Do you hate WinME and why?


  

135 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you hate WinME and why?

    • YES!
      79
    • Not really
      43
    • I never used it / It doesn't matter to ME.
      13


Recommended Posts

I dual boot WinMe with XP for older games and CD burning, using System Restore Remover, it gets rid of the file protection, and other memory hoggers, so it boots faster and plays some games faster than XP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows Millennium has more bugs than the amazon rainforest, the first time i installed the final version ( clean install ) and booted it up explorer crashed twice and then i got BSOD. I promptly formated and went back to Win 2k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Win 9x family was so frustrating because of its terrible memory management. It didn't matter if you had 256 or 512 it still ran like shiiizt. Win 2000 and XP can tear it up with a little extra ram.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by tagler

Keldyn

thats why i'm asking the queston! its becasue people like you go crazy without a reason!

thanks for proving my point

To take sides here; Keldyn has a very good reason(s) for not liking WinMe...

I know I'm a freak at times, but this is a subject I take seriously. I run a design department and stability is everything; when a client calls and needs a job done, it has to be out the door yesterday (I'm sure many of you can relate?) A BSOD can set a project far enough behind that it cost you an account with a client. I wouldn't dare risk a $500,000 account with WinME. I have 5 WinMe disks, all 5 are coasters.

We'll, of course, some of you may say "WinMe was not designed for a professional enviroment!" My question is why settle for less in any area of your life? For about $50 more a user can choose to go with Windows 2000 Professional and enjoy a stable OS enviroment with much more control over their system and network, while still enjoying all the 'media rich' features microsoft sold the Me platform on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people hated Windows Me because it used the most ram out of the 9X series and they just didnt have enough hardware to run it fast. I personally thought Windows Me was the fastest and best of the 9X. Loved the fast startup times and thought it was more stable. Also, its Windows Me not ME.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat, because when I installed it on my 700, it was really unstable. However, if I installed it on my little brother's 233, it boots up really quickly and is really stable. I guess WinME's stability all comes doen to how many programs you bog it down with...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I had ME installed, I'd get a blue screen atleast once a day, if I was lucky, otherwise twice. Now with XP, I think it froze twice but that was it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i personally never used me / nt / 2000

up until i got xp (new comp) i had win 98se and that enver crashed for me. but i took real good care of it. lotte time friggin with the reg and dlls etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be totally honest I prefer it over win98, but MS didn't pay much attention to it and the constant reformats I had to endure soon pushed me over to win2k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ME is a piece of ****? Based on what?

It's a stable operating system if you actually take the time to configure it. Some people sit there and praise 2000 as if it isn't simply an inherently insecure, and near unconfigurable security hazard, sitting on a network waiting to be compromised.

Lets just look at the facts for a moment:

Me is outwardly similar to 98/SE, and indeed does have much in common, but then as do all the OS's in the 9X range. They are all designed with home use in mind. This means that they have cut down network functionality, and increased stability as a program running platform. Indeed, if you use ME to run games, and word, and a few other programs (which is all most people use it for, lets be honest) then it is more stable, more efficient, and has an explorer that can and will recover from a crash, and restart itself spontaniously if you give it about 5 minutes. (Where 98 would just plain crash). ME generates bluescreens primarily due to software not working for the operating system. It's not the fault of the operating system that software isn't compatable with it's kernel, especially if said software isn't coded expertly. As software catches up, the operating system will indeed become strangely more stable..

ME is the most externally secure operating system on the market, period. It's that simple.

98/SE for web usage is ****. Even when patched and running a firewall, from a networking standpoint, a thousand and one denial of service attacks will punk your nice computer's ass straight off the network, most notably nsnuke, which is a ***** to get the patch for. Strangely, this attack won't work on an out of the box ME system, because in an out of the box setting, ME will by default download any security patches as and when they are released using it's automatic update feature, something which is lacking and indeed **** in even patched 98/SE Operating systems.

It can be configured to have the stability of 98, and the functionality on a network of 2K without the risks associated with access tokens and two way trust relationships between computers in the entire network forest.

All I can see here is people whinging about the fact that they can't get an operating system to work.

I have both ME and 2k on my machine, one for general use, and one for my profession. ME is for my own personal use, and if you configure it well.....well...I've never seen it spawn a blue screen.

If you keep it updated, and you actually install said updates....the operating system is gold.

This seems to break down to:

"I hate ME, because unlike 98/SE effort is required to taylor it to a particular computer...and I don't like that"

Subtext: "I hate ME because I can't configure it adequately."

Scrown Owl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Scrown Owl

ME is a piece of ****? Based on what?

It's a stable operating system if you actually take the time to configure it. Some people sit there and praise 2000 as if it isn't simply an inherently insecure, and near unconfigurable security hazard, sitting on a network waiting to be compromised.

Lets just look at the facts for a moment:

Me is outwardly similar to 98/SE, and indeed does have much in common, but then as do all the OS's in the 9X range. They are all designed with home use in mind. This means that they have cut down network functionality, and increased stability as a program running platform. Indeed, if you use ME to run games, and word, and a few other programs (which is all most people use it for, lets be honest) then it is more stable, more efficient, and has an explorer that can and will recover from a crash, and restart itself spontaniously if you give it about 5 minutes. (Where 98 would just plain crash). ME generates bluescreens primarily due to software not working for the operating system. It's not the fault of the operating system that software isn't compatable with it's kernel, especially if said software isn't coded expertly. As software catches up, the operating system will indeed become strangely more stable..

ME is the most externally secure operating system on the market, period. It's that simple.

98/SE for web usage is ****. Even when patched and running a firewall, from a networking standpoint, a thousand and one denial of service attacks will punk your nice computer's ass straight off the network, most notably nsnuke, which is a ***** to get the patch for. Strangely, this attack won't work on an out of the box ME system, because in an out of the box setting, ME will by default download any security patches as and when they are released using it's automatic update feature, something which is lacking and indeed **** in even patched 98/SE Operating systems.

It can be configured to have the stability of 98, and the functionality on a network of 2K without the risks associated with access tokens and two way trust relationships between computers in the entire network forest.

All I can see here is people whinging about the fact that they can't get an operating system to work.

I have both ME and 2k on my machine, one for general use, and one for my profession. ME is for my own personal use, and if you configure it well.....well...I've never seen it spawn a blue screen.

If you keep it updated, and you actually install said updates....the operating system is gold.

This seems to break down to:

"I hate ME, because unlike 98/SE effort is required to taylor it to a particular computer...and I don't like that"

Subtext: "I hate ME because I can't configure it adequately."

Scrown Owl.

lmao......

i happen to like Me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must depend on the machine. I was running '98 until se came came around. I formatted, installed SE. Loved it. When Me came around, I formatted, installed, and had the strangest problems. Whenever I would boot up ME, all three of my CD drives would disappear. I couldn't see them in Windows, couldn't see them in DOS with an Me boot disk. I could see them with a '98se boot disk, or even a 2k boot disk. Didn't make any sense to me. No matter what settings I changed, or switching the IDE channels the drives were on, IRQ's .. nothing worked. Then it (Me) randomly stopped detecting my second hard drive, and reset my graphics to 640x480 16 colour. It would not properly detect the hardware I had, and no matter how many times I changed the graphics settings, or reinstalled the drivers, I'd get 640x480 16 colour. Needless to say, I said **** it, and went back to dual booting 98se/2k until XP Professional came around. It works so well with anything I throw at it that I no longer dual boot.

Cheers,

q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

honest to say, I think one major point that can decide a person's experience with ME is the hardware. Some hardware is just gold with it, other's require lots of tweaking, etc.

Like I had said in my earlier post, ME is a great O/S for me, if I wasn't on XP, I would certainly be using ME over 2k or other O/S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

me was just a way to get more money as the introduction of 2k came more into the public...it was also the main os for compaq and other pc manufacturers....just a way to get more money while introducin the next best thing :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'll just say this,

50 million and counting..

There are so many more reasons to list but i don't think NeoWin has that much storage.

My main reason is cuz it BSODed while i was INSTALLING!!! LOL I just didn't even bother checking it out, just reboot and format with my XP CD!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmmm when i installed Windows ME, the 1st thing i did is installing Windows Me compliant non-beta video drivers and on reboot, ME locked up, had to re-reformat. It lasted 5 mins.

Do i need to say more? :dead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha, i only liked WinME because i always like to get the "new stuff"...but it always crashed on my and had many many problems.

WinXP is pretty stable for me. but i still like Win2000's stability more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my god, the blue screens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They blind me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I used to get them every hour, it was the most annoying thing ever to occur on my computer. Thank god WINME is no longer on my comp.:sleeping:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont mind ME, i am on it atm has i was on xp but that was so slow for my 128mb rambus so ME is much quicker and it dosent have a load of errors...............btw i aciddently clciked yes, instead of not really........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.