What did Windows ME look like when it was a current OS?

Message

leoblob · #1 Post by **leoblob** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:01 pm

The reason I ask... it seems like each new version of Windows is disliked by many at first... then over time - as people get used to it, or as service packs are released - people like it.

Exception: Windows ME. This seems to be universally considered a failure.

Question: Are peoples' negative reactions to Vista just because it's a new OS with the usual initial problems, or does it look like Vista will end up as another Windows ME?

#2 Post by **RealBlackStuff** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:35 pm

IMHO I consider Vista on a par with ME, a total failure.

spuddog · #3 Post by **spuddog** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:49 pm

I used ME for a year or so. I switched because XP supported bigger drives, but I never really had any problems with ME.

Scott

(Yes, I know people will say "You don't understand how bad ME was".
But I didn't have any problems)

j-dawg · #4 Post by **j-dawg** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:16 pm

I used to use ME. It was bad.

I now use Vista. It is good. Some people apparently still have problems, but I rather like Vista. Never had any problems.

#5 Post by **ryengineer** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:15 pm

I've used Windows ME it had many stability issues, some might have found it better but at least in my experience it was total crap. I'll take Windows Vista to Windows ME any day.

leoblob wrote:snip.....Question: Are peoples' negative reactions to Vista just because it's a new OS with the usual initial problems, or does it look like Vista will end up as another Windows ME?.....snip

Initially Windows Vista had issues but not anything like ME!, after the release of SP1 Vista has got only better, also I don't think Vista is going to share the destiny of ME, reports online have also shown that Microsoft's next Operating System "Windows 7" will be based heavily on Windows Vista and it's core features. IMO, Vista has matured and it has been running efficiently for me for a while now.

andyP · #6 Post by **andyP** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:14 am

ryengineer wrote:I've used Windows ME it had many stability issues, some might have found it better but at least in my experience it was total crap.

Not totally, you were able to access Scanreg after a crash and reset the registry to that morning's settings, at least that worked

ArtShapiro · #7 Post by **ArtShapiro** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:19 am

I too used Windows ME when it came out, and despite the universal scorn for it really had no problems or issues (at least by Microsoft standards). And I thought its physical screen appearance was somewhat more "refreshing", if that makes any sense, than Win 98.

So my years with Window ME were quite satisfactory. I had only the one desktop back then, so perhaps the absence of any home network skewed my view toward the positive.

Art

makai · #8 Post by **makai** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:32 am

leoblob wrote:<snip>

Question: Are peoples' negative reactions to Vista just because it's a new OS with the usual initial problems, or does it look like Vista will end up as another Windows ME?

My negative reactions to Vista will never go away as long as Vista remains Vista! It's not because it's new... it's because it was written as a "new user" OS, and not a "follow on" OS to XP. The OS is so vastly different that XP power users struggle with the logic. I think that's my main gripe with Vista. Being a power user, I tend to hack this and that in an OS. With Vista, there are hacks to be done, but some are non-existant. And for those that do exist, what you eventually end up with after you hack them is... XP! I don't know, I just don't like Vista. As for WinME... I skipped it totally. Must be an eye-candy thing... something I just don't need in a computer!

j-dawg · #9 Post by **j-dawg** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:43 pm

When we talk about hacks, we're talking about things that inherently are not part pf the OS. They are designed around the OS, not the other way around. There's not really any good reason that a new version of an operating system should design itself to be hackable in ways we're familiar with. The people making these hacks need to be creative and keep up with Windows' development.

We're used to certain paradigms of operation because they've been around since Windows 95. Each new iteration of Windows changes some of those; Vista changed more than usual. So yes, hackers have some new stuff to get used to in Vista. Microsoft is not going to leave holes in an OS or let it technologically lag behind simply because it's what people are used to.

virge · #10 Post by **virge** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:55 pm

I had a Micron desktop system (1Ghz Athlon) that came with Windows ME. It was incredibly unstable regardless of what I tried.

I also ran Windows ME on 560E (2), 560X (3), 570 (3), and 570E (1) systems for extended amounts of time. For these machines it worked with no problems. It had more built in features than Windows 98 yet loaded faster. It is still my OS of choice for Pentium I and Pentium II machines.

Quagmyre · #11 Post by **Quagmyre** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:50 pm

RealBlackStuff wrote:IMHO I consider Vista on a par with ME, a total failure.

I second that. Microsoft will never admit it, but Vista is a flop.

Windows XP has become a pretty good OS. If you know what you're doing, you can enjoy a fast, stable and even secure experience with Windows XP. Plus, drivers and other software have had enough time to settle on XP, so pretty much everything is well supported on this OS.

I'm not against new stuff. I used to be an early adopter of all new Windows versions from Windows 2.0 on (with the only exception of ME and now Vista).
Still, IMHO Vista is a bloated piece of junk which offers nothing fundamentally new that couldn't be done with XP as well.

I believe that Vista serves nothing else than pushing elaborate DRM and anti-piracy mechanisms into the consumer world so that Microsoft and the music/movie industry can secure their revenue. Implementing those mechanisms deep down in the bowels of the OS is one of the main reasons why Vista took so long to develop and why it turned out to be so sluggish and unstable.

While I can understand the industries' desire to prevent counterfeiting, illegal downloads, etc, I expect to see the money I pay for an OS go mainly into feature development which targets at leveraging my productivity and computer experience, and not primarily into some law enforcement mechanisms.

Microsoft better come up with something good for Windows 7.

#12 Post by **jdhurst** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:18 pm

I just glanced quickly, but I read somewhere that Microsoft's Windows sales dropped 25 percent, and that drop was attributed to the failure of Vista in the marketplace. Ballmer's head may soon be on the chopping block if he fails to fix it.

I got VPN running (partially) and an aftermarket Explorer tool, so I finally have Vista Business running decently well, and with a full fix for VPN (I still await SafeNet), I will put the machine into production. But I still vastly prefer XP Pro and I am not alone.
... JDH

FRiC · #13 Post by **FRiC** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:32 am

We still have a few old computers at work running Windows ME. The biggest problem for me with ME is that it did away with the booting to DOS mode option, so when Windows has some problems (which is quite often) there's no easy way to fix them without having a DOS prompt mode, and those older computers didn't support booting from USB (if they had any) or booting from optical drives.

I would switch to Vista in a second if it had the up-folder arrow in explorer.

asiafish · #14 Post by **asiafish** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:56 am

The difference is that ME was still based on DOS, though went to greater lengths to hide it. Appearance-wise it was skinned almost exactly like Windows 2000 and had the same overall look and feel, despite being a completely different OS under the hood.

I was never happy with any version of Win9x and moved to NT back in 1996. When Windows 2000 came out, it was a revelation, finally Microsoft had provided a stable, fast and robust OS. ME was just another band-aid on top of Windows 95.

Vista is actually pretty good, though there remain issues with certain software packages (not Microsoft's fault really).

Puppy · #15 Post by **Puppy** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:14 am

Windows ME were based on Windows 9x simplified kernel. Which means:

- no security implemented
- unstable by design (virtual memory space is not fully isolated among processes due the simplified architecture)
- very limited system resources regardless of RAM size
- FAT32 filesystem support only (no security, no reliability)

Fortunately ME were the last Windows version based on this simplifed kernel edition. Windows 2000 = Windows NT 5.0, Windows XP = Windows NT 5.1, Windows Vista = Windows NT 6.0

kunfuchopsticks · #16 Post by **kunfuchopsticks** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:41 pm

OS based on NT is the way to go. WHen I was on ME a long time back, it was very unstable. Always crashed. Switched the XP and the thing is very very stable. Hasn't crashed in years!

Outatime1989 · #17 Post by **Outatime1989** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:29 pm

From 2004 to early 2007 i used ME on various desktops and laptops. It ran perfectly on every piece of hardware i have had it on, it rarely if ever needed to search for drivers and most of the time it just worked. It definitely was a step up from 98 (illegal operations anyone?) I kept my gateway e3200 running all the time back then and rarely ever needed to restart. The only problem i remember having with it was i had to disconnect my usb burner before i shut down the computer or it would lock up. My point bieng no matter what people said, windows me had great potential to be stable and from what ive read, problems people had were hit and miss, if it didnt crash for you, it worked perfectly, and it had very reasonable hardware requirements. Vista is the most bloated os ever in my opinion, since i have no linux experience, when i realized i needed to upgrade hardware during the time when only vista was available, i bought a macbook instead. 10.5 is much better than vista i havnt had a problem with it since i got it. I think vista is the most pathetic os to ever be shipped from redmond, and im hoping 7 addresses all the shortcomings of this sorry excuse for an os. Its about time redmond overhauls windows and implements features people actually want and make it look attractive xp was soo close to an actual attempt by a company making record profits...why did they take a step back?

lgrntbay · #18 Post by **lgrntbay** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:21 pm

For me ME felt very similar to WIN98SE, The only reason that I had purchased it for my Aptiva was because it was on sale with a lot of free bonuses. The only real problem that I remembered with it was with my voice modem, It was hard to get drivers for it.

But that got worst with XP,

they decided not to create voice drivers to support XP. (Modem was less than 2 Years Old).

I haven't had any major problems with vista even on my older HP P4 3.0Ghz, except for my All in Wonder Card, 35 Days after purchase find out that I cannot use the Tuner portion in Vista Media Center

But the beta was a disaster on my HP notebook... reliability wise.

Spimoles · #19 Post by **Spimoles** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:54 pm

I haven't had any problems with Vista at all. I like it because its a lot safer than xp and its a completely new OS. A previous poster had a gripe about it being new but a tear down was inevitable. XP had a lot of old code in it and was just new code built on top of old/rehashed code and got sloppy. As for it needing a lot more memory, resources, and having a new "unnecessary" bubble gum theme... These were the same gripes people had with xp. Many people scoffed at XP for its new resource hogging looks, large installation size, and RAM upgrade from win2000. But then memory got cheaper and so did hard drives and after 3 service packs has become "everything vista wishes it was".

I for one don't miss XP's blue screen or its "half-life" where after 6months it experienced a massive slow down and required a clean install.

Technology is forever evolving. Stop being complacent with your current knowledge and keep learning. You will always have to upgrade your hardware to keep up with what developers are putting out on the software side.

As for ME, that things in a class of its own. I got a BSOD if i even sneezed while a program was loading

/ramble

tyanlion · #20 Post by **tyanlion** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:22 am

vista is "ok". but i won't call it wonderful. i remember when xp was plaggued by trojans(rpc anyone lol). but once sp2 came around it was much more stable and less virus prone. win me didn't have really much time to mature in my opininon. if i remember it was only 1-2 years till xp came about so i guess they just couldn't be bothered about it.

the truth about whether an ms os is a failure is just if ms wants to spend time patching it up and stuff. if me was piority in the updates and xp hadn't appreard so soon i think they would have got the bugs and stuff probably ironed out.

but hey if u don't want driver problems just keep your old os and wait till sp2 for the ms op system to come out. after that it ought to be pretty stable.

and yes i did try me when it came out but it didn't remain my main os for very long cause it kept bsoding on me. and i think me and vista are a very bad comparision in my opinion but thats just my opinion. vista to me really is ok . not a failure, not a success but just the next op that i will have to move to. btw for all those ppl who remembered the time when xp came out, how long did it take for it to become a success? i was wondering when this milestone of "success" is lol cause i didn't know it had achieved this.

What did Windows ME look like when it was a current OS?

What did Windows ME look like when it was a current OS?

Re: What did Windows ME look like when it was a current OS?

Who is online