Any reason why i should'nt upgrade to Win ME?

bitSLAP · Post by **bitSLAP** » Thu Jan 04, 2001 6:14 pm

Yeah what's with the space difference? ME takes up like 700 megs and 98se takes 200. wtf?

LikeLinus · Post by **LikeLinus** » Thu Jan 04, 2001 6:45 pm

i'm "assuming" that the huge space difference is for all the video editing features and extra crap they've thrown on there for that (example movies and whatnot). Also things like the home networking wizard and little differences add more space

bitSLAP · Post by **bitSLAP** » Thu Jan 04, 2001 6:57 pm

I've never heard of an operating system more than triple in size between versions.

I think ME is analogous with the fat kid in the playground that needs his head kicked in.

Solstice · Post by **Solstice** » Thu Jan 04, 2001 9:33 pm

Windows OS's allow third party applications to gain system access while in kernal mode (the absolute worst way to approach the problem. They just wanted to make life easier for software developers). What does this mean? It means you could theoretically install some app, reboot Windows, and see the whole thing blue screen in your face because some critical Windows device driver has just changed, moved, or disappeared entirely. The Windows bloat in Win2k and WinME is Microsoft's "band-aid" for the problem. They included hidden directories of all critical system files, archived. That way when something kills an OS device file, the OS can recover it. Like I said, "band-aid".

kill_joy · Post by **kill_joy** » Thu Jan 04, 2001 11:45 pm

Hi everyone.I probably have as much experience as anybody on this board with computers/operating systems.I've used them all and not to be the one "disenter" here but WinME has worked flawlessly for me. I have not had any stability problems at all,I use WinME for gaming,business and as the operating system on one of my lans-I also use Win2000 Advanced Server and Win2000 Professional on my other lan.My computer was EXTREMELY unstable with Win98 SE when I upgraded to an ASUS CUSL2(Intel 815E chipset)and just in general.Now I know some of that was due to an immature BIOS,but once I loaded WinME this has been the most stable system I have EVER had and I don't regret it for a moment.Sure-it's a dumbed down version of '98 and it was made for the lowest common demonator computer user out there,but,so what?Everybody's system/peripherals/applications are dfifferent and whatever works good for you is the best O/S I feel.It is slower in gaming benchmarks but you can disable some of the features if you want.And believe it or not,System Restore has saved my ass a few times.I do use Norton Ghost but sometimes I just didn't want to go that route and it was nice to have that alternative.Some people really have an "elitist" attitude toward some O/S's and I am NOT referring to anybody in this thread,but I have been totally happy with WinME and whatever a person is happy with is what counts.Just my 2 cents.Thanks.

[Edited by kill_joy on 01-04-2001 at 11:47 PM]

Radboy · Post by **Radboy** » Fri Jan 05, 2001 2:18 am

WinME works great for me, too .. more stable (for me) than W98/SE.

But it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

I used W98/SE w/ C300a & BH6, while WinME w/ P3-700 @938 & CUSL2.

WinME natively sppts 815e chipset, while W98/SE does not.

One recurring note I kept hearing was that u wanna do a *cleasn* install of ME .. not an upgrade. I did a clean install.

Also ME gets its user interface from W2K, which I like a lot (dual-boot .. actually triple w/ Whistler Pro beta1).

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Fri Jan 05, 2001 6:41 am

Same again here WinME works great for me also...it has proved itself to be much more stable than 98SE without a single problem to date. As for the speed issue i disabled the sys restore and pchealth modules then i applied the maxcache tweak and am more than happy with the speed so far.

As Radboy pointed out a clean install of this OS is something that should really be considered as i did try to upgrade resulting in a fair few issues, after a clean install the OS has run flawlessly for me..

HitDoS · Post by **HitDoS** » Fri Jan 05, 2001 8:33 am

No problems here either. Upgraded two Win98se PC's to Win ME and have not had a single problem. I really was not having much problems with SE, I just loaded it up to see how they handled ICS....then ended up sticking with it.

If game benchmarks are reported as lower, I sure have not noticed it one bit...on any game that I was playing before I switched. OH well, whatever works for you is what I would stick with. No need to fix what isn't broke.

Biohazard · Post by **Biohazard** » Fri Jan 05, 2001 8:48 am

I'm a big fan of win2k actually. I don't run it at home cuz I have dvd and cdr software that's 98 only

, but work it's running great. Stupid computer used to reboot anywhere between 4 and 5 times a day with 98 or 98se. Now I have an uptime at work of over 50 days without rebooting! Almost rivaling my NT box at home, which will be win2k once I find the server version of it. Why do you need a restore function, when the registry runs just fine all the time?

bitSLAP · Post by **bitSLAP** » Fri Jan 05, 2001 9:04 am

I'm with you bio. I've been running Windows 2000 since build 2523. I have it rebooting at midnight though, since something in my computer has a memory leek. Email me dude

Kakarot · Post by **Kakarot** » Fri Jan 05, 2001 9:22 am

Windows OS's allow third party applications to gain system access while in kernal mode (the absolute worst way to approach the problem. They just wanted to make life easier for software developers).

Um thats not true. Win95/98/ME do that. NOT WinNT4 or Win2k. The NT kernal keeps kernal mode and user mode completely separate(as it should be). So your wide sweeping statement of "Windows OS's" is wrong.

kill_joy · Post by **kill_joy** » Fri Jan 05, 2001 9:31 am

Hi bio.I agree with you completely-a person shouldn't have to use system restore,but,haven't you ever loaded a bad app or driver that completely hosed your system? I'm sure that you and everyone else here has at one time or another-and if you're like me and a lot of other people here that constantly tinker with their computer it can happen quite often.Sometimes I just don't feel like using Nortton Ghost and it's nice to be able to use system restore.

Biohazard · Post by **Biohazard** » Fri Jan 05, 2001 11:10 am

I have a job cuz things like that happen

No major system f*ckups and now need for a tech. Win2k is hard for them to mess up, but hard for me to fix at the same time

Buttermaker · Post by **Buttermaker** » Fri Jan 05, 2001 2:33 pm

The Windows bloat in Win2k and WinME is Microsoft's "band-aid" for the problem. They included hidden directories of all critical system files, archived.

Lnx227 · Post by **Lnx227** » Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:46 pm

my experience w/ win98se and ME is they both suck

win2k all the way! heh. seriously though, like every newer windows, ME is slower. And for me, it was less stable than 98se. Win2k... my aim time is 5 days, 21 hrs... heh. There has never been a time for me to reboot unless I install software that needs it. DVD, cdr.. all work for me..

Biohazard, what dvd/cdr stuff doesn't work in 2k?

I used to be win2k only, but have 98se on here just in case... as one time while playing deus ex.. it crashed and took something important out... i really don't know how, and didn't really have time to fix it... so i keep win98 on just in case that situation comes up where win2k is disabled and i need to write a paper due in 5 hrs