Time for a new operating system??

[squirltok@yahoo.com]

I used winme just until a little after they stopped offering support
and they admitted, at the very end, that it was a dud that cannot be
secured. I found windows2000 that I like and is supported but how
about trying Linux and give up the spyware virus magnet, especially on
a system that cannot even be secured in the first place.

Try PcLinux, get the minime version. Simply download the ISO file and
burn it to a CD with DeepBurner and
set your BIOS to boot fropm the CD drive and reboot. Use the system
from your hard drive and decide
if you like it or not. If you like it install it.

 

[Mike M]

> it was a dud that cannot be secured.

No more so than any other Win9x operating system and the same is true of
all other operating systems today. All contain hidden vulnerabilities
which when discovered need to be patched be the OS Linux, Mac OS Leopard,
Vista or XP. However without on going support, such as is the case with
Win Me, those holes won't get patched. Due to its age and being a Win 9x
system Win Me isn't particularly vulnerable to exploits currently in the
wild since these primarily target more modern operating systems such as XP
and Vista. Perhaps the biggest weakness is Internet Explorer which is
frozen at IE6 SP1 but that's an easy problem to solve, use Firefox.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


squirltok@yahoo.com <squirltok@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I used winme just until a little after they stopped offering support
> and they admitted, at the very end, that it was a dud that cannot be
> secured. I found windows2000 that I like and is supported but how
> about trying Linux and give up the spyware virus magnet, especially on
> a system that cannot even be secured in the first place.
>
> Try PcLinux, get the minime version. Simply download the ISO file and
> burn it to a CD with DeepBurner and
> set your BIOS to boot fropm the CD drive and reboot. Use the system
> from your hard drive and decide
> if you like it or not. If you like it install it.

 

[webster72n]

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:ezppC0ubIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > it was a dud that cannot be secured.
>
> No more so than any other Win9x operating system and the same is true of
> all other operating systems today. All contain hidden vulnerabilities
> which when discovered need to be patched be the OS Linux, Mac OS Leopard,
> Vista or XP. However without on going support, such as is the case with
> Win Me, those holes won't get patched. Due to its age and being a Win 9x
> system Win Me isn't particularly vulnerable to exploits currently in the
> wild since these primarily target more modern operating systems such as XP
> and Vista. Perhaps the biggest weakness is Internet Explorer which is
> frozen at IE6 SP1 but that's an easy problem to solve, use Firefox.

Thanks for the tip Mike. <H>.

> --
> Mike Maltby
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> squirltok@yahoo.com <squirltok@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I used winme just until a little after they stopped offering support
> > and they admitted, at the very end, that it was a dud that cannot be
> > secured. I found windows2000 that I like and is supported but how
> > about trying Linux and give up the spyware virus magnet, especially on
> > a system that cannot even be secured in the first place.
> >
> > Try PcLinux, get the minime version. Simply download the ISO file and
> > burn it to a CD with DeepBurner and
> > set your BIOS to boot fropm the CD drive and reboot. Use the system
> > from your hard drive and decide
> > if you like it or not. If you like it install it.
>

 

[squirltok@yahoo.com]

Mike M wrote:
> > it was a dud that cannot be secured.
>
> No more so than any other Win9x operating system and the same is true of
> all other operating systems today.

Might I say I did use ME for years and had 95, had 3.1 I think it was
called, used DOS and have XP Today.

ME was an ongoing lack of worthwhile performance let alone needed to
be reinstalled pretty often, at least for me, to get it's performance
back or after it became totally unusable.

I started using windows2000 professional and started using Linux and I
almost kick myself for not just plain getting away from relying on ME
far far sooner.

> All contain hidden vulnerabilities
> which when discovered need to be patched be the OS Linux, Mac OS Leopard,
> Vista or XP. However without on going support, such as is the case with
> Win Me, those holes won't get patched.

Microsoft states that ME cannot be patched. It seems to me that they
waited until support for ME was to end to finally gave us that news.
That alone may be good reason to look at the alternatives that are out
there.

> Due to its age and being a Win 9x
> system Win Me isn't particularly vulnerable to exploits currently in the
> wild since these primarily target more modern operating systems such as XP
> and Vista.

I've heard that before but that doesn't make it any more secure today
or any more less obsolete. I like to hobby around with older operating
systems, I occasionally install Win95 ME and use DOS programs. I like
all of them but there is no reason to not come to todays supported,
easy to use, responsive, stable, secure, wonderful, did I mention
free, operating systems that are out there.

> Perhaps the biggest weakness is Internet Explorer which is
> frozen at IE6 SP1 but that's an easy problem to solve, use Firefox.
> --

Sounds good, I use Firefox and generally use IE as casually as I do
Firefox. However what I've seen with ME tells me that Firefox and any
amount of security software, no matter how carefully and thoughtfully
used, cannot really
help much security-wise, unless the operating system its-self can be
secured from existing and future
security threats.

And it's really not the security aspects for me posting but going
through all this spyware and virus programs on an unsupported system
makes no sense when there are soo many great operating systems that
are under ongoing development and are supported.

http://distrowatch.com/

 

[webster72n]

<squirltok@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6eb9073-8cc7-40ff-87af-26f5a4da5be1@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike M wrote:
> > > it was a dud that cannot be secured.
> >
> > No more so than any other Win9x operating system and the same is true of
> > all other operating systems today.
>
> Might I say I did use ME for years and had 95, had 3.1 I think it was
> called, used DOS and have XP Today.
>
> ME was an ongoing lack of worthwhile performance let alone needed to
> be reinstalled pretty often, at least for me, to get it's performance
> back or after it became totally unusable.
>
> I started using windows2000 professional and started using Linux and I
> almost kick myself for not just plain getting away from relying on ME
> far far sooner.
>
> > All contain hidden vulnerabilities
> > which when discovered need to be patched be the OS Linux, Mac OS
Leopard,
> > Vista or XP. However without on going support, such as is the case with
> > Win Me, those holes won't get patched.
>
> Microsoft states that ME cannot be patched. It seems to me that they
> waited until support for ME was to end to finally gave us that news.
> That alone may be good reason to look at the alternatives that are out
> there.
>
> > Due to its age and being a Win 9x
> > system Win Me isn't particularly vulnerable to exploits currently in the
> > wild since these primarily target more modern operating systems such as
XP
> > and Vista.
>
> I've heard that before but that doesn't make it any more secure today
> or any more less obsolete. I like to hobby around with older operating
> systems, I occasionally install Win95 ME and use DOS programs. I like
> all of them but there is no reason to not come to todays supported,
> easy to use, responsive, stable, secure, wonderful, did I mention
> free, operating systems that are out there.
>
> > Perhaps the biggest weakness is Internet Explorer which is
> > frozen at IE6 SP1 but that's an easy problem to solve, use Firefox.
> > --
>
> Sounds good, I use Firefox and generally use IE as casually as I do
> Firefox. However what I've seen with ME tells me that Firefox and any
> amount of security software, no matter how carefully and thoughtfully
> used, cannot really
> help much security-wise, unless the operating system its-self can be
> secured from existing and future
> security threats.
>
> And it's really not the security aspects for me posting but going
> through all this spyware and virus programs on an unsupported system
> makes no sense when there are soo many great operating systems that
> are under ongoing development and are supported.

I do understand your reasoning, squirltok, but your assessment of WinME
isn't justified by far. ME isn't as unstable and insecure as you make it out
to be a lot has to do with the user and the installed software. Mike will
probably attest to that.
I am still using it, despite Heather's disapproval and it works better than
ever, including IE6/SP1. But to each his own. <H>.

>
> http://distrowatch.com/

 

[Ogg]

webster72n wrote:

|| I do understand your reasoning, squirltok, but your assessment of
|| WinME isn't justified by far. ME isn't as unstable and insecure as
|| you make it out to be a lot has to do with the user and the
|| installed software. Mike will probably attest to that.
|| I am still using it, despite Heather's disapproval and it works
|| better than ever, including IE6/SP1. But to each his own.
|| <H>.


Ever since I added 512meg ram to my previous 256meg, WinME has become very
unstable. My mobo is from year 2000, and can support a full 1gig, but
WinME limits me to 256meg to be "reliable". That's not progress, nor is
that acceptable.

 

[webster72n]

"Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message
news:OetyuVCcIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> webster72n wrote:
>
> || I do understand your reasoning, squirltok, but your assessment of
> || WinME isn't justified by far. ME isn't as unstable and insecure as
> || you make it out to be a lot has to do with the user and the
> || installed software. Mike will probably attest to that.
> || I am still using it, despite Heather's disapproval and it works
> || better than ever, including IE6/SP1. But to each his own.
> || <H>.
>
>
> Ever since I added 512meg ram to my previous 256meg, WinME has become very
> unstable. My mobo is from year 2000, and can support a full 1gig, but
> WinME limits me to 256meg to be "reliable". That's not progress, nor is
> that acceptable.

There must be another reason for your problem. I have 512MB's of RAM with no
trouble at all. That is the limit, not 256. Mike could probably shed some
light on this for you. I know that one has to be selective in
adding/exchanging one's sticks.
<H>.

>
>

 

[Mike M]

Ogg <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote:

> Ever since I added 512meg ram to my previous 256meg, WinME has become
> very unstable. My mobo is from year 2000, and can support a full
> 1gig, but WinME limits me to 256meg to be "reliable". That's not
> progress, nor is that acceptable.

Have you limited the amount of RAM that can be used for the virtual cache
to 512MB? If not then it is not surprising that the system is unstable as
you will be running out of upper memory address space.

For details see MS KB 253912 - ""Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large
Amounts of RAM Installed" (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=253912). The
reason is that allocating more than 512MB of RAM to vcache will exhaust
all available upper memory addresses and thus prevent them being used for
other purposes. Note that this will still mean that all memory is
available to applications but is simply limiting the amount used as
virtual cache memory.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com

 

[O.J. Newman]

Hello:

An alternative to Firefox is the fast, freeware Opera v9.x browser, the
latest version which will still run on Win 95 and up, although Win 98 and up
is preferred.

See: http://www.opera.com/products/desktop/ .

Cheers,
O.J.

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:ezppC0ubIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Perhaps the biggest weakness is Internet Explorer which is frozen at IE6
> SP1 but that's an easy problem to solve, use Firefox.
> --
> Mike Maltby
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
you like it or not. If you like it install it.
>

 

[Ogg]

Mike M wrote:
|| Have you limited the amount of RAM that can be used for the virtual
|| cache to 512MB? If not then it is not surprising that the system is
|| unstable as you will be running out of upper memory address space.
||
|| For details see MS KB 253912 - ""Out of Memory" Error Messages with
|| Large Amounts of RAM Installed"
|| (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=253912). ..


Yes.... I did the vcache limit setting. I investigated all the various
helps regarding all that. Still get unpredictable and random problems. I
could probably remove the 256meg module, and just run with 512. But I don't
like the idea of "downgrading" my hardware just to accomodate WinME. I'd
rather move to an OS that can handle the hardware, even though it's old
hardware from year 2000. WinME itself doesn't provide anything
extraordinary to compel me to stay with it. I've tested Ubuntu and a few
other distro's with the pc (and the full 756meg), and the results are much
more satisfactory.

 

[RockyTSquirrel]

Re: Time for a new operating system?? (tks Mike)

Thanks for this heads up Mike,
I was planning to add a couple of gegs to my me puter this spring..
Might save me asking the same question later..

RTS


"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:%23Z1RPsCcIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Ogg <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote:
>
> > Ever since I added 512meg ram to my previous 256meg, WinME has become
> > very unstable. My mobo is from year 2000, and can support a full
> > 1gig, but WinME limits me to 256meg to be "reliable". That's not
> > progress, nor is that acceptable.
>
> Have you limited the amount of RAM that can be used for the virtual cache
> to 512MB? If not then it is not surprising that the system is unstable as
> you will be running out of upper memory address space.
>
> For details see MS KB 253912 - ""Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large
> Amounts of RAM Installed" (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=253912). The
> reason is that allocating more than 512MB of RAM to vcache will exhaust
> all available upper memory addresses and thus prevent them being used for
> other purposes. Note that this will still mean that all memory is
> available to applications but is simply limiting the amount used as
> virtual cache memory.
> --
> Mike Maltby
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>

 

[squirltok@yahoo.com]

Ogg wrote:
> Mike M wrote:
> || Have you limited the amount of RAM that can be used for the virtual
> || cache to 512MB? If not then it is not surprising that the system is
> || unstable as you will be running out of upper memory address space.
> ||
> || For details see MS KB 253912 - ""Out of Memory" Error Messages with
> || Large Amounts of RAM Installed"
> || (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=253912). ..
>
>
> Yes.... I did the vcache limit setting. I investigated all the various
> helps regarding all that. Still get unpredictable and random problems. I
> could probably remove the 256meg module, and just run with 512. But I don't
> like the idea of "downgrading" my hardware just to accomodate WinME. I'd
> rather move to an OS that can handle the hardware, even though it's old
> hardware from year 2000. WinME itself doesn't provide anything
> extraordinary to compel me to stay with it. I've tested Ubuntu and a few
> other distro's with the pc (and the full 756meg), and the results are much
> more satisfactory.

If you liked Ubuntu OK then do consider trying PcLinux minime. It
installs in I'd say around 5 minutes and isn't packed with a bunch of
programs that try to fit into every persons attraction.

You simply use the synaptic package manager to install programs. Which
is another
nice thing, you don't have to go to different web sites to download
and then install programs. The package manager does it all for you.

I have a processor of 733 Mhz and 318MB of ram and it works great.
Also the current version was just released in January.

 

[squirltok@yahoo.com]

Ogg wrote:
> Mike M wrote:
> || Have you limited the amount of RAM that can be used for the virtual
> || cache to 512MB? If not then it is not surprising that the system is
> || unstable as you will be running out of upper memory address space.
> ||
> || For details see MS KB 253912 - ""Out of Memory" Error Messages with
> || Large Amounts of RAM Installed"
> || (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=253912). ..
>
>
> Yes.... I did the vcache limit setting. I investigated all the various
> helps regarding all that. Still get unpredictable and random problems. I
> could probably remove the 256meg module, and just run with 512. But I don't
> like the idea of "downgrading" my hardware just to accomodate WinME. I'd
> rather move to an OS that can handle the hardware, even though it's old
> hardware from year 2000. WinME itself doesn't provide anything
> extraordinary to compel me to stay with it. I've tested Ubuntu and a few
> other distro's with the pc (and the full 756meg), and the results are much
> more satisfactory.

ME is OK but Windows2000 works waaay better, at least for me, the way
an operating system should act and feel when using it.

Also compared to XP I would rather use 2000.

I can install Linux distributions and versions that are getting close
to ten years old and aren't supported anymore and they would still be
far more worthwhile to use than ME.

 

[Ogg]

squirltok@yahoo.com wrote:
|| Ogg wrote:
||| 2000. WinME itself doesn't provide anything extraordinary to
||| compel me to stay with it. I've tested Ubuntu and a few other
||| distro's with the pc (and the full 756meg), and the results are
||| much more satisfactory.
||
|| If you liked Ubuntu OK then do consider trying PcLinux minime. It
|| installs in I'd say around 5 minutes and isn't packed with a bunch of
|| programs that try to fit into every persons attraction.


Thanks for the heads-up on that. I had heard about PcLinux elsewhere. I'm
not sure if I would settle for the minime version, but I'm going to take a
look.


|| You simply use the synaptic package manager to install programs.
|| Which is another
|| nice thing, you don't have to go to different web sites to download
|| and then install programs. The package manager does it all for you.


That's a plus. I am basically planning to retire my WinME system to do
just www, email, some basic photo editing, and music collections. I feel
much more comfortable doing all that in a Linux environment than the current
tempermental WinME.

 

[Ogg]

squirltok@yahoo.com wrote:
|| ME is OK but Windows2000 works waaay better, at least for me, the way
|| an operating system should act and feel when using it.
||
|| Also compared to XP I would rather use 2000.
||
|| I can install Linux distributions and versions that are getting close
|| to ten years old and aren't supported anymore and they would still be
|| far more worthwhile to use than ME.


I'd rather move away from WinAnything at this point if I had a choice. I
currently use a laptop pre-installed with XPp and that's fine. If I have
to spend the time and energy to work with a new OS, I'd rather it be
something more reliable like Linux.

I'm really fed up with the way WinME sometimes refreshes the desktop icons
and the icons end up with different images! That used to be "cute", and not
much of a bother since the problem would go away until the next reboot. But
now it has become a stupid WinME behaviour. And Window's occassional
insistence to do a Scandisk (even though the computer shut down normally
just fine) has driven me to the limits of my patience my ME pc has a 120gig
harddrive, and the scandisk just takes w-a-y too long to complete. Add the
extra time needed to do defrags, and ME is just too maintenance intensive to
be worthwhile anymore.

 

[Mike M]

Do you have more than one partition on that drive or are you running it as
a single C: drive? If so, then delays are to be expected. Regardless of
the OS keep the system drive clean and lean and place the date elsewhere.
Scandisk and defrags take but a few seconds on my Win Me system where the
partition containing the OS is about 2.5GB.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Ogg <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote:

> I'd rather move away from WinAnything at this point if I had a
> choice. I currently use a laptop pre-installed with XPp and that's
> fine. If I have to spend the time and energy to work with a new OS,
> I'd rather it be something more reliable like Linux.
>
> I'm really fed up with the way WinME sometimes refreshes the desktop
> icons and the icons end up with different images! That used to be
> "cute", and not much of a bother since the problem would go away
> until the next reboot. But now it has become a stupid WinME
> behaviour. And Window's occassional insistence to do a Scandisk
> (even though the computer shut down normally just fine) has driven me
> to the limits of my patience my ME pc has a 120gig harddrive, and
> the scandisk just takes w-a-y too long to complete. Add the extra
> time needed to do defrags, and ME is just too maintenance intensive
> to be worthwhile anymore.

 

[squirltok@yahoo.com]

Ogg wrote:
> squirltok@yahoo.com wrote:
> || Ogg wrote:
> ||| 2000. WinME itself doesn't provide anything extraordinary to
> ||| compel me to stay with it. I've tested Ubuntu and a few other
> ||| distro's with the pc (and the full 756meg), and the results are
> ||| much more satisfactory.
> ||
> || If you liked Ubuntu OK then do consider trying PcLinux minime. It
> || installs in I'd say around 5 minutes and isn't packed with a bunch of
> || programs that try to fit into every persons attraction.
>
>
> Thanks for the heads-up on that. I had heard about PcLinux elsewhere. I'm
> not sure if I would settle for the minime version, but I'm going to take a
> look.

Well the full version has a bunch of stuff that I would never use.
With synaptic you can
say a description of what you want, like email, media player or web
browser then click on a program and it will give you a description of
what it is and does.
>
> || You simply use the synaptic package manager to install programs.
> || Which is another
> || nice thing, you don't have to go to different web sites to download
> || and then install programs. The package manager does it all for you.
>
>
> That's a plus. I am basically planning to retire my WinME system to do
> just www, email, some basic photo editing, and music collections. I feel
> much more comfortable doing all that in a Linux environment than the current
> tempermental WinME.

Amarok is great for music.

Do consider making about 5 to 10 gigs for your / and maybe 1 gig for
your /swap and maybe the rest for your /home

You likely know all this but

The home is where you store all your music and downloads, ect, and if
the system
fails then you can simply reinstall it back to the / and don't format
your /home and you will still have all your music ,etc

 

[webster72n]

"Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message
news:OFjry8PcIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> squirltok@yahoo.com wrote:
> || ME is OK but Windows2000 works waaay better, at least for me, the way
> || an operating system should act and feel when using it.
> ||
> || Also compared to XP I would rather use 2000.
> ||
> || I can install Linux distributions and versions that are getting close
> || to ten years old and aren't supported anymore and they would still be
> || far more worthwhile to use than ME.
>
>
> I'd rather move away from WinAnything at this point if I had a choice. I
> currently use a laptop pre-installed with XPp and that's fine. If I have
> to spend the time and energy to work with a new OS, I'd rather it be
> something more reliable like Linux.
>
> I'm really fed up with the way WinME sometimes refreshes the desktop icons
> and the icons end up with different images! That used to be "cute", and
not
> much of a bother since the problem would go away until the next reboot.
But
> now it has become a stupid WinME behaviour. And Window's occassional
> insistence to do a Scandisk (even though the computer shut down normally
> just fine) has driven me to the limits of my patience my ME pc has a
120gig
> harddrive, and the scandisk just takes w-a-y too long to complete. Add
the
> extra time needed to do defrags, and ME is just too maintenance intensive
to
> be worthwhile anymore.

I'm very sorry to see you have these problems with WinME, but it can't all
be ME's fault, because I surely don't have them with my system. There may be
little snags now and then, but so far Windows has corrected itself for me
with the help of Scandisk and Defrag. Also they don't take an unusual amount
of time either.
I have nothing set up for automatic run and do everything manually,
periodically.
Any of the free Linux systems, are probably a valid alternative.
Good luck,

Harry.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Ogg]

webster72n wrote:

|| I'm very sorry to see you have these problems with WinME, but it
|| can't all be ME's fault, because I surely don't have them with my
|| system. There may be little snags now and then, but so far Windows
|| has corrected itself for me with the help of Scandisk and Defrag.
|| Also they don't take an unusual amount of time either.
|| I have nothing set up for automatic run and do everything manually,
|| periodically.
|| Any of the free Linux systems, are probably a valid alternative.
|| Good luck,


I have several apps in the System tray, but I ruled them out by cancelling
their load at startup. The icon jumble-dance often occurs when there are no
other apps even running. Explorer (the directory viewer) would get stuck
with a "program not responding". That IS all WinME's fault.

ME seemed to perform well after 2 years of frustration before I learned
about this ng and disabling many OS features inorder to get a stable system.
Now it has been over 8 years since I've had this pc, but the added ram just
added new frustration and disappointment.

However, the existing hardware works very well with the various Linux
distros I've tried.

Therefore, it's not the fault of hardware nor any of my win apps. The
problem is WinME not being able to operate consistently well when I need to
rely on it. WinME can't keep up with I need to do.

I don't particularly like to mess around with a dramatic change like this.
But I really don't have much choice if I want to actually USE my computer
instead of babysitting it or be afraid to use it for fear of having it
stall.

Yes.. I do beleive that I will have a much better problem-free experience
with Linux.

 

[webster72n]

"Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message
news:O5DtT8WcIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> webster72n wrote:
>
> || I'm very sorry to see you have these problems with WinME, but it
> || can't all be ME's fault, because I surely don't have them with my
> || system. There may be little snags now and then, but so far Windows
> || has corrected itself for me with the help of Scandisk and Defrag.
> || Also they don't take an unusual amount of time either.
> || I have nothing set up for automatic run and do everything manually,
> || periodically.
> || Any of the free Linux systems, are probably a valid alternative.
> || Good luck,
>
>
> I have several apps in the System tray, but I ruled them out by cancelling
> their load at startup. The icon jumble-dance often occurs when there are
no
> other apps even running. Explorer (the directory viewer) would get stuck
> with a "program not responding". That IS all WinME's fault.

Just for the record, these are 'minor' occurrences and can easily be fixed
by either using Tweak UI, or IE Repair in Add/Remove Programs.
Once the system is stabilized, it will most likely stay that way.

>
> ME seemed to perform well after 2 years of frustration before I learned
> about this ng and disabling many OS features inorder to get a stable
system.
> Now it has been over 8 years since I've had this pc, but the added ram
just
> added new frustration and disappointment.
>
> However, the existing hardware works very well with the various Linux
> distros I've tried.
>
> Therefore, it's not the fault of hardware nor any of my win apps. The
> problem is WinME not being able to operate consistently well when I need
to
> rely on it. WinME can't keep up with I need to do.
>
> I don't particularly like to mess around with a dramatic change like this.
> But I really don't have much choice if I want to actually USE my computer
> instead of babysitting it or be afraid to use it for fear of having it
> stall.
>
> Yes.. I do beleive that I will have a much better problem-free experience
> with Linux.
>
>
>
>
>