ditching AOL, although that line of reasoning is beyond me), but then what was his investment worth?

Collapse -

NT 4.0 and AOL

by tamj123 In reply to NT 4.0 and AOL

older verson's AOL does not work on NT 4.0 Workstation, but new verson 6.0 will.

Collapse -

NT 4.0 and AOL

by redshift In reply to NT 4.0 and AOL

Poster rated this answer

Collapse -

NT 4.0 and AOL

by Shanghai Sam In reply to NT 4.0 and AOL

First - a quote from the MKB Q250542
NOTE: AOL does not support running the AOL software on Windows NT-based computers, but the current version of their software does not require use of the Msnls.dll file.

Second - AOL had never been developed,designed, or supported for use by NT. Only recently, read apprx. 01-2000, has it begun to even include NT in its considerations. Its focus is Windows HOME market and not the business NT environment. The advent of Windows 2K, and several other business considerations, somewhat forced expansion of the development effort to "enable" AOL to work with Win2k, and inturn NT, in future releases.

Third - there is a bit of misinformation regarding prior version of AOL. Actually, AOL 3.0 and AOL 4.0 in their original revisions (16bit)did work with NT. It was the introduction of Win 95 and the change to a 32bit version of AOL 4.0 for that platform that introduced the "wont work with NT" problem. The work around has, and in many cases continuesto be, use AOL 4.0 16 bit version (often included on many AOL CDs.) Most NT users have been very sucessful with this arrangement. But AOL capabilities are limited to say the least.

Collapse -

NT 4.0 and AOL

by redshift In reply to NT 4.0 and AOL

Poster rated this answer

Collapse -

NT 4.0 and AOL

by pschuvie In reply to NT 4.0 and AOL

Let' try again

First - a quote from the MKB Q250542
NOTE: AOL does not support running the AOL software on Windows NT-based computers, but the current version of their software does not require use of the Msnls.dll file.

Second - AOL had never been developed, designed, or supported for use by NT. Only recently, read apprx. 01-2000, has it begun to even include NT in its considerations. Its focus is Windows HOME market and not the business NT environment. The advent of Windows 2K, andseveral other business considerations, somewhat forced expansion of the development effort to "enable" AOL to work with Win2k, and inturn NT, in future releases.

Third - there is a bit of misinformation regarding prior version of AOL. Actually, AOL 3.0 and AOL 4.0 in their original revisions (16bit)did work with NT. It was the introduction of Win 95 and the change to a 32bit version of AOL 4.0 for that platform that introduced the "wont work with NT" problem. The work around has, and in many cases continues to be, use AOL 4.0 16 bit version (often included on many AOL CDs.) Most NT users have been very sucessful with this arrangement. But AOL capabilities are limited to say the least.

Collapse -

NT 4.0 and AOL

by pschuvie In reply to NT 4.0 and AOL

Fourth - AOL 5.0, introduced October 1999, continued the "wont work with NT" problem but in late Summer 2000 it introduced a revision 204.xxx that was tested and released for the Win2k/NT platform. The kicker here was that you had to sign on to AOL, and download the revision with a Win2k/NT machine in order to get the proper revision number. The installer on AOL CD's of the time did not accept the NT as a valid platform for 5.0, and guess what loaded AOL 4.0 16 bit. Users wanting AOL 5.0 needed to load the 4.0 and do the online upgrade which is available at keyword get50.

Current - AOL 6.0, 10-2000, has the intention of more fully addressing the WinMe/Win2k/NT platforms and has done such, but not without some significant bugs. Thisversion included an automatic upgrade to IE 5.5, similar to the automatic upgrade to IE 5.0 found with AOL 5.0.

In both cases, while Microsoft and AOL might appear to have a close working relationship, it quite simply happens on a very large, yetundisclosed, number of user machines that the TCP/IP stacks are manipulated by each upgrade in such a manner that INTERNET connectivity is lost and it can be a b**** to get it back. Having worked with hundreds of users since Oct 1999, I have personally seen the aggrevation, frustration, and pure wonderment of why it won't work. And in many cases AOL Tech support has not been able to provide a solution.

I personally have not put an NT/AOL platform up(maybe today is the day) but have resources to those who have and if you would care to email me - ITSHERESOMEWHERE@aol.com I would contact them on your behalf for a resolution. There are some additonal questions I would have on your current situation, just so you know.

Hope this has beenof some insight.

Collapse -

NT 4.0 and AOL

by redshift In reply to NT 4.0 and AOL

Poster rated this answer

Collapse -

NT 4.0 and AOL

by redshift In reply to NT 4.0 and AOL

This question was closed by the author

Back to Desktop Forum
10 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums