winme - best of the best - Page 3

*Fraoch* · 02-03-2004, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucas_Maximus
I bought my laptop 3 years ago almost, i had windows ME. I tried showig my grandfather what a DVD was.

So i started powerdvd and it crashed, brand new oem install, first time i started the laptop up. I wasnt happy.

So, was your grandfather impressed?

Back on topic, did Windows ME offer any significant advantages over Windows 98SE?

And Cogar, I have seen a Windows 3.0 desktop before (looked pretty primitive, even by Windows 3.1 standards). When I worked at Dow Chemical in '96 they leased all new PCs which ran Windows 95...crashes at least once per week, sometimes every day.

XJ. · 02-03-2004, 09:20 AM

Well personally, I think that WinME was just a bit more lame than Win98SE. I think WinXP is probably a great OS for many home users. Personally, I switched back to Win2k, because WinXP is a disaster due to gaggle of updates which seem to have made it slower and less stable (at least when I'm pushing my hardware).

I've re-installed XP more times than any OS since Win95 (which caused me to move to WinNT 4.0) - hence the retrograde to the OS which I've had to re-install the least number of times -> Win2k.

patentman · 02-03-2004, 12:48 PM

As I said I love ME even if I don`t use it anymore.
This argue (which is best) has always been hot and was restared when a newer win version came out.
My view is that every OS is/was good for the time it was released and was better than previous,anyway on that they hope to increase sellings.
What do I mean?
First every single new version supported its time PC components -so it was faster and more stable.Don`t you ever noticed that when it was about a chipset driver or such critical driver then the one which would work better it was MS stuff bulit in driver.I had too many issues either on stability and/or in performance and everytime I had to deal something different with VIA`s different versions of 4-1 drivers on 98SE (had tried all!).By the time I installed ME into that system it became solid stable and arround the fastest it could based on best performance VIA driver (which was crappy unstable) and that was definetely by better support of mobo.Also that applied to Intel chipset driver and 98SE to ME.

Secondly,every new version has new capabilities that are needed or not.Some are graphical some essential.

Third,by the new version all previous issues are solved BUT new ones come arround.The rule is the more solved the muchier generate.XP has too many in comparison to ME (that time`s issues) and anyone who has used them must admit. (hey without any updates that solve things but slow down).

Forth,you have to move on or else stay in where you are:Either use your current progs and type of PC use or upgrade OS so to have the ability to upgrade SW/HW the right way.
This made me using now XP instead of ME as all arround use but never give up W2K for video editing stuff-who knows.I wanted to be up to date and don`t be deadly surprised the time I was forced to be up to date.That`s the game and I play it.

Five,except of the above,some OSes has trully been better than other,compared between two of course.My opinion is ME is definetely better than 98SE.I can`t compare them to W2K though as they are totally different and such should be their use.And compared to XP then definetely had less worries for beginners.

Ok,some final talking:

The truth is XP (I hate to say) is the rule now.

I`m not an OS specialist.Gimme hardware!!!

Also if anyone`s happy with his OS then he should have no worry about others especially if hasn`t upgraded HW to newly stuff and/or finds it stable&fast.

You have the right to argue.

I haven`t tried Linux -which I always tell myself but not give a try.

I wish the newer version of win to have all the goodies of previous and not a sigle glitch -but then how do we mess with them?

MS could make them better before their release.

If you read all that then you are probably a patient person and anyway doesn`t worry about MS craps.

I don`t know.

KingTermite · 02-03-2004, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pointreyes
No way am I going to list all the OSes I use. My profile is bad enough and it's growing.

I was only talking about the Microsoft OS's too.

I didn't mention anything about TRS-DOS, DrDos, IBM-DOS, OS/2, MVS, VMS, Solaris, Unix, etc....

Cogar · 02-04-2004, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fraoch
Back on topic, did Windows ME offer any significant advantages over Windows 98SE?

It has been long enough that I do not recall all of its specific advantages. (Let me also say that I am a big fan of 98SE. I believe it was Microsoft's best OS for its time.) Like other Windows OSs, Me was supposed to be more multimedia capable than its predecessors were. It also installed much more cleanly--not as many missing .dll files, etc. that were supposed to be on the system disk but were not. As patentman mentioned, it did have better hardware driver support as well. It was also the first (and only) DOS-based Windows OS to have a system restore function. It did not work perfectly, but it did save my bacon twice. (One was a video driver that went bad and the other was some bad software that screwed up the system completely.)

**pointreyes** · 02-04-2004, 02:12 PM

In line with Cogar's response.

ME had one feature that I throughly hated with 9x. When installing drivers-I do not need the Windows CD. I hated that with 9x, it was like three steps instead of two and yet it was the longest step for me.
Step 1) Install drivers
Step 2) Step 1 will not complete until you provide the Windows 9x CD.
Step 3) Reboot.

With ME is was just, 1) Install drivers and 2) reboot.

I also found the interface of ME to much better for me because it was closer to the 2000 Pro interface.

Lucas_Maximus · 02-04-2004, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fraoch
So, was your grandfather impressed?

Back on topic, did Windows ME offer any significant advantages over Windows 98SE?

And Cogar, I have seen a Windows 3.0 desktop before (looked pretty primitive, even by Windows 3.1 standards). When I worked at Dow Chemical in '96 they leased all new PCs which ran Windows 95...crashes at least once per week, sometimes every day.

no he thought it was hilarious that the thing crashed.

**pointreyes** · 02-04-2004, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucas_Maximus
no he thought it was hilarious that the thing crashed.

Remember this moment in MS history?

FearFactory · 02-04-2004, 02:37 PM

I always found Win ME very unstable... i tried it in diferent friends machines (in my machines, never), never liked ME. At home only Win 98SE and XP.

Bassman · 02-04-2004, 08:28 PM

New version of ME here......

VSEKH · 02-04-2004, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bassman
New version of ME here......

*Bofinn* · 02-04-2004, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bassman
New version of ME here......

HeHeHe!

*Fraoch* · 02-04-2004, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pointreyes
Remember this moment in MS history?

That's a good one pointreyes!

NiTCOM · 02-04-2004, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skully
XP best so far for me!

oh not again that debate....

noshellswill · 02-05-2004, 10:27 PM

... seems to me MSoft has missed the boat. It has presented the "aware" non-coder with nothing but constraints & bloat. Didn't have to be, I figure. There's an OS selling "slot" available somewhere between Linux and WinXP where the underlying (GUI)OS provides an intelligent and human-friendly "backplane" for oodles of 3-party functions.

Not an OS that appeals to grandma, I think, and yet not something for the byteboyz. More like a thoughtful users "pal-in-the-business". Bet you could even sell a (smart)PCI-card with it that would among other things be an OS_neutral boot-device.

02-03-2004, 09:20 AM	#32
XJ. ... Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NH, USA Posts: 6,113	Well personally, I think that WinME was just a bit more lame than Win98SE. I think WinXP is probably a great OS for many home users. Personally, I switched back to Win2k, because WinXP is a disaster due to gaggle of updates which seem to have made it slower and less stable (at least when I'm pushing my hardware). I've re-installed XP more times than any OS since Win95 (which caused me to move to WinNT 4.0) - hence the retrograde to the OS which I've had to re-install the least number of times -> Win2k. __________________
(Offline)

02-03-2004, 12:48 PM	#33
patentman Modded Person Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Athens, Greece Posts: 2,281	My opinion As I said I love ME even if I don`t use it anymore. This argue (which is best) has always been hot and was restared when a newer win version came out. My view is that every OS is/was good for the time it was released and was better than previous,anyway on that they hope to increase sellings. What do I mean? First every single new version supported its time PC components -so it was faster and more stable.Don`t you ever noticed that when it was about a chipset driver or such critical driver then the one which would work better it was MS stuff bulit in driver.I had too many issues either on stability and/or in performance and everytime I had to deal something different with VIA`s different versions of 4-1 drivers on 98SE (had tried all!).By the time I installed ME into that system it became solid stable and arround the fastest it could based on best performance VIA driver (which was crappy unstable) and that was definetely by better support of mobo.Also that applied to Intel chipset driver and 98SE to ME. Secondly,every new version has new capabilities that are needed or not.Some are graphical some essential. Third,by the new version all previous issues are solved BUT new ones come arround.The rule is the more solved the muchier generate.XP has too many in comparison to ME (that time`s issues) and anyone who has used them must admit. (hey without any updates that solve things but slow down). Forth,you have to move on or else stay in where you are:Either use your current progs and type of PC use or upgrade OS so to have the ability to upgrade SW/HW the right way. This made me using now XP instead of ME as all arround use but never give up W2K for video editing stuff-who knows.I wanted to be up to date and don`t be deadly surprised the time I was forced to be up to date.That`s the game and I play it. Five,except of the above,some OSes has trully been better than other,compared between two of course.My opinion is ME is definetely better than 98SE.I can`t compare them to W2K though as they are totally different and such should be their use.And compared to XP then definetely had less worries for beginners. Ok,some final talking: The truth is XP (I hate to say) is the rule now. I`m not an OS specialist.Gimme hardware!!! Also if anyone`s happy with his OS then he should have no worry about others especially if hasn`t upgraded HW to newly stuff and/or finds it stable&fast. You have the right to argue. I haven`t tried Linux -which I always tell myself but not give a try. I wish the newer version of win to have all the goodies of previous and not a sigle glitch -but then how do we mess with them? MS could make them better before their release. If you read all that then you are probably a patient person and anyway doesn`t worry about MS craps. I don`t know.
(Offline)

02-04-2004, 02:12 PM	#36
pointreyes The race for quality has no finish line- so technically, it's more like a death march. Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 18,159	In line with Cogar's response. ME had one feature that I throughly hated with 9x. When installing drivers-I do not need the Windows CD. I hated that with 9x, it was like three steps instead of two and yet it was the longest step for me. Step 1) Install drivers Step 2) Step 1 will not complete until you provide the Windows 9x CD. Step 3) Reboot. With ME is was just, 1) Install drivers and 2) reboot. I also found the interface of ME to much better for me because it was closer to the 2000 Pro interface. __________________
(Offline)

02-04-2004, 02:37 PM	#39
FearFactory The FC.Porto dragon! Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Portugal Posts: 3,953	I always found Win ME very unstable... i tried it in diferent friends machines (in my machines, never), never liked ME. At home only Win 98SE and XP.
(Offline)

02-05-2004, 10:27 PM	#45
noshellswill Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 169	so many different experiences, and yet ... ... seems to me MSoft has missed the boat. It has presented the "aware" non-coder with nothing but constraints & bloat. Didn't have to be, I figure. There's an OS selling "slot" available somewhere between Linux and WinXP where the underlying (GUI)OS provides an intelligent and human-friendly "backplane" for oodles of 3-party functions. Not an OS that appeals to grandma, I think, and yet not something for the byteboyz. More like a thoughtful users "pal-in-the-business". Bet you could even sell a (smart)PCI-card with it that would among other things be an OS_neutral boot-device.
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode