Time for a new operating system??

[Ogg]

webster72n wrote:
|| 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.


I've TweakUI'd and Repair IE'd quite a bit over the years. I've come to the
conclusion that if the only way to stabilize WinME is by turning features
off, and imposing other restrictions such as ram/vcache, etc... then it's
obvious that WinME can't do what it was expected to do.

It basically irks me that WinME is so tempermental with more than 512ram.
Another problem it seems to have is accepting a new AGP video card that I
researched to be WinME compatible. I really wanted to increase the video ram
from 64meg to 128meg and obtain dual DVI/VGA output for supporting a future
LCD screen. The card installed OK, but the performance was problematic.
However, Ubuntu had absolutely no problem with it.

Time to say "solong WinME and thanks or all the fishy performance". ).

 

[dlsayremn]

Use a 2001 Gateway w/Win ME and IE6 as a second computer. Email, surf if
someone on main, games that won't play on Vista, etc..
It is slow, but most of my problems are with MS sites. Took about six tries
w/reboot to reply to this message.
It feels that MS has not only stopped supporting older systems, but is
making it harder for them to interface with MS sites.
Presently have comps with Vista, XP sp2, ME, and 98 in house. All are up to
date with last downloads for each system, but both 98 and ME have problems
with MS sites since the sites have been updated.

"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]

"Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message
news:eGaRnYccIHA.4144@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> webster72n wrote:
> || 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.
>
>
> I've TweakUI'd and Repair IE'd quite a bit over the years. I've come to
the
> conclusion that if the only way to stabilize WinME is by turning features
> off, and imposing other restrictions such as ram/vcache, etc... then it's
> obvious that WinME can't do what it was expected to do.
>
> It basically irks me that WinME is so tempermental with more than 512ram.
> Another problem it seems to have is accepting a new AGP video card that I
> researched to be WinME compatible. I really wanted to increase the video
ram
> from 64meg to 128meg and obtain dual DVI/VGA output for supporting a
future
> LCD screen. The card installed OK, but the performance was problematic.
> However, Ubuntu had absolutely no problem with it.
>
> Time to say "solong WinME and thanks or all the fishy performance". ).

I've tried to "interview" Ubuntu, but my bios refused to cooperate, to the
dismay of Alias, who blamed it on me. If I would want to install Ubuntu or
any other Linux system, I will have to have a newer motherboard or a new
machine.
For that reason I am hanging on to my present setup with ME, since it
fullfills my needs for the time being and with the least amount of trouble
(none of the stuff you are talking about).
You mentioned ME being temperamental when using more than 512 MB's of Ram,
that's only normal, because it's the limit.
All in all, I'm still having fun with WinME.
C U later....

Harry.

>
>

 

[Mike M]

> I've TweakUI'd and Repair IE'd quite a bit over the years. I've come
> to the conclusion that if the only way to stabilize WinME is by
> turning features off, and imposing other restrictions such as
> ram/vcache, etc... then it's obvious that WinME can't do what it was
> expected to do.

I'm sorry but that's absolute rubbish and I'm surprised that you make such
a statement. Take RAM for example, Systems simply didn't have 1 or 2GB of
RAM when Win Me was developed in 1999. During testing I was running with
384MB of RAM and that put my PC in the top 1% of machines being used for
testing. The same can also be said for hard drives and their capacity
where anything over 32GB was considered big. Even XP released in 2001
didn't support drives larger than 137GB until SP1 and then badly with the
problems being ironed out for SP2 released in late 2004. Processors much
the same, 400MHz was around the fastest processors in use at the time.
Faster processors need new bioses and microcode and Win Me in common with
Win 98SE was never updated for such cpus.

Win Me continues to do exactly what it was designed to do, that is to run
pretty well on hardware common in the domestic environment in 2000 so I'm
sorry to say your statement that Win Me "can't do what it was expected to
do" has little or no relation to reality.

Nevertheless it is now 2008 and unless one is still running late last
century hardware or has a specific task that requires a Win 9x platform
then it is time to move on and has been for the last three years or so.
As for the best platform for your needs, that's for you to choose.

> "..thanks or all the fishy performance".

Shame you didn't fix your problems years ago, others did. <g>
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com



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

> I've TweakUI'd and Repair IE'd quite a bit over the years. I've come
> to the conclusion that if the only way to stabilize WinME is by
> turning features off, and imposing other restrictions such as
> ram/vcache, etc... then it's obvious that WinME can't do what it was
> expected to do.
> It basically irks me that WinME is so tempermental with more than
> 512ram. Another problem it seems to have is accepting a new AGP video
> card that I researched to be WinME compatible. I really wanted to
> increase the video ram from 64meg to 128meg and obtain dual DVI/VGA
> output for supporting a future LCD screen. The card installed OK,
> but the performance was problematic. However, Ubuntu had absolutely
> no problem with it.
> Time to say "solong WinME and thanks or all the fishy performance". ).

 

[Mike M]

> It feels that MS has not only stopped supporting older systems, but is
> making it harder for them to interface with MS sites.

If on the other hand you were to use a news client to post to this
newsgroup you would have no problems. Your posting problem is down to
attempting to use Microsoft's poor web interface to these newsgroups which
is equally poor regardless of the operating system used by the user.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


dlsayremn <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> Use a 2001 Gateway w/Win ME and IE6 as a second computer. Email, surf
> if someone on main, games that won't play on Vista, etc..
> It is slow, but most of my problems are with MS sites. Took about six
> tries w/reboot to reply to this message.
> It feels that MS has not only stopped supporting older systems, but is
> making it harder for them to interface with MS sites.
> Presently have comps with Vista, XP sp2, ME, and 98 in house. All are
> up to date with last downloads for each system, but both 98 and ME
> have problems with MS sites since the sites have been updated.

 

[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.
>
>
> || 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.

Yea, I used ME through it's entire supported lifecycle anbd got my use
out of it. It's definitely not mandatory to all get the new whatever
that comes out in life, but just do what works for you.

 

[squirltok@yahoo.com]

Mike M wrote:
> 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
>
It's definitely a good option for anybody and even everybody to create
and use at least another drive. Keeping up on defrag and scandisk this
way you can have a pretty lean fast system using a small amount of
space with ME.

Because when windows fragments I believe the fragments end up here
there and everywhere on the drive.
--
I put in 318 MB of ram into my WinME box from 64MBs and it it really
woke up and defrag worked waay faster

I liked ME cause it was just simply an operating system that did what
I told it to. Sure I had problems but it served me well. Me
personally, the reason I bring up the PCLInux and Linux in general is
that it was like the upgrade that woke up my computer all over again.
I have a far newer one that has XP and a Linux on it but
I don't really use it very much.

 

[squirltok@yahoo.com]

webster72n wrote:
> "Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message
> news:eGaRnYccIHA.4144@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > webster72n wrote:
> > || 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.
> >
> >
> > I've TweakUI'd and Repair IE'd quite a bit over the years. I've come to
> the
> > conclusion that if the only way to stabilize WinME is by turning features
> > off, and imposing other restrictions such as ram/vcache, etc... then it's
> > obvious that WinME can't do what it was expected to do.
> >
> > It basically irks me that WinME is so tempermental with more than 512ram.
> > Another problem it seems to have is accepting a new AGP video card that I
> > researched to be WinME compatible. I really wanted to increase the video
> ram
> > from 64meg to 128meg and obtain dual DVI/VGA output for supporting a
> future
> > LCD screen. The card installed OK, but the performance was problematic.
> > However, Ubuntu had absolutely no problem with it.
> >
> > Time to say "solong WinME and thanks or all the fishy performance". ).
>
> I've tried to "interview" Ubuntu, but my bios refused to cooperate, to the
> dismay of Alias, who blamed it on me. If I would want to install Ubuntu or
> any other Linux system, I will have to have a newer motherboard or a new
> machine.

Well, that's not necessarily true, Linux has been around for a long
while and many distributions will accommodate all kinds of older
systems. The name Linux is kind of generic when it comes to what
the distributions can accomplish and or designed to accomplish. I
personally wouldn't recommend
Ubuntu as the first choice for Linux to anybody, even if I figured it
would probably work well for them.

As far as a new motherboard goes, wow, I recently 'nearly' got a new
one but luckily with a chain of benign events, I realized that could
have been kind of more than an annoyance that it would have been worth
for
me.

For what it's worth I live near a microcenter computer store and they
often have motherboard CPU combos
for less than $80.00, I hope that within a few months to build a new
system.

 

[Ogg]

Mike M wrote:
|| I'm sorry but that's absolute rubbish and I'm surprised that you
|| make such a statement. Take RAM for example, Systems simply didn't
|| have 1 or 2GB of RAM when Win Me was developed in 1999..

Review your research. I purchased a 1gig-capable 1ghz pc in 1999. The
basic purchase configuration was 128meg ram. I requested a total of 256meg
(with one module) which raised the price by atleast $200 at the time. And
THAT configuration was on its way out of the market already. Granted..
WinME was on its way out of the market by then as well, replaced by XP. But
I decided to stay with the pre-built WinME pc because the price was about
half of a XP system at the time.


|| ....The same can also be
|| said for hard drives and their capacity where anything over 32GB was
|| considered big.

My pc had 40gig. 40giggers were quite readily available. Yes.. I thought
that would be plenty at the time.


|| .. Processors much the same,
|| 400MHz was around the fastest processors in use at the time.

You have your dates mixed up. 1gHz CPUs were very common in 1999/2000.


|| Win Me continues to do exactly what it was designed to do, that is
|| to run pretty well on hardware common in the domestic environment in
|| 2000..

If you have to disable features in an OS to reach an acceptable level of
performance, then the OS was designed poorly and could NOT do was it was
expected to do with all those features.


||| "so long WinME and thanks or all the fishy performance".
||
|| Shame you didn't fix your problems years ago, others did. <g>


My first 2 years of usung WinME were hell. Then I discovered this ng and a
couple of other fine WinME support forums. I received a lot of helpful hints
and tips from the folks here, including you. Then the next 4 years of using
WinME went fairly smoothly. But the common concensus was to disable a pile
of WinME features, reduce settings, and even delete certain WinME components
such as PCHealth. I did all that. WinME was "usable" again. But there
still existed the strange way that the Explore process would refresh the
desktop and jumble the icons, and the occasional lock-up when the pc was
just sitting idle! I tolerated most of that rather well. Recently, in the
last 2 years since I added 512meg more ram and did some more WinME "fixes",
the performance has not been good. The whole idea with adding more ram was
so that I could have more windows open and switch between 3 or 4 apps.
That's not an extraordinary expectation. With the ram upgrade, WinME has
trouble managing more windows.

I don't want to downgrade my existing hardware, and I don't want to waste
any more $'s on new stuff, OS nor HW. I want to keep the total 756meg of
ram. I want to re-install my new/old 128meg AGP with dual VGA/DVI and TV
Out ports. It's all brand-new WinME-ready hardware from 2000. There is
nothing wrong with the hardware.

Unlike you, my computing needs have grown a little bit. I can't stay with
WinME if it can't support a basic hardware upgrade from its own era. From
my exposure to the various Linuxes, the change will be a kind of breath of
fresh air as well.

 

[Mike M]

Review your dates. Win Me wasn't even released until June 2000. My cpu
comments were out by about a year.

> You have your dates mixed up. 1gHz CPUs were very common in
> 1999/2000.

Simply not true. The first 1GHz cpus were not released until May 2000.

Pentium IIIs Slot I Katami's were first available in May 1999 with a
600MHz version being released in August 1999. These were replaced by
Coppermines using socket 370 in October 1999 with a 1 GHz version released
in May 2000 so yes, this would have been at the same time that Win Me was
released but to say that they were common in 1999 is false and not true
either of 2000 other than for top of the range systems. Tulatins ranging
from 1GHz to 1.4GHz were first released during 2001.

> And THAT configuration was on its way out of the market already.

Simply untrue..

> Unlike you, my computing needs have grown a little bit.

Oh dear. Such complete and total ignorance and perhaps sum up your post.
You have absolutely no idea about my computing needs let alone the
hardware and operating systems that I am running. I haven't used Win Me
other than in a support role since September 2000 when I first started
running XP although I do still have a Celeron 333MHz with 256MB that ran
flawlessly for years and was used by my family. Much of my Win Me support
is by running Win Me in a virtual machine.

> From my exposure to the various Linuxes, the change will be a
> kind of breath of fresh air as well

Some might say the same would be true if you and perhaps myself were to
cease posting to this newsgroup.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


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

> Mike M wrote:
>>> I'm sorry but that's absolute rubbish and I'm surprised that you
>>> make such a statement. Take RAM for example, Systems simply didn't
>>> have 1 or 2GB of RAM when Win Me was developed in 1999..
>
> Review your research. I purchased a 1gig-capable 1ghz pc in 1999. The
> basic purchase configuration was 128meg ram. I requested a total
> of 256meg (with one module) which raised the price by atleast $200 at
> the time. And THAT configuration was on its way out of the market
> already. Granted.. WinME was on its way out of the market by then as
> well, replaced by XP. But I decided to stay with the pre-built WinME
> pc because the price was about half of a XP system at the time.
>
>
>>> ....The same can also be
>>> said for hard drives and their capacity where anything over 32GB was
>>> considered big.
>
> My pc had 40gig. 40giggers were quite readily available. Yes.. I
> thought that would be plenty at the time.
>
>
>>> .. Processors much the same,
>>> 400MHz was around the fastest processors in use at the time.
>
> You have your dates mixed up. 1gHz CPUs were very common in
> 1999/2000.
>
>>> Win Me continues to do exactly what it was designed to do, that is
>>> to run pretty well on hardware common in the domestic environment in
>>> 2000..
>
> If you have to disable features in an OS to reach an acceptable level
> of performance, then the OS was designed poorly and could NOT do was
> it was expected to do with all those features.
>
>
>>>> "so long WinME and thanks or all the fishy performance".
>>>
>>> Shame you didn't fix your problems years ago, others did. <g>
>
>
> My first 2 years of usung WinME were hell. Then I discovered this ng
> and a couple of other fine WinME support forums. I received a lot of
> helpful hints and tips from the folks here, including you. Then the
> next 4 years of using WinME went fairly smoothly. But the common
> concensus was to disable a pile of WinME features, reduce settings,
> and even delete certain WinME components such as PCHealth. I did
> all that. WinME was "usable" again. But there still existed the
> strange way that the Explore process would refresh the desktop and
> jumble the icons, and the occasional lock-up when the pc was just
> sitting idle! I tolerated most of that rather well. Recently, in the
> last 2 years since I added 512meg more ram and did some more WinME
> "fixes", the performance has not been good. The whole idea with
> adding more ram was so that I could have more windows open and switch
> between 3 or 4 apps. That's not an extraordinary expectation. With
> the ram upgrade, WinME has trouble managing more windows.
> I don't want to downgrade my existing hardware, and I don't want to
> waste any more $'s on new stuff, OS nor HW. I want to keep the total
> 756meg of ram. I want to re-install my new/old 128meg AGP with dual
> VGA/DVI and TV Out ports. It's all brand-new WinME-ready hardware
> from 2000. There is nothing wrong with the hardware.
>
> Unlike you, my computing needs have grown a little bit. I can't stay
> with WinME if it can't support a basic hardware upgrade from its own
> era. From my exposure to the various Linuxes, the change will be a
> kind of breath of fresh air as well.

 

[webster72n]

<squirltok@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7f36b403-3854-44ee-bb65-031782cc73c8@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> webster72n wrote:
> > "Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message
> > news:eGaRnYccIHA.4144@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > > webster72n wrote:
> > > || 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > I've TweakUI'd and Repair IE'd quite a bit over the years. I've come
to
> > the
> > > conclusion that if the only way to stabilize WinME is by turning
features
> > > off, and imposing other restrictions such as ram/vcache, etc... then
it's
> > > obvious that WinME can't do what it was expected to do.
> > >
> > > It basically irks me that WinME is so tempermental with more than
512ram.
> > > Another problem it seems to have is accepting a new AGP video card
that I
> > > researched to be WinME compatible. I really wanted to increase the
video
> > ram
> > > from 64meg to 128meg and obtain dual DVI/VGA output for supporting a
> > future
> > > LCD screen. The card installed OK, but the performance was
problematic.
> > > However, Ubuntu had absolutely no problem with it.
> > >
> > > Time to say "solong WinME and thanks or all the fishy performance".
).
> >
> > I've tried to "interview" Ubuntu, but my bios refused to cooperate, to
the
> > dismay of Alias, who blamed it on me. If I would want to install Ubuntu
or
> > any other Linux system, I will have to have a newer motherboard or a new
> > machine.
>
> Well, that's not necessarily true, Linux has been around for a long
> while and many distributions will accommodate all kinds of older
> systems. The name Linux is kind of generic when it comes to what
> the distributions can accomplish and or designed to accomplish. I
> personally wouldn't recommend
> Ubuntu as the first choice for Linux to anybody, even if I figured it
> would probably work well for them.
>
> As far as a new motherboard goes, wow, I recently 'nearly' got a new
> one but luckily with a chain of benign events, I realized that could
> have been kind of more than an annoyance that it would have been worth
> for
> me.
>
> For what it's worth I live near a microcenter computer store and they
> often have motherboard CPU combos
> for less than $80.00, I hope that within a few months to build a new
> system.

Considering our's and Mike's and Ogg's comments, the thought occurs whether
it might not be time to terminate the existence of this NG, but OTOH, who
would want to miss Heirloom and the many others?
I'm not giving up, yet,

Harry.

 

[Ogg]

Mike M wrote:
|| Review your dates. Win Me wasn't even released until June 2000. My
|| cpu comments were out by about a year.


I was out by six months. Reviewing the date of my order, I purchased my
WinME pc in June 2001. But you've missed the whole point of my remarks.
WinME had to be tweaked down and features disabled inorder to work with the
year 2000 hardware. If you're suggesting that WinME was not designed to
work with CPUs and hardware newly released in 2000, then I will accept that.

This ng has probably outgrown its usefulness, and no "new" users are using
WinMe anymore. I only stuck around incase someone still needed a WinMe tip
or some help based on a real system, not a virtualized one.

 

[EW]

On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, "webster72n" <webster...@gmail.com> 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.
ETC.....................................

Totally agree. Windows ME gets many bad raps for no good reason. I
have it running on 3 of my 6 systems and it keeps hanging in there. I
even use it on a very old vintage Pentium at 133 MHz.

My ME systems are also very stable, unlike the negative reviews from
others. What are they doing on their ME systems??!

I also use Win ME on a Virtual PC, try to break it, but it keeps
withstanding my attempts. Just lucky, I guess.

EW

 

[MrTom]

webster72n wrote:
> Considering our's and Mike's and Ogg's comments, the thought occurs
whether
> it might not be time to terminate the existence of this NG, but OTOH, who
> would want to miss Heirloom and the many others?
> I'm not giving up, yet,
>
> Harry.
>
>

Terminate this newsgroup? No way.

Tom

 

[squirltok@yahoo.com]

webster72n wrote:
> <squirltok@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7f36b403-3854-44ee-bb65-031782cc73c8@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > webster72n wrote:
> > > "Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message
> > > news:eGaRnYccIHA.4144@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > > > webster72n wrote:
> > > > || 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've TweakUI'd and Repair IE'd quite a bit over the years. I've come
> to
> > > the
> > > > conclusion that if the only way to stabilize WinME is by turning
> features
> > > > off, and imposing other restrictions such as ram/vcache, etc... then
> it's
> > > > obvious that WinME can't do what it was expected to do.
> > > >
> > > > It basically irks me that WinME is so tempermental with more than
> 512ram.
> > > > Another problem it seems to have is accepting a new AGP video card
> that I
> > > > researched to be WinME compatible. I really wanted to increase the
> video
> > > ram
> > > > from 64meg to 128meg and obtain dual DVI/VGA output for supporting a
> > > future
> > > > LCD screen. The card installed OK, but the performance was
> problematic.
> > > > However, Ubuntu had absolutely no problem with it.
> > > >
> > > > Time to say "solong WinME and thanks or all the fishy performance".
> ).
> > >
> > > I've tried to "interview" Ubuntu, but my bios refused to cooperate, to
> the
> > > dismay of Alias, who blamed it on me. If I would want to install Ubuntu
> or
> > > any other Linux system, I will have to have a newer motherboard or a new
> > > machine.
> >
> > Well, that's not necessarily true, Linux has been around for a long
> > while and many distributions will accommodate all kinds of older
> > systems. The name Linux is kind of generic when it comes to what
> > the distributions can accomplish and or designed to accomplish. I
> > personally wouldn't recommend
> > Ubuntu as the first choice for Linux to anybody, even if I figured it
> > would probably work well for them.
> >
> > As far as a new motherboard goes, wow, I recently 'nearly' got a new
> > one but luckily with a chain of benign events, I realized that could
> > have been kind of more than an annoyance that it would have been worth
> > for
> > me.
> >
> > For what it's worth I live near a microcenter computer store and they
> > often have motherboard CPU combos
> > for less than $80.00, I hope that within a few months to build a new
> > system.
>
> Considering our's and Mike's and Ogg's comments, the thought occurs whether
> it might not be time to terminate the existence of this NG, but OTOH, who
> would want to miss Heirloom and the many others?
> I'm not giving up, yet,
>
> Harry.

Heck no, this group lets me see some normalcy in life. Me personally I
bitch and whine all the time
and I like seeing simple discussions and good ol simple nice comments
like the folks here tend to
make.

 

[webster72n]

"EW" <EW1947@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d957f4f-ad71-4647-9063-1b422b471640@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, "webster72n" <webster...@gmail.com> 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.
ETC.....................................

Totally agree. Windows ME gets many bad raps for no good reason. I
have it running on 3 of my 6 systems and it keeps hanging in there. I
even use it on a very old vintage Pentium at 133 MHz.

My ME systems are also very stable, unlike the negative reviews from
others. What are they doing on their ME systems??!

I also use Win ME on a Virtual PC, try to break it, but it keeps
withstanding my attempts. Just lucky, I guess.

Don't consider it luck, EW, that's proper handling and pure skill.
Your comments are quite refreshing and just what we needed.
Thank you. <H>.

EW

 

[Joan Archer]

I don't think so, I still have a WinME system here that is running with no
problems at the moment but that doesn't mean I wont have any and you try
going into an XP group and ask about it, I don't think so. <g> And mine is
an actually system on my network not a virtual one <g>

Anyway what's wrong with it still going, at least you can get sensible
answers to questions here from knowledgeable people, unlike some of the
other ng's around <g>


"Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message
news:OY2OZplcIHA.6080@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> This ng has probably outgrown its usefulness, and no "new" users are using
> WinMe anymore. I only stuck around incase someone still needed a WinMe
> tip or some help based on a real system, not a virtualized one.
>
>
>

 

[Mike M]

> But you've missed the whole point of my remarks.

Not at all. You made yourself perfectly clear demonstrating your failure
to understand much of what you were complaining about.

> I only stuck around incase someone still needed
> a WinMe tip or some help based on a real system, not a virtualized
> one.

As I stated I still have a Celeron 333MHz with 256MB that ran (Win Me)
flawlessly for years and is still available to me when required. However
I rarely nowadays need to fire up Win Me, real or virtual, to answer
queries posted in this NG.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


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

> Mike M wrote:
>>> Review your dates. Win Me wasn't even released until June 2000. My
>>> cpu comments were out by about a year.
>
>
> I was out by six months. Reviewing the date of my order, I purchased
> my WinME pc in June 2001. But you've missed the whole point of my
> remarks. WinME had to be tweaked down and features disabled inorder
> to work with the year 2000 hardware. If you're suggesting that WinME
> was not designed to work with CPUs and hardware newly released in
> 2000, then I will accept that.
> This ng has probably outgrown its usefulness, and no "new" users are
> using WinMe anymore. I only stuck around incase someone still needed
> a WinMe tip or some help based on a real system, not a virtualized
> one.

 

[Ogg]

Mike M wrote:
>> But you've missed the whole point of my remarks.
>
> Not at all. You made yourself perfectly clear demonstrating your
> failure to understand much of what you were complaining about.

It's your perogative to remain stubborn and to refuse to recognize the
truth. But that doesn't bother me.


> As I stated I still have a Celeron 333MHz with 256MB that ran (Win Me)
> flawlessly for years and is still available to me when required.
> However I rarely nowadays need to fire up Win Me, real or virtual, to
> answer queries posted in this NG.

I remember all that, Mike. However your WinME senario is not real-world,
and not using the latest updates of any other Win app. That is precisely
the difference between your seldom used outdated program/OS environment and
my currently updated-with-many-apps and in-use system. We're not comparing
equal WinME systems at all. If I had to only fire up my system for a few
minutes and run an app and then shut down, I am sure my system would appear
to be just as "reliable" as yours. Unlike you, I *do* still rely on my ME
system daily for more than 12 hours at a stretch.

I believe we can rest this discussion.

 

[webster72n]

"Ogg" <sorry-nopam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message
news:OaVVknzcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Mike M wrote:
> >> But you've missed the whole point of my remarks.
> >
> > Not at all. You made yourself perfectly clear demonstrating your
> > failure to understand much of what you were complaining about.
>
> It's your perogative to remain stubborn and to refuse to recognize the
> truth. But that doesn't bother me.
>
>
> > As I stated I still have a Celeron 333MHz with 256MB that ran (Win Me)
> > flawlessly for years and is still available to me when required.
> > However I rarely nowadays need to fire up Win Me, real or virtual, to
> > answer queries posted in this NG.
>
> I remember all that, Mike. However your WinME senario is not real-world,
> and not using the latest updates of any other Win app. That is precisely
> the difference between your seldom used outdated program/OS environment
and
> my currently updated-with-many-apps and in-use system. We're not
comparing
> equal WinME systems at all. If I had to only fire up my system for a few
> minutes and run an app and then shut down, I am sure my system would
appear
> to be just as "reliable" as yours. Unlike you, I *do* still rely on my ME
> system daily for more than 12 hours at a stretch.

All the more reason to keep this group alive, don't you think?
There isn't much advantage in arguing about "non-essential" details. <H>.

>
> I believe we can rest this discussion.
>
>