WinME, Can it be good?


Recommended Posts

Avicus

We all know and hate WinME (I think), so this should be an interesting discussion. In my experience, WinME has killed itself within 3 months on many different computers I've seen it installed on. This is interesting because it has all these features to keep it stable.

Well, the reason for this discussion is that I have a friend who runs WinME and disables all the background services like System Restore. He hasn't ever had a problem with it and likes it better than Win98SE. Its faster and seems stable enough for him it seems, more so than Win98.

My friend uses his machine ONLY for gaming and finds he can get better framerates out of ME than XP (he has a reasonably fast machine that XP works on just fine). Has anyone any thoughts on this? Does anyone recommend this OS over 98SE? I have a low-end machine that wouldn't like XP/2000 much and was either going to put 98SE or ME on depending on how this discussion goes. Please help me make my decision!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
sanctified

the main proble with me is that its very unstable when its managing VxD's nowadays there are some apps that resolve this, but to little to late for WnME

Link to post
Share on other sites
nowimnothing

I have certainly seen people with very stable WinME installs such as the one you describe.

But i've seen alot more people with very unstable WinME installs.

You may be onto something with your description of how he disabled all the background services, etc. in order to make it stable. Maybe there's a formula for getting it to work right - but i never saw it.

I can't make your decision for you, but i've always shied away from WinME when possible because of bad experiences. I'm sure others would disagree, however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
XanoZuke

i once had to use WinME for like a month and, i think that if you give it good use, i shouldn't give you any problem

Link to post
Share on other sites
Malechai

I ran WinMe for months and never had a problem with it. To each their own I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nazgul

If you're extremely careful and all... I suppose it could be good. But I sure as hell wouldn't feel like finding out on my own machine :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yuxi

If you use it just for gaming, then it should be fine.

Oops, I didn't see that was a low-end computer. :blush:

But I have not ever seen my computer run for any more than three weeks with Windows ME, to the point that I cannot take it anymore. And you get all these "This program has performed an illegal operation, blah blah blah" errors.

:whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
McKrout

I ran winme for close to 6 months oddly enough as an upgrade and worked great, i wiped the system and did a fresh install and had nothing but errors and ended up moving to win2k until i was able to put winxp on the system, so im going to say that you have like a 50% of a good install, though if its low end i'd would go with the 98 install unless you meet the mins for win2k, in which case you'd probably get better results from that over winme.

TS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Iain

My bro's comp has been running WinME for about a year or more now. No problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PseudoRandomDragon

Windows XP is more stable than ME/98/98SE, but it also takes up MUCH more resources. WinME not only takes more resources than 98SE, but crashes a lot. For faster and some sacrifice in stability, use Win98SE. If you have a really good computer, use 2k.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Avicus

Well, this lowend machine that I plan to use will only be used for MAME and the like, I think it will work fairly well for it. It only has a 550MB drive, so I think ME outweighs that by a bit....

It is a bit of a pet project...

I wanted to go with Linux, and I suppose I still can, perhaps I should try that before 98SE.... just too bad that the older hardware might cause me grief... I'm not a linux expert yet...

Offtopic: do you think XMAME in linux will run better than MAME 98SE?? Or should I post this elsewhere?

BTW, Thanks for the speedy responses....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Argonaut

Actually I got better performance on old systems (amd 450mhz 128meg ram, and cel 266 128 meg ram) with win2k than with 98se.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Midnight Mick

I've run 98SE & ME (Before hardware upgrade & XP) and after some tweaking (I had more than 512 Ram & heard horror stories!)

WinME ran better with my old Athlon Thunderbird 1.2Ghz & 768 SDRam, so as I upgraded to my current state it never liked it (Yes, I did do a clean reinstall).

Shame really or I would have stayed with WinME.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ABC

As for me, when I was on a AMD K6-2 500MHz + 198 SDRAM PC100 + ATI AIW 8Mb, it was more stable under WinME than Win98SE but very to low system for WinXP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hurmoth
I have certainly seen people with very stable WinME installs such as the one you describe.

But i've seen alot more people with very unstable WinME installs.

You may be onto something with your description of how he disabled all the background services, etc. in order to make it stable. Maybe there's a formula for getting it to work right - but i never saw it.

I can't make your decision for you, but i've always shied away from WinME when possible because of bad experiences. I'm sure others would disagree, however.

I have Windows ME on one of my computers, have had it actually for two years now and had no problems what-so-ever! Never reinstalled it, naturally it crashed once or twice but nothing that was serious! But, I have also seen bad installations of ME as well. I personally think that it all depends on the software and hardware you install on the system.

I wouldn't recommend ME to anyone!

Link to post
Share on other sites
RoboStac

the older hardware will probably make linux easy for you - the main problem I've always found is getting the latest hardware to work in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CubanPete

Me lasted 15mins on my machine, and the only reason i installed it was so i could do a dos installation of windows 2k (This was a while back on an older machine) all i did was install ME using the disc (The comp didnt have cdrom boot capability) after the install wanted to reboot i got numerouse blue screens, same after i rebooted....this was all while i was just trying to install the damn thing.

Its fair to say that is the only ME experiance i have, and hence the only experience i will EVER have with ME, BIN IT!!!!

Oh btw you will get faster performace for obvious reasons, i chose to take the stability and NT route

Link to post
Share on other sites
dougkinzinger
I have certainly seen people with very stable WinME installs such as the one you describe.

But i've seen a lot more people with very unstable WinME installs.

Me too. Regardless, I insist that they upgrade to XP. :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Avicus

XP won't fly on an AMD 333 w/ 196MB RAM on 550MB HD lol.

Too bad though, it should!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Avicus

OK thanks for all the insight and experiences, I think I'll try to put vectorlinux on first and if not, then 98SE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Avicus

BTW, its been awhile, how large IS Win98SE after a fresh install?

Link to post
Share on other sites
dougkinzinger

98SE? About 250MB if memory serves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
lunamonkey
Windows XP is more stable than ME/98/98SE, but it also takes up MUCH more resources. WinME not only takes more resources than 98SE, but crashes a lot. For faster and some sacrifice in stability, use Win98SE. If you have a really good computer, use 2k.

XP takes up more resources than the 9x platforms is because it does more. If you don't like the functions it performs, then you can disable them. Also XP is easily more stable than 2000 when you take into account software compatibility and future proofing. XP also boots faster than 2000, and in my opinion, a well configured install of XP will boot faster than 98.

If you want to run XP at comparable Ram to Windows 2000, then turn off the eye-candy and disable some of the advanced features.

It's possible to get XP idle on 45mb of Ram with only ~10 services started. I used to have my lounge PC running on 45mb, but with my Wi-fi it's now closer to 70mb.

when XP first came out people seemed to hate the fact that by default it needed 128mb, I love the fact that there's choice though. Leave stuff on, or turn it off.

With 98 you don't have the option to turn stuff on that doesn't exist do you......?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Avicus

Yes, i agree with you Luna, but this install is for a low spec machine : AMD 333 w/ 196MB RAM on 550MB HD

I am pretty damn sure XP won't deal with it nicely.... much less even install.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Galley

WinMe - BSODs on a daily basis

WinXP - No BSODs since Oct. 2001

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.