What is wrong with WinME?

Letterman asked :-

> What is really wrong with ME?

Nothing!

> Where are the bugs?

There aren't any (other than those inherent in other Win9x OS's).

Many of us in these WinMe Newsgroups have been running WinMe trouble free
(Finger trouble excepted, of course) from its release in June 2000 - and so
long as you look after WinMe, it will look after you!

The *major* upside in WinMe being System Restore - and better USB support.

The downside - like all Win9x OS's - is that it is relatively slow (compared
to say XP) and is now more than 8 years old, unsupported and obsolete.

However as :-
> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.

Then stick with Win98, - but bear in mind that when any Win9x system crashes
(and they do so fairly regularly) it can be a laborious process to reboot
and get going again. XP however is (in my experience) far more tolerant
(very rarely crashes) and recovers instantly on re-boot.

Good luck

Mart


<letterman DeleteThis @invalid.com> wrote in message
news:3u0ta4597s1gc5li5edh6gg3i8pdv1mhha@4ax.com...
>I have been running Win98SE since 1998. I have a WinME Cd. I tried
> it in a spare harddrive. I saw no problems with it, but I only played
> around with the OS. Never ran any real applications. I have
> considered upgrading to WinME many times. I strongly dislike Win2000,
> and XP. Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
> improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
> They say it's buggy.
>
> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
>
> Thanks
>

As the others have said there is really nothing wrong with ME. Used to have
crashes quite often, but then figured out that they were occuring everytime a
certain AV program updated. Stop using that about 2 years ago. Have had two
crashes since. Both my fault, not the systems.

"letterman@invalid.com" wrote:

> I have been running Win98SE since 1998. I have a WinME Cd. I tried
> it in a spare harddrive. I saw no problems with it, but I only played
> around with the OS. Never ran any real applications. I have
> considered upgrading to WinME many times. I strongly dislike Win2000,
> and XP. Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
> improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
> They say it's buggy.
>
> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
>
> Thanks
>
>

Forgot to add, also have two other machines one running 98SE and a new one
with Vista.
Biggest difference between ME and 98SE is USB. ME machine has 5 USB ports
and no PS2. 98SE has only two USB ports. However, using a 4 port I am able to
run Boston USB digital speakers (own power supply), USB keyboard and mouse,
USR USB wireless adaptor, USB camera, and when the Vista is down it is hooked
up to the HP printer. All except the Boston speakers can be hooked up to the
ME and except for the dispals can't tell any difference. Change that, ME may
be faster than 98SE, but has fewer programs.

"letterman@invalid.com" wrote:

> I have been running Win98SE since 1998. I have a WinME Cd. I tried
> it in a spare harddrive. I saw no problems with it, but I only played
> around with the OS. Never ran any real applications. I have
> considered upgrading to WinME many times. I strongly dislike Win2000,
> and XP. Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
> improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
> They say it's buggy.
>
> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
>
> Thanks
>
>

This message is not archived

It seems you're not "computer depdent" for work and are happy with what you
have. The solution will arrive when a major hardware component "goes" and
you'll be ready to spring for a new unit.
--
I mastered Wordstar graphics!


"letterman@invalid.com" wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:59:54 +0100, "Mart"
> <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
> >Letterman asked :-
> >
> >> What is really wrong with ME?
> >
> >Nothing!
> >
> >> Where are the bugs?
> >
> >There aren't any (other than those inherent in other Win9x OS's).
> >
> >Many of us in these WinMe Newsgroups have been running WinMe trouble free
> >(Finger trouble excepted, of course) from its release in June 2000 - and so
> >long as you look after WinMe, it will look after you!
> >
> >The *major* upside in WinMe being System Restore - and better USB support.
> >
> >The downside - like all Win9x OS's - is that it is relatively slow (compared
> >to say XP) and is now more than 8 years old, unsupported and obsolete.
> >
> >However as :-
> >> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
> >
> >Then stick with Win98, - but bear in mind that when any Win9x system crashes
> >(and they do so fairly regularly) it can be a laborious process to reboot
> >and get going again. XP however is (in my experience) far more tolerant
> >(very rarely crashes) and recovers instantly on re-boot.
> >
> >Good luck
> >
> >Mart
> >
> >
> ><letterman RemoveThis @invalid.com> wrote in message
> >news:3u0ta4597s1gc5li5edh6gg3i8pdv1mhha@4ax.com...
> >>I have been running Win98SE since 1998. I have a WinME Cd. I tried
> >> it in a spare harddrive. I saw no problems with it, but I only played
> >> around with the OS. Never ran any real applications. I have
> >> considered upgrading to WinME many times. I strongly dislike Win2000,
> >> and XP. Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
> >> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
> >> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
> >> improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
> >> They say it's buggy.
> >>
> >> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >
>
> I know WinME is obsolete, but so is most everything when it comes to
> computers these days. Buy a brand new computer today and it's
> obsolete tomorrow. I use what works for me. I am not out to impress
> others by using the latest technology. For what I do, I dont need
> more power or features.
>
> I asked this question because over the years I have had quite a few
> people tell me to avoid WinME. They said it was full of bugs. Yet,
> it looks and works darn near the same as Win98. I would upgrade to ME
> solely for the better USB support. I was not aware of the better
> system restore, but that would be desirable too.
>
> Aside from that, I have never seen why MS even released ME. It's the
> same thing as Win98se (unless there are other features I missed).
> Yep, I know the defrag is faster, and I presently run ME defrag under
> 98.
>
> I have never had any major problems with 98. If it got screwed up, it
> was generally my fault, or spyware. I go to dos, clean things up, and
> it works fine again, with no data loss. I've seen what happens when
> XP fails to boot, and that was a total nightmare, ending with all data
> lost. I wouldn't touch XP or Vista for any reason.
>
> I do have Win2000 on my laptop. That's ok, I only have it because of
> my Wifi card (requires 2k or above). Otherwise, I'd prefer having
> Win98 on that puter too.
>
> I dont find 98 to be slow. XP seems much slower. Of course it all
> depends on the hardware being used. I think 98 would run faster on my
> old laptop, which was designed for 98. This desktop cpmputer came
> with 2K installed, but I removed it and installed 98se. 98 runs
> faster on here.
>
> Thanks for the advice.
>
> LM
>

This message is not archived