(Msg. 9) Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:15 pm
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with WinME? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: microsoft>public>windowsme>general (more info?)
I see you've had plenty of answers to this, I still have a WinME machine
here running, granted it's not turned on every day now since my daughter
left at the end of last year.
She used that machine every day did all her school then college work on it
plus lots of photo work, never had any real problems with it and any she did
have were probably down to her.
When my husbands XP machine fell over he used it to keep up with his forums
so I think if you look after it there is nothing wrong with WinME, apart
from being out of support and no more patches for it. <g>
<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
>
(Msg. 10) Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 1:53 am
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with WinME? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Letterman wrote :-
> I am not out to impress
> others by using the latest technology.
I would guess that pretty much applies to most who still run WinMe, but
remember that some hardware like parallel printers for example, are becoming
obsolete and cannot be replaced (sure, they can be replaced by USB kit) but
WinMe - and Win9x - drivers are no longer being written for these items.
However, it is amazing just how you can find a 'work around' when needs
must. I guess another worry for owners of 'old kit' will be availability of
IDE HDD's as they appear to be being phased out - SATA's seem to be taking
over.
> ... over the years I have had quite a few
> people tell me to avoid WinME.
> They said it was full of bugs.
Don't believe everything you hear <g>
> I was not aware of the better
> system restore ..
SR is a quantum leap from scanreg /restore - and sadly, grossly under-sold.
(And it doesn't exclude scanreg /restore in an extreme emergency - the more
tools in the box, the better!!)
> Aside from that, I have never seen
> why MS even released ME
I believe (amongst other things) it was the start to break away from (Real
Mode) DOS and to introduce SR - as a precursor and incorporated in XP and
Vista. 98SE introduced better USB handling than 98 - but this improved with
WinMe.
> ... 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.
My own experience of an XP box (catastrophically) failing to boot was when
the HDD died - so can't really blame it on XP. But have to admit that trying
to recover data from an NTFS HDD was "difficult" - Soon learnt to use a
backup regime after that!
> I don't find 98 to be slow, etc., ....
Perhaps I should have qualified that in as much as more recent 'updated'
(bloated) application releases are not particularly Win9x friendly. And I'll
leave you to guess which (of the many) applications I'm referring to. <g>
But by now you will have seen several other views aired in this thread which
hopefully will help dispel any misinformation about WinMe.
BTW - There is an option - if you choose - to be able to restore back to
Win98 if you decide to try the WinMe upgrade and then find that you don't
like it. (N.B. - You shouldn't leave it too long to revert, i.e. don't
install too many extra programs or change too many settings whilst you are
making up your mind - for (fairly) obvious reasons)
Why not give it a try?
Mart
<letterman.DeleteThis@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:d15ua41el6fn4ch7akp7l8q4o11hfvb5di@4ax.com...
> 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.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
>>>
>>
>
> 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
(Msg. 11) Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:37 am
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with WinME? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 04:20:11 -0500, letterman RemoveThis @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?
Nothing, that I know of. None, that I know of. One major difference between
Windows Me and Windwos 98SE, that I have observed: System Resources. With
Win98, if you drop to around 30% free System Resources, the system crashes,
hard. Time to cycle the power (and wait for the "File System Integrity
Check" to run on reboot!) With Windows Me, I could recover with as little as
10% free System Resource, by closing applications until I could restart the
system.
The main problem had with Windows Me was running Mercury/32, an MTA, on it.
Every time I opened the Mercury control console, it would use up a few more
of the System Resources. Until I was down to about 15% free System
Resources, and had to restart the system. Not a fun way to run a mail
server. Windows XP does not have that issue with System Resources (it is
inherent to Win9x systems only). Since the old HP Pavilion 6745C that came
with Windows Me was barely adequate to run Windows XP, I upgraded to Windows
XP Home Edition. Fresh install of the upgrade version, on new NTFS file
system. 700 MHz Intel Celeron processor and 256 MBytes of system RAM. Slow
to boot, slow to start applications, but, once it is up and running, it
stays that way.
As currently configured, that old Pavilion does the job; but it was becoming
slug with the things I wanted to do, and newer hardware meant getting the
newer OS, as well. Windows Me on that old Pavilion is an OEM install, and
the license ties it to the hardware.
--
Norman
~Shine, bright morning light,
~now in the air the spring is coming.
~Sweet, blowing wind,
~singing down the hills and valleys.
(Msg. 12) Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:22 am
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with WinME? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
LM, although I certainly wouldn't argue with your appraisal of the direction
of MS, bloatware and some of the other issues you raise, none of them are
WinMe specific and could be debated ad-nauseam.
From your subject title, you inferred that you believed there to be major
issues with WinMe in particular. I hope that in this thread, the various
contributors have helped dispel some of those myths, explained some of the
advantages and perhaps added a little optimism into your views and
understanding of WinMe.
But if Win98SE works for you, suits your needs and you are happy with it,
then stick with it. There's no point in changing just for the sake of it.
Mart
<letterman.DeleteThis@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:fcrua4pnqmbmgfkrsio9kkb4gbjkkmcuo1@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:07:03 -0700, Corday <10Swinner.DeleteThis@net.net> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> All I do is use this at home to go online, edit and store photos and
> run some basic office programs. I have had major hardware failures
> several times. Used older computers are cheap. I have moved this
> same hard drive to at least 6 different computers. Several times I
> cloned it, to get more drive space. Several more times I repaired the
> computer, like when this one had the power supply die last winter.
> that is the thing I like about Win98. Harddrives can be moved to
> another computer. I tried that with a drive that had XP on it. Xp
> would not even boot. Drives formatted with that NTFS format are near
> helpless once the OS cant be booted. With a FAT partition I can
> always boot to dos and save data. Win2000 seems to work ok with a
> FAT32 format, but not XP. I hear vista is even worse. I wont trust
> my data to an OS that relies on the actual OS having to boot in order
> to access data. With Win9x and earlier, it's easy to use a boot
> floppy to get the data saved.
>
> What really irks me too, is that everytime a faster computer is
> developed, MS slows it down with more of their bloat. Thus we never
> get any faster. It's like this: I can go grocery shopping with my old
> chevy or I can buy a limosene with all the bells and whistles. Both
> will get me to the store and back just as fast, but the limo costs 25
> times more and uses 3 times more gas. I'll still encounter the same
> traffic jams, and pay the same for my groceries, and since I'm
> driving, I wont be able to enjoy the bells and whistles anyhow.
>
> MS seems to think we need all this bloat, when in the end, we all see
> the same websites, type and print a document the same way, and nothing
> else changes, except the new computer will cost more to run for both
> purchasing and electric usage, as well as taking more time to use
> because there are too many unneeded functions getting in the way.
(Msg. 13) Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 1:39 pm
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with WinME? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
> My own experience of an XP box (catastrophically) failing to boot was
> when the HDD died - so can't really blame it on XP. But have to admit
> that trying to recover data from an NTFS HDD was "difficult" - Soon
> learnt to use a backup regime after that!
>
The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing to boot
due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being found and,
usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect boot.ini. And apart
from the fact you can correct that via booting with a BartPE disc - though
that is quite a lot of effort to make in the first place - you can edit
boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered). Burn one to cd (especially since odds
are you won't have a floppy drive anymore!) and there is no need to update
it. With SATA and RAID (and NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a BING cd
from 2006, and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of
boot.ini and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.
(Msg. 14) Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:01 pm
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with WinME? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Mart <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> A big AMEN to that Mike!
>
> Mart
>
> BTW - have you disabled your 'usual' email address recently Mike? I've
> sent you some over the past couple of weeks. They've not bounced
> and I've not had a response. Maybe you're just busy <g>
Apologies for that Mart, I must check. I suspect that I might have read
them, marked them for reply and then forgot all about them. As you have
already suspected I've not been feeling too hot recently (a different
problem from normal) and have also been keeping myself busy with
finalising the accounts for the development where I live. I'll try and
respond later although I see I did reply to your most recent e-mail (21
August, re scanner post).
--
Mike M
(Msg. 15) Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:02 pm
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with WinME? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Thanks S - I appreciate your suggestion which sounds like a d**m good idea.
(Although in my case it was a failed HDD rather than just a missing file)
But I suppose I've veered a bit OT and we are in danger of highjacking LM's
thread.
Mart
"Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle.DeleteThis@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:%239tlc4RBJHA.4368@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> My own experience of an XP box (catastrophically) failing to boot was
>> when the HDD died - so can't really blame it on XP. But have to admit
>> that trying to recover data from an NTFS HDD was "difficult" - Soon
>> learnt to use a backup regime after that!
>>
>
>
> The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing to boot
> due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being found and,
> usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect boot.ini. And apart
> from the fact you can correct that via booting with a BartPE disc - though
> that is quite a lot of effort to make in the first place - you can edit
> boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered). Burn one to cd (especially since
> odds are you won't have a floppy drive anymore!) and there is no need to
> update it. With SATA and RAID (and NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a
> BING cd from 2006, and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy
> of boot.ini and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just
> rename.
>
>
> P.
>
(Msg. 16) Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:10 pm
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with WinME? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Pogle S. Wood <wood.pogle.DeleteThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing to
> boot due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being found
> and, usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect boot.ini.
> And apart from the fact you can correct that via booting with a
> BartPE disc - though that is quite a lot of effort to make in the
> first place - you can edit boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered). Burn
> one to cd (especially since odds are you won't have a floppy drive
> anymore!) and there is no need to update it. With SATA and RAID (and
> NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a BING cd from 2006, and it can
> be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini and leave it
> in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.
BING can not only handle and edit boot.ini but can also use BCEdit to edit
the Vista equivalent although you will probably need to be using a later
version of BING than one from 2006.
> Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini and leave it
> in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.
All times are: Eastern Time (US & Canada) (change) Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 2 of 7
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