Why is Windows ME unstable?

[bsquirle]

Why is ME unstable?

guess we'll never know...

It was unstable on my computer, I remember the first time I booted it after installation.

My mouse didn't move, I was like WTF? no mouse?

I go to the hardware screen using the keyboard, BAM bsod...

+ the nice memory bug

very funny...

It was on my computer for less than a week and I never used it again after that.

Windows 98 was bad (driver issues etc), but Windows 98SE was better and Windows ME was just a waste of money.

After ME I went back to 98, then to 2k and finally I switched to XP.

I would say calling Windows ME Windows 98 Third Edition is an insult to Windows 98 SE, imho.

[Max Veteran]

I think Windows ME is fine. I'd install it over Windows 98SE on any of my systems anyday.

[AmericanConservative]

Windows ME its the worst OS ever!!!

586717888[/snapback]

Anyone who says differently, well, I know who to never take advice from...seriously.

[AminoSC]

I think Windows ME is fine. I'd install it over Windows 98SE on any of my systems anyday.

586719069[/snapback]

I dissagree. I would not trust ME as a coaster for my desk. It was horrible. On the other hand I thought that a fully service packed 98SE was an "ok" op system.

I just don't understand what MS was thinking with ME. It was just HORRIBLE:x:x

[Tommy2k4]

I wish I could tell you how bad ME is, but I never used it from my early days using computers to now. I went from Win95 to Win98 to Win98SE to Win2K to WinXP.

586584982[/snapback]

:yes: Same here

[NEVER85]

I believe Windows ME was based on Windows 95 code, instead of Windows 98SE code.

This made it incredibly weak and ME re-introduced some bugs found in Win95, which were solved in Win98(SE).

586718021[/snapback]

Um, no. It's all the same code. Windows ME was based primarily on Windows 98SE code, as ME was technically supposed to be Windows 98TE or Third Edition. However, incorporating new features like System Restore and such just ended up making a bad branch of OS's worse.

[CoLdFuSi0n]

:o

[Angel Blue01]

I like 98SE. It was fast, it was compatible.

ME was terrible.

It was supposed to be better, 98 with system restore and IE5.5.

[dotRoot]

In my opinion the simple fact was that they were overextending their base code...I guess I can't explain it very well.

Its like the BF1942 engine. DICE kept just adding code to the same engine and BF:V was released. Kind of buggy. Then BF 2 with the BF1942 engine and even more code added resulting in a very, very buggy game and incomplete with all of its promised features (didn't work or just didn't put it in). New features and such, but with an almost unplayable game at times.

So consider BF1942 Windows95, BF:V Windows98 and BF 2 Windows ME and I guess that's the best analogy I can come up off the top of my head that closely fits what I'm trying to explain.

Sometimes you just have to start back over from scratch.

[dotRoot]

Very bad analogy.... BF 2 is a new engine.

586721566[/snapback]

Serverside, which is where all the memory leak bugs and such came from...so I figured it was implied...but I guess not.

[Deadlydread]

In my opinion the simple fact was that they were overextending their base code...I guess I can't explain it very well.

Its like the BF1942 engine. DICE kept just adding code to the same engine and BF:V was released. Kind of buggy. Then BF 2 with the BF1942 engine and even more code added resulting in a very, very buggy game and incomplete with all of its promised features (didn't work or just didn't put it in). New features and such, but with an almost unplayable game at times.

So consider BF1942 Windows95, BF:V Windows98 and BF 2 Windows ME and I guess that's the best analogy I can come up off the top of my head that closely fits what I'm trying to explain.

Sometimes you just have to start back over from scratch.

586721560[/snapback]

Very bad analogy.... BF 2 is a new engine.

[s0nic69]

ME had "bells and whistles, and eye candy"? :laugh:

586584631[/snapback]

lmao, i didnt know either!

[Pajter]

It's because you touch yourself at night.

586718024[/snapback]

That was hands down one of the best replies ever! :laugh: :rofl: LMFAO!!!

ONtopic: I've used WinME for YEARS, and I thought it was great, never really crashed on me. At least not that much that it's worth mentioning... :)

[NightmarE D]

Someone asked this a while back when I 1st started posting here and I explained how mine worked fine and gave my theory on how maybe Microsoft released a bad batch of Windows ME cd's.

Some people thought it was a good theory. Only reason I even think that is because of how some people just have mass problems with it but others don't. A friend of mine tried running it and it didn't work. I went out and bought a copy later on just for the hell of it and it runs fine for me. He bought his right as it came out and I waited a little while. I noticed people who had later copies didn't have any issues with it compared to people who had it right as it came out.

[b_pizzle]

That was hands down one of the best replies ever! :laugh: :rofl: LMFAO!!!

ONtopic: I've used WinME for YEARS, and I thought it was great, never really crashed on me. At least not that much that it's worth mentioning... :)

586721614[/snapback]

I agree. I had absolutely no problems with WinME that I didn't already have with Win98 or 95. But as every computer "has a mind of its own", I can understand how some ppl could.

[B3AN]

Didnt it have a massive memory problem, where it would not release memory correctly under certain situations. Microsoft said they wont fix because it was a too big of problem.

[mr_demilord]

I believe there are people who has a good experience with windows me, but I do believe MS should nevershould have released it. It all depends on your configurations and software you run on the machine.

[Guest]

Ugh ME just sucked. I still see it on peoples home computers. I tell them to upgrade to at least Windows 3.11 before ill give them any PC advice.

[mr_demilord]

Didnt it have a massive memory problem, where it would not release memory correctly under certain situations. Microsoft said they wont fix because it was a too big of problem.

586727512[/snapback]

Correct all the 9X/me OS's had the problem. It's because of the bad memory management of the DOS kernel

[RvXtm]

...but I do believe MS should nevershould have released it.

586727490[/snapback]

You're right... :whistle:

[vhrc99]

I believe Windows ME was based on Windows 95 code, instead of Windows 98SE code.

This made it incredibly weak and ME re-introduced some bugs found in Win95, which were solved in Win98(SE).

586718021[/snapback]

Windows 98 was a 4th release of Win95. Win98 SE was a 5th, and WinMe was the 6th.

The best release (in my opinion) was Win95C (4.00.950.C) the 3rd release from Windows 95 commonly known like OSR2.5

I never installed Win 98 in my computer, firstly I had Win95C, later WinMe, now XP.

For me WinMe was very stable, but win95 was fastest.

[AltecXP]

depending on the machine i ran it on it was a PoS

my dell desktop it was terrible

my dell laptop it was stable as all get out

[MarkusDarkus]

Ugh ME just sucked.  I still see it on peoples home computers.  I tell them to upgrade to at least Windows 3.11 before ill give them any PC advice.

586727524[/snapback]

3.11

ROFLMAO :laugh:

[kronosguy]

Actually, NO version of windows was unstable out of the box (for me, anyway).

It depends on what you do with it, what you install on it, how you mess around, etc.

For me, 9x installs usually screw up in half a year.

NT based installs don't screw up on me unless something stupid happens (like the power cutting out during a partitionmagic session)

586665753[/snapback]

Totally agree. I had ME for a while and had no problems with it until I started poking around where I shouldn't have been...Same things happened with 95, 98 and 98se too. The half a year timeline sounds about right for me too.

[scaramonga]

Anyone STUPID enough to put 'WinME' on their system........don't deserve ONE!!

:rolleyes: