• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Why is Windows ME unstable?

Recommended Posts

bsquirle    0

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Max    50

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmericanConservative    0
Windows ME its the worst OS ever!!!

586717888[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AminoSC    0
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tommy2k4    0
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NEVER85    248
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoLdFuSi0n    21

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Angel Blue01    9

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dotRoot    1

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dotRoot    1
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deadlydread    1
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
s0nic69    18
ME had "bells and whistles, and eye candy"? :laugh:

586584631[/snapback]

lmao, i didnt know either!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pajter    16
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... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NightmarE D    203

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
b_pizzle    0
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B3AN    0

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr_demilord    0

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
]SK[    109

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr_demilord    0
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RvXtm    5
...but I do believe MS should nevershould have released it.

586727490[/snapback]

You're right... :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vhrc99    0
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S550    117

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarkusDarkus    117
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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kronosguy    0
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scaramonga    202

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

:rolleyes:

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.