(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:50 pm
Post subject: gotta say.. so long ME Archived from groups: microsoft>public>windowsme>general (more info?)
I'm am almost dissapointed to do this, afterall, ME has been a fine
performer eversince I discovered this ng and other ME forums on the 'net to
help me tame ME enough to be able to believe that I would never need to move
to XP, ...but recently, I've been very disappointed in ME's performance and
reliability eversince I changed my video card to a newer and "better" one
(worked ok for a while - it only caused a problem with Shutdown), and
eversince I upped the ram from 256 to 768. The various tweaks to fool ME
to limit it to 512 or LESS is not working. I am actually running out of
resources sooner! Very annoying. The whole idea of adding more ram was to
be able to use it. There was a modest speed boost in screen rendering, and
application loading with the extra ram, but I still can't seem to have more
apps open at the same time which I need.
So.. I'm moving on to Ubuntu. The winapps that I absolutely need will be
hosted on my XP'd Thinkpad.
ME first came into my life when I purchased a new 1gHz, AGP 2x 64meg, 256meg
ram, 40gig box in year 2000. The first upgrade it ever needed was a
critical one - a new 120gig hdd. About 3 years into its life ME had started
to insist on Scandisk at every boot (even after successful scandisk and
Shutdown), plus the 40gig drive produced strange intermittent clunking
noises. The new 120gig hdd solved that problem. But interestingly.. that
same 40gig hdd is now parked into a "spare" 500mHz 256meg ram pc, loaded
with Ubuntu, and there are NO problems.
We've probably all been hanging on to ME because we're adamant to not dish
out more $'s to MS. If your needs for faster processor, more ram, and new
programs do not exist, then ME should serve you well.
I really really really wanted to believe that ME would serve me well for the
rest of my days with modest upgrades as required. Afterall, I upgraded the
original box with USB 2.0 and even replaced the original NIC. ME continued
to perform well. But all I really wanted was to be able to load atleast 3
apps in memory (Wordperfect, my browser, and WindowsExplorer as I navigated
through files over my network). Suddenly, Explorer.exe would close and fail
to reload the Taskbar apps! The only solution was to reboot. Very time
consuming and frustrating. Then when I learned that ME is theoretically
limited to 512meg ram and that the only way to use more ram is to trick ME
to think there is LESS, that disappointed me. Under those conditions it's
better to get a new OS that can handle that. And.. I really don't want to
spend more $'s on a new box when I've already invested in a fine 120gig hdd,
USB 2.0 expansion, 768meg total ram, and a better (DVI-capable) video card.
My appreciation and many thanks go out to all the fine folks who helped me
with my ME questions over the years. I enjoyed helping the few people with
my insights too when I could.
(Msg. 2) Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:12 pm
Post subject: Re: gotta say.. so long ME [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Sorry to read you're leaving and all the best for the future.
> I am actually running out of resources sooner!
Not that, as you well know, the term resources as used by Win 9x systems,
have anything to do with the amount of RAM installed but rather the fixed
size 64KB stack used to store 16 bit pointers and the like. Nevertheless
no Win 9x system is particularly good at multi-tasking with the stack size
being one of the major limiting factors.
--
Mike M
Ogg <no-spam-wanted.RemoveThis@at.all> wrote:
> I'm am almost dissapointed to do this, afterall, ME has been a fine
> performer eversince I discovered this ng and other ME forums on the
> 'net to help me tame ME enough to be able to believe that I would
> never need to move to XP, ...but recently, I've been very
> disappointed in ME's performance and reliability eversince I changed
> my video card to a newer and "better" one (worked ok for a while - it
> only caused a problem with Shutdown), and eversince I upped the ram
> from 256 to 768. The various tweaks to fool ME to limit it to 512
> or LESS is not working. I am actually running out of resources
> sooner! Very annoying. The whole idea of adding more ram was to be
> able to use it. There was a modest speed boost in screen rendering,
> and application loading with the extra ram, but I still can't seem to
> have more apps open at the same time which I need.
> So.. I'm moving on to Ubuntu. The winapps that I absolutely need
> will be hosted on my XP'd Thinkpad.
>
> ME first came into my life when I purchased a new 1gHz, AGP 2x 64meg,
> 256meg ram, 40gig box in year 2000. The first upgrade it ever needed
> was a critical one - a new 120gig hdd. About 3 years into its life
> ME had started to insist on Scandisk at every boot (even after
> successful scandisk and Shutdown), plus the 40gig drive produced
> strange intermittent clunking noises. The new 120gig hdd solved that
> problem. But interestingly.. that same 40gig hdd is now parked into
> a "spare" 500mHz 256meg ram pc, loaded with Ubuntu, and there are NO
> problems.
> We've probably all been hanging on to ME because we're adamant to not
> dish out more $'s to MS. If your needs for faster processor, more
> ram, and new programs do not exist, then ME should serve you well.
>
> I really really really wanted to believe that ME would serve me well
> for the rest of my days with modest upgrades as required. Afterall,
> I upgraded the original box with USB 2.0 and even replaced the
> original NIC. ME continued to perform well. But all I really
> wanted was to be able to load atleast 3 apps in memory (Wordperfect,
> my browser, and WindowsExplorer as I navigated through files over my
> network). Suddenly, Explorer.exe would close and fail to reload the
> Taskbar apps! The only solution was to reboot. Very time consuming
> and frustrating. Then when I learned that ME is theoretically
> limited to 512meg ram and that the only way to use more ram is to
> trick ME to think there is LESS, that disappointed me. Under those
> conditions it's better to get a new OS that can handle that. And.. I
> really don't want to spend more $'s on a new box when I've already
> invested in a fine 120gig hdd, USB 2.0 expansion, 768meg total ram,
> and a better (DVI-capable) video card.
> My appreciation and many thanks go out to all the fine folks who
> helped me with my ME questions over the years. I enjoyed helping the
> few people with my insights too when I could.
>
> ..Ogg.
(Msg. 3) Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:06 am
Post subject: Re: gotta say.. so long ME [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Ogg:
To echo Mike, sorry to see you leave.
Suppose we'll find you at "nntp.aioe.org" under "alt.os.linux.ubuntu"?
Myself I plan to keep ME and run ubuntu as dual boot, if that's possible.
There's no reson for me to "trash" WinME, since it's running quite nicely.
Harry.
"Ogg" <no-spam-wanted.RemoveThis@at.all> wrote in message
news:ew6F0IBuHHA.4504@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> I'm am almost dissapointed to do this, afterall, ME has been a fine
> performer eversince I discovered this ng and other ME forums on the 'net
to
> help me tame ME enough to be able to believe that I would never need to
move
> to XP, ...but recently, I've been very disappointed in ME's performance
and
> reliability eversince I changed my video card to a newer and "better" one
> (worked ok for a while - it only caused a problem with Shutdown), and
> eversince I upped the ram from 256 to 768. The various tweaks to fool ME
> to limit it to 512 or LESS is not working. I am actually running out of
> resources sooner! Very annoying. The whole idea of adding more ram was
to
> be able to use it. There was a modest speed boost in screen rendering,
and
> application loading with the extra ram, but I still can't seem to have
more
> apps open at the same time which I need.
>
> So.. I'm moving on to Ubuntu. The winapps that I absolutely need will be
> hosted on my XP'd Thinkpad.
>
> ME first came into my life when I purchased a new 1gHz, AGP 2x 64meg,
256meg
> ram, 40gig box in year 2000. The first upgrade it ever needed was a
> critical one - a new 120gig hdd. About 3 years into its life ME had
started
> to insist on Scandisk at every boot (even after successful scandisk and
> Shutdown), plus the 40gig drive produced strange intermittent clunking
> noises. The new 120gig hdd solved that problem. But interestingly.. that
> same 40gig hdd is now parked into a "spare" 500mHz 256meg ram pc, loaded
> with Ubuntu, and there are NO problems.
>
> We've probably all been hanging on to ME because we're adamant to not dish
> out more $'s to MS. If your needs for faster processor, more ram, and new
> programs do not exist, then ME should serve you well.
>
> I really really really wanted to believe that ME would serve me well for
the
> rest of my days with modest upgrades as required. Afterall, I upgraded
the
> original box with USB 2.0 and even replaced the original NIC. ME
continued
> to perform well. But all I really wanted was to be able to load atleast
3
> apps in memory (Wordperfect, my browser, and WindowsExplorer as I
navigated
> through files over my network). Suddenly, Explorer.exe would close and
fail
> to reload the Taskbar apps! The only solution was to reboot. Very time
> consuming and frustrating. Then when I learned that ME is theoretically
> limited to 512meg ram and that the only way to use more ram is to trick ME
> to think there is LESS, that disappointed me. Under those conditions it's
> better to get a new OS that can handle that. And.. I really don't want to
> spend more $'s on a new box when I've already invested in a fine 120gig
hdd,
> USB 2.0 expansion, 768meg total ram, and a better (DVI-capable) video
card.
>
> My appreciation and many thanks go out to all the fine folks who helped me
> with my ME questions over the years. I enjoyed helping the few people
with
> my insights too when I could.
>
> ..Ogg.
>
>
(Msg. 4) Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:59 pm
Post subject: Re: gotta say.. so long ME [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Note that despite their recommendation of 128MB RAM, I'd run, IMHO, 512MB
minimum.
Having been a strong advocate of ME for many years, I've not been
dissapointed with XP which took over a year to throw up an error message.
Note that I didn't upgrade but bought a new system due to hardware
incompatibility with the old system.
Best of Luck!
"Ogg" <no-spam-wanted DeleteThis @at.all> wrote in message
news:ew6F0IBuHHA.4504@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> I'm am almost dissapointed to do this, afterall, ME has been a fine
> performer eversince I discovered this ng and other ME forums on the 'net
> to help me tame ME enough to be able to believe that I would never need to
> move to XP, ...but recently, I've been very disappointed in ME's
> performance and reliability eversince I changed my video card to a newer
> and "better" one (worked ok for a while - it only caused a problem with
> Shutdown), and eversince I upped the ram from 256 to 768. The various
> tweaks to fool ME to limit it to 512 or LESS is not working. I am
> actually running out of resources sooner! Very annoying. The whole idea
> of adding more ram was to be able to use it. There was a modest speed
> boost in screen rendering, and application loading with the extra ram, but
> I still can't seem to have more apps open at the same time which I need.
>
> So.. I'm moving on to Ubuntu. The winapps that I absolutely need will be
> hosted on my XP'd Thinkpad.
>
> ME first came into my life when I purchased a new 1gHz, AGP 2x 64meg,
> 256meg ram, 40gig box in year 2000. The first upgrade it ever needed was
> a critical one - a new 120gig hdd. About 3 years into its life ME had
> started to insist on Scandisk at every boot (even after successful
> scandisk and Shutdown), plus the 40gig drive produced strange intermittent
> clunking noises. The new 120gig hdd solved that problem. But
> interestingly.. that same 40gig hdd is now parked into a "spare" 500mHz
> 256meg ram pc, loaded with Ubuntu, and there are NO problems.
>
> We've probably all been hanging on to ME because we're adamant to not dish
> out more $'s to MS. If your needs for faster processor, more ram, and new
> programs do not exist, then ME should serve you well.
>
> I really really really wanted to believe that ME would serve me well for
> the rest of my days with modest upgrades as required. Afterall, I
> upgraded the original box with USB 2.0 and even replaced the original NIC.
> ME continued to perform well. But all I really wanted was to be able to
> load atleast 3 apps in memory (Wordperfect, my browser, and
> WindowsExplorer as I navigated through files over my network). Suddenly,
> Explorer.exe would close and fail to reload the Taskbar apps! The only
> solution was to reboot. Very time consuming and frustrating. Then when I
> learned that ME is theoretically limited to 512meg ram and that the only
> way to use more ram is to trick ME to think there is LESS, that
> disappointed me. Under those conditions it's better to get a new OS that
> can handle that. And.. I really don't want to spend more $'s on a new box
> when I've already invested in a fine 120gig hdd, USB 2.0 expansion, 768meg
> total ram, and a better (DVI-capable) video card.
>
> My appreciation and many thanks go out to all the fine folks who helped me
> with my ME questions over the years. I enjoyed helping the few people
> with my insights too when I could.
>
> ..Ogg.
>
>
(Msg. 5) Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:34 am
Post subject: Re: gotta say.. so long ME [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
"KB" <kbspammer DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eV24nBeuHHA.1672@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Be sure that your system's compatible with XP. Valuable information can
> be found here => http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316639 You'll especially
> find the Upgrade Advisor useful =>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/upgrading/advisor.mspx >
> Note that despite their recommendation of 128MB RAM, I'd run, IMHO, 512MB
> minimum.
>
> Having been a strong advocate of ME for many years, I've not been
> dissapointed with XP which took over a year to throw up an error message.
> Note that I didn't upgrade but bought a new system due to hardware
> incompatibility with the old system.
>
They recommend 128MB? It does run OK on 128MB. I believe it does run on
64MB though.
Of course 512MB is nicer, but so is 2GB. The more RAM you give it, the
smoother it will run. If you do anything that uses much RAM, it will just
use the swap file if it runs out. Just make sure you keep enough free HD
space.
Same goes for any OS. Win98 can run on 16MB, Vista can run on 1GB maybe
even less. The more you get, the smoother they run.
If you increase any one component past a certain point, you just shift the
bottleneck. Any one piece can be the weakest link for performance (CPU,
RAM, video speed, video RAM, BUS, HD...).
(Msg. 6) Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:33 am
Post subject: Re: gotta say.. so long ME [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Eric wrote:
> "KB" <kbspammer.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eV24nBeuHHA.1672@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>>Be sure that your system's compatible with XP. Valuable information can
>>be found here => http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316639 You'll especially
>>find the Upgrade Advisor useful =>
>>http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/upgrading/advisor.mspx
>>
>>Note that despite their recommendation of 128MB RAM, I'd run, IMHO, 512MB
>>minimum.
>>
>>Having been a strong advocate of ME for many years, I've not been
>>dissapointed with XP which took over a year to throw up an error message.
>>Note that I didn't upgrade but bought a new system due to hardware
>>incompatibility with the old system.
>>
>
> They recommend 128MB? It does run OK on 128MB. I believe it does run on
> 64MB though.
> Of course 512MB is nicer, but so is 2GB. The more RAM you give it, the
> smoother it will run. If you do anything that uses much RAM, it will just
> use the swap file if it runs out. Just make sure you keep enough free HD
> space.
> Same goes for any OS. Win98 can run on 16MB, Vista can run on 1GB maybe
> even less. The more you get, the smoother they run.
> If you increase any one component past a certain point, you just shift the
> bottleneck. Any one piece can be the weakest link for performance (CPU,
> RAM, video speed, video RAM, BUS, HD...).
Above a certain amount of RAM any additional RAM added to the machine is
just a waste of money and it will not make the computer run any faster
or smoother. Where that "magic" amount lies depends on what you do with
your computer and what type of applications you run, if your computer is
not paging then adding extra RAM will do nothing to make your computer
run better, faster or smoother. Many XP users, I would say half or more
of XP users, don't need much more than 512MB of RAM and other than those
doing multimedia/AV editing or those running CAD/CAM and very large
spreadsheets or other demanding programs few users ever need or use more
than 1GB. Users who barely use 512MB will not see a bit of difference
when adding additional RAM to their computers. We see occasional posts
in the XP groups where users have increased RAM from 512MB or 768MB to
1GB and more and they disappointedly report no performance gains. The
reason they see no gains is that they weren't using what they already
had to work with.
(Msg. 7) Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:37 pm
Post subject: Re: gotta say.. so long ME [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
"John John" <audetweld.TakeThisOut@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:uQlzKIluHHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Eric wrote:
>> They recommend 128MB? It does run OK on 128MB. I believe it does run on
>> 64MB though.
>> Of course 512MB is nicer, but so is 2GB. The more RAM you give it, the
>> smoother it will run. If you do anything that uses much RAM, it will
>> just use the swap file if it runs out. Just make sure you keep enough
>> free HD space.
>> Same goes for any OS. Win98 can run on 16MB, Vista can run on 1GB maybe
>> even less. The more you get, the smoother they run.
>> If you increase any one component past a certain point, you just shift
>> the bottleneck. Any one piece can be the weakest link for performance
>> (CPU, RAM, video speed, video RAM, BUS, HD...).
>
> Above a certain amount of RAM any additional RAM added to the machine is
> just a waste of money and it will not make the computer run any faster or
> smoother. Where that "magic" amount lies depends on what you do with your
> computer and what type of applications you run, if your computer is not
> paging then adding extra RAM will do nothing to make your computer run
> better, faster or smoother. Many XP users, I would say half or more of XP
> users, don't need much more than 512MB of RAM and other than those doing
> multimedia/AV editing or those running CAD/CAM and very large spreadsheets
> or other demanding programs few users ever need or use more than 1GB.
> Users who barely use 512MB will not see a bit of difference when adding
> additional RAM to their computers. We see occasional posts in the XP
> groups where users have increased RAM from 512MB or 768MB to 1GB and more
> and they disappointedly report no performance gains. The reason they see
> no gains is that they weren't using what they already had to work with.
>
> John
>
Exactly, but there is no one "magic number". XP runs perfectly smooth with
128 MB of RAM for the average user who does very little.
There are a number of bottlenecks. Adding more RAM will always make it
smoother, if you're actually doing processing that uses RAM (ie image/video
editing). 512MB is much more than needed if all you do is check email.
It's also too much if your PC is 400MHz, or you do a lot of processing which
has to do constant read/write to disk. For the average user, more RAM (at
least above 512MB) will probably not be their best upgrade option, but I
wouldn't necessarily call it a bad idea. I have 1 GB in this machine and
Windows reports quite a bit less than half of physical memory available.
To spend money wisely on upgrading, you'll want to start with the minimum
RAM (16MB for Win98/ME, 128MB for XP, 1GB for Vista), then make sure the CPU
is fast enough, then make sure the HD is big enough, then check the video
speed/memory, then at least double the minimum RAM, make sure the monitor is
big and clear enough, double the RAM again...
Of course if you're on the web much the first and biggest bottleneck is web
connection speed. The biggest baddest PC will always look pathetic on
dialup.
(Msg. 8) Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:10 pm
Post subject: Re: gotta say.. so long ME [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
I tried the XP Advisor.. it "stalls" at about the 10% point. No hdd
activity... nothing. Meanwhile, I tested the various Linus offerings of
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Mepis. They behave really nice. I don't mind using
Linux replacements of several winapps. And for those winapps that I can't
stand to miss, I have another (4-yr old) XP machine.
> Having been a strong advocate of ME for many years, I've not been
> dissapointed with XP which took over a year to throw up an error message.
> Note that I didn't upgrade but bought a new system due to hardware
> incompatibility with the old system.
Ahh.. That's the key: new machine. I bought a new machine 4 years ago that
had XP installed too. Today, it still works fine. My main concern was the
upgrade/conversion process from ME to XP. From my basic research, that
upgrade path is not recommended. A clean install the better choice.
All times are: Eastern Time (US & Canada) (change) Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13
Page 1 of 13
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You can edit your posts in this forum You can delete your posts in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum
Home
Forums
Home
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Windows Other