What was your biggest problem with Windows ME?


Recommended Posts

You know, I was one of those few lucky people who Windows Me just worked great for. It looked slightly prettier than Windows 98, always booted / ran faster, and was more up to date on patches & security so took less time to get up and running after a reinstall (I used to like re-installing Windows all the time back then) - so I have no bad memories of Windows Me! :)

  • 3 weeks later...
You know, I was one of those few lucky people who Windows Me just worked great for. It looked slightly prettier than Windows 98, always booted / ran faster, and was more up to date on patches & security so took less time to get up and running after a reinstall (I used to like re-installing Windows all the time back then) - so I have no bad memories of Windows Me! :)

I really think you're in the majority here. I've used Windows ME myself and it never crashed. I never owned Windows ME personally, as I simply moved from 98 to XP, but I really don't think Windows ME was all that difficult for the masses. As usual, we tend to hear from a vocal minority, not a silent majority.

I really think you're in the majority here. I've used Windows ME myself and it never crashed. I never owned Windows ME personally, as I simply moved from 98 to XP, but I really don't think Windows ME was all that difficult for the masses. As usual, we tend to hear from a vocal minority, not a silent majority.

That was my problem with ME, as I never had a problem :p .

Scirwode

  • 4 weeks later...

I've never managed to work out why WinME is so hated. I ran it for about a year between 98 SE and XP and it worked perfectly fine for me.

From my perspective it was 98 SE with TSR support removed, which was a good thing. I certainly never found it less stable than the likes of 98 SE. The entire 9x range was buggy as hell but it was a necessary step before we were given Win2000.

It was clearly an afterthought because they couldn't get 2000 Home ready until XP Home shipped but it didn't stop it working perfectly fine for me.

It ran ok on my old Emachine... But Windows 2000 ran much better!

Of course it did. 2000 was based on NT4 and was the basis for XP. It's a stupid comparison really, sorry but it is.

Without a doubt, Vista is (for now) the best Windows OS Microsoft has released :)

I second that. It's bad rep is now 99% unwarranted.

Edited by bradavon

1. Everything. :laugh:

2. Unstable, Buggy, Crash-ful

3. security holes? more like Security black-holes

4. Unfinished, should have been a beta longer.

5. Win98 was better.

6. I "downgraded" which I considered an upgrade to Windows 2000

I never had any problems running ME.

BSODS are generally caused by hardware much more than software so if you get so many BSODs, then your hardware must have sucked. My PC that ran ME was a 500mhz Celeron, 64mb ram and it ran ME great for years.

  • 3 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

Windows ME worked well, that was with system restore disabled and presumably no driver issue.

the comp with ME got wiped with XP, then ME disk/license were lost.

I regret it in some way : I read that microsoft hacked around the 16bit resource limit, which is the reason I could not stay with windows 98 in the end. (I stuck with 98 for a long time on my computer)

The crippled DOS was my biggest issue with it. There was a patch to allow booting in DOS mode, useful for partition tools or other ; but only very bare DOS is allowed. Windows ME ignores your config.sys and autoexec.bat files and even overwrites them.

That made impossible to play some games which require EMS memory or a lot of conventional memory. (No Xwing / Tie Fighter I believe).

so, there were three years of 98SE use which could have been years of ME use.

ME looks like the refined, final windows 9x.

The one that blue-screens and corrupts itself all the time is windows 95 :D

Windows ME for me worked fine, well it was on par with Windows 95. It worked, but only just. I used 95 for the most part until 98 came out, then I used 98SE and used that right up to 2000.

I've never managed to work out why WinME is so hated. I ran it for about a year between 98 SE and XP and it worked perfectly fine for me.

From my perspective it was 98 SE with TSR support removed, which was a good thing. I certainly never found it less stable than the likes of 98 SE. The entire 9x range was buggy as hell but it was a necessary step before we were given Win2000.

It was clearly an afterthought because they couldn't get 2000 Home ready until XP Home shipped but it didn't stop it working perfectly fine for me.

Of course it did. 2000 was based on NT4 and was the basis for XP. It's a stupid comparison really, sorry but it is.

I second that. It's bad rep is now 99% unwarranted.

No, it's known to have been unusually unstable. A Microsoft representative even said this to phone support staff he trained (my brother at the time being one of those). Something along the lines of that they internally strongly disliked what had became of the OS. :p

Of course, not everyone had problems. I think it depended a lot on how it was being used.

windows me was fine with me, as well as win98se. that was on a machine where i couldnt even get win2k installed lol

i think most people just read the reports that press made us believing win me sucks and so they thought the same. in reality it had maybe as many/less bugs as win98.

now its the same with win7. press claims its gr8 (and of course it is!) but so was windows vista - but vista was called bad.

That it basically was win98se with dos access from the bootmenu/shutdown menu removed.

and seeing as this was the case, and it still loaded autoexec.bat and config.sys without you beeing able to interact, why did so much software fail to run on it, when it ran in win98/se?

well, either ways, i started using the windows 2000 beta, and never actually used windows ME myself, never had to:p

Never had any problems. I had the OEM edition which supported generic OS controlled hibernation. Otherwise the 9x family only support hibernate if specific OEM/computer manufacuter-supplied drivers were installed. The main "problem" was by 2000, people didn't want to see BSODs resulting from a single application crashing their OS and losing work after seeing the stability of Windows 2000. MS or ISVs didn't make it clear that Windows Me wouldn't have full Windows 98 compatibility because of device driver changes or the Windows 2000 network stack. Plus, it fell short of new features, and removed MS-DOS, all as a whole contributed to its hatred.

Most BSODs people encountered on Windows Me was because they upgraded from 9x instead of a clean install or put 98 compatible apps/drivers on Windows Me which didn't always work. A lot of drivers were VXD-based then instead of all being WDM and yet some Windows 98 WDM drivers didn't work with Windows Me (network because of the Windows 2000 network stack Windows Me had and WDM audio/modem). Using VXD drivers disabled power management features like hibernation/standby. I think not enough testing was done for drivers assuming 98 drivers would just work.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Are you going to do performance benchmarks comparing all states? I'd be interested in seeing that in the next "part".
    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      rolfus earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      78
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!