Anyone like Me?

[cool_boy]

Since here is the Windows Me user board, Iw ant to ask you something. Do you
like Me? Because I like it. No matter what they say about it. It ran on a
1996 PC, designed for Windows 95. And it ran better than Windows 98. The
only problem was with Windows Media Player and Movie Maker, caused by not
enough memory or something like that, but that was OK, since the machine was
older even then. I don't hate Windows Me, I even like it, no matter that it
is the most hated Windows OS ever. I actually have seen more problems in XP
Home than in Me. XP Pro> XP Home. XP Home is worse thgan Me in my opinion,
whether XP Pro is better, but I just never got to like Windows XP.

 

[George Gee]

I think you're preaching to the converted here!
Most of the viewers here are diehard ME fans.

The majority of us upgraded to XP many years ago,
simply because most of the software we wished to use
would not run on ME.

As much as I like ME, I can't keep an outdated OS
running for sentimental reasons!

I still have my ME box, it's not been switched on since
November 2005.

George Gee


"cool_boy" <lilisot1@abv.bg> wrote in message
news:ej3Ak8HoIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Since here is the Windows Me user board, Iw ant to ask you something. Do
> you like Me? Because I like it. No matter what they say about it. It ran
> on a 1996 PC, designed for Windows 95. And it ran better than Windows 98.
> The only problem was with Windows Media Player and Movie Maker, caused by
> not enough memory or something like that, but that was OK, since the
> machine was older even then. I don't hate Windows Me, I even like it, no
> matter that it is the most hated Windows OS ever. I actually have seen
> more problems in XP Home than in Me. XP Pro> XP Home. XP Home is worse
> thgan Me in my opinion, whether XP Pro is better, but I just never got to
> like Windows XP.
>

 

[Joan Archer]

Mine gets switched on more than that George, but not as much since Kelly
left home but it was handy when John had problems with his machine, at least
he could still get internet access.
I don't allow anyone on mine <g>
Joan
--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

"George Gee" <georgegee@nomaps.com> wrote in message
news:ut3YBJJoIHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> I think you're preaching to the converted here!
> Most of the viewers here are diehard ME fans.
>
> The majority of us upgraded to XP many years ago,
> simply because most of the software we wished to use
> would not run on ME.
>
> As much as I like ME, I can't keep an outdated OS
> running for sentimental reasons!
>
> I still have my ME box, it's not been switched on since
> November 2005.
>
> George Gee

 

[webster72n]

I have no problems whatsoever using WinME fulltime, which of course is
somewhat restricted, considering my personal circumstances. It more than
satisfies my needs for the time being and as long as it has broader support.
Eventually we all have to move up a notch to keep up with the times.
In 3 words: "I like it".

Harry.


"cool_boy" <lilisot1@abv.bg> wrote in message
news:ej3Ak8HoIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Since here is the Windows Me user board, Iw ant to ask you something. Do
you
> like Me? Because I like it. No matter what they say about it. It ran on a
> 1996 PC, designed for Windows 95. And it ran better than Windows 98. The
> only problem was with Windows Media Player and Movie Maker, caused by not
> enough memory or something like that, but that was OK, since the machine
was
> older even then. I don't hate Windows Me, I even like it, no matter that
it
> is the most hated Windows OS ever. I actually have seen more problems in
XP
> Home than in Me. XP Pro> XP Home. XP Home is worse thgan Me in my opinion,
> whether XP Pro is better, but I just never got to like Windows XP.
>
>

 

[roman modic]

Hello!

"cool_boy" <lilisot1@abv.bg> wrote in message news:ej3Ak8HoIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Since here is the Windows Me user board, Iw ant to ask you something. Do you like Me? Because I like it. No matter what they say
> about it. It ran on a 1996 PC, designed for Windows 95. And it ran better than Windows 98. The

Respect "Windows ME"!

http://www.istartedsomething.com/20080318/windows-me-deserve-more-respect/

At a time where there was still a separation between consumer and enterprise
operating systems, Windows Me was at the top of its class.
....
In spite of this and more, people continue to draw comparisons between Windows
Vista and Windows Me as if it were as hip as writing Microsoft with a dollar sign in
the late 90s.

I don't think this is fair at all. If anything, it means Vista has a bunch of new and
improved features that we won't realize the full potential of till a couple more
Windows releases down the road. But that doesn't mean it's destined to a be a 'failure'.

What's more, Windows 98 Second Edition was released on May 5, 1999 and Windows
XP on October 25, 2001. Between the two, Windows Me was released on
September 14, 2000, giving it the shortest Windows lifespan of only 406 days. Taking
into account consumer purchasing life-cycles and other factors, what's left is only a
couple of days of fame. Any product preceded and superseded that quickly would have
suffered the same fate.

http://www.osnews.com/comments/19491
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=41916
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/03/19/in-defense-of-windows-me-no-seriously/
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/03/18/why-windows-me-deserves-more-respect

Roman

 

[Greegor]

My main computer for everyday Internet access:

E-Machines EMonster 600 MHz Pentium III
Memory 128 MB 8 Gig HD (4 Gig is enough)
Win ME IE 6.0.2800.1106 Unofficial ME Service Pack
AVG 7.5.524 Free Edition Spybot S&D 1.5.2.20
Tiny Personal Firewall 2.09 Driver 2.08
Primary word processor is Wordpad
(included on 98SE and ME install options)

Open Office freeware

Quicktime 6.5.1
Winamp 2.91 (From an old AOL CD)

Have to reboot about twice per day due to
Windows ME memory leak (only 128M RAM!)

This computer, like many others, used
an Intel I/O chipset that was put in
thousands of computers of all makes
before it was discovered to be flawed
and unable to handle DMA access
of hard disks and CDROM correctly.

I think it has some of the notorious bad
capacitors which crept into almost
every brand of computer made during that era.
http://www.badcaps.net/ident/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague

 

[LoneStar]

"cool_boy" <lilisot1@abv.bg> wrote in message
news:ej3Ak8HoIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Since here is the Windows Me user board, Iw ant to ask you something. Do
you
> like Me? ......................

I think ME is grand. I have three computers running it, including a very
old 133 MHz Micron, and it works SO well. My XP computers and a Dell Vista
are fine too, but ME is right there with them.

I've heard many elitists trash ME for strange reasons. I even have ME as a
virtual PC on my XP systems whenever I wish to run legacy programs.

EW

 

[N. Miller]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:35:25 +0300, cool_boy wrote:

> Since here is the Windows Me user board, Iw ant to ask you something. Do you
> like Me? Because I like it. No matter what they say about it. It ran on a
> 1996 PC, designed for Windows 95. And it ran better than Windows 98.

I found that Windows 98 would quit when free resources fell below 30%, but
Window Me could be recovered, about half of the time, if you caught it while
free resources were 10%, or more. In that respect, I considered Windows Me a
better OS than Windows 98.

> The only problem was with Windows Media Player and Movie Maker, caused by not
> enough memory or something like that, but that was OK, since the machine was
> older even then. I don't hate Windows Me, I even like it, no matter that it
> is the most hated Windows OS ever. I actually have seen more problems in XP
> Home than in Me. XP Pro> XP Home. XP Home is worse thgan Me in my opinion,
> whether XP Pro is better, but I just never got to like Windows XP.

Windows Me is a "day computer". If you shut it down at the end of the day,
it would start up fine the next time you ran it. Alas, when I replaced the
old HP Pavilion 6745C (Windows Me) with a new HP Pavilion m7590n, (Windows
MCE 2005), and relegated the old computer to running an MTA (Mercury/32), I
found out that Windows Me does not work well in the long haul. If it runs
longer than two days, free resources drop below 10%, and at that level, even
Windos Me falls over irrecoverably. Windows MCE 2005 (which is basically
Windows XP Pro with Media Center applications, and no Windows Domain
capability) can run 24/7.

It is my intent, so long as I am using that aging Pavilion as a mail server,
to either upgrade it to Windows XP Home edition (so I can continue to run
Mercury/32), or, maybe Linus (so I can run a Linux-based mail server).

My use of that old mule is taxing it severely.

--
Norman
~Shine, bright morning light,
~now in the air the spring is coming.
~Sweet, blowing wind,
~singing down the hills and valleys.

 

[Corday]

I'm the I.T. guy in my house. My wife uses Vista and I get by with ME.
Frankly, it's the operator, not the system that results in who's having
"problems". Anyone still on ME should put in as much RAM as possible. Don't
overclock and operate in less than 80F and your good to go for another 5
years.
--
Corday


"N. Miller" wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:35:25 +0300, cool_boy wrote:
>
> > Since here is the Windows Me user board, Iw ant to ask you something. Do you
> > like Me? Because I like it. No matter what they say about it. It ran on a
> > 1996 PC, designed for Windows 95. And it ran better than Windows 98.
>
> I found that Windows 98 would quit when free resources fell below 30%, but
> Window Me could be recovered, about half of the time, if you caught it while
> free resources were 10%, or more. In that respect, I considered Windows Me a
> better OS than Windows 98.
>
> > The only problem was with Windows Media Player and Movie Maker, caused by not
> > enough memory or something like that, but that was OK, since the machine was
> > older even then. I don't hate Windows Me, I even like it, no matter that it
> > is the most hated Windows OS ever. I actually have seen more problems in XP
> > Home than in Me. XP Pro> XP Home. XP Home is worse thgan Me in my opinion,
> > whether XP Pro is better, but I just never got to like Windows XP.
>
> Windows Me is a "day computer". If you shut it down at the end of the day,
> it would start up fine the next time you ran it. Alas, when I replaced the
> old HP Pavilion 6745C (Windows Me) with a new HP Pavilion m7590n, (Windows
> MCE 2005), and relegated the old computer to running an MTA (Mercury/32), I
> found out that Windows Me does not work well in the long haul. If it runs
> longer than two days, free resources drop below 10%, and at that level, even
> Windos Me falls over irrecoverably. Windows MCE 2005 (which is basically
> Windows XP Pro with Media Center applications, and no Windows Domain
> capability) can run 24/7.
>
> It is my intent, so long as I am using that aging Pavilion as a mail server,
> to either upgrade it to Windows XP Home edition (so I can continue to run
> Mercury/32), or, maybe Linus (so I can run a Linux-based mail server).
>
> My use of that old mule is taxing it severely.
>
> --
> Norman
> ~Shine, bright morning light,
> ~now in the air the spring is coming.
> ~Sweet, blowing wind,
> ~singing down the hills and valleys.
>

 

[N. Miller]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:47:00 -0700, Corday wrote:

> I'm the I.T. guy in my house. My wife uses Vista and I get by with ME.
> Frankly, it's the operator, not the system that results in who's having
> "problems". Anyone still on ME should put in as much RAM as possible. Don't
> overclock and operate in less than 80F and your good to go for another 5
> years.

System resources are independent of system RAM. On my ancient HP Pavilion
6745C, Windows Me starts just fine. Mercury/32 loads just fine. It runs just
fine at the ambient temperatures in a garage attached to a residential
premises in a suburban neighborhood just fine. Until it has run for 48
hours, or more, without a proper shutdown. When I was running with it as my
main computer, I usually shut it down for the night. Using it in that
manner, I had so few problems, I wondered why people hated it so.

I now run it 24x7 as a server and it is just not up to the stress. I am
convinced that it is an OS issue because it reports running low on system
resources. Not system RAM, but the 64kB User GDI stuff. When those drop
below 9%, even Windows Me is irrecoverable, except by power cycle.

That is an OS limitation. The only operator issue that I can see is that the
operator is trying to run the OS in a mode which it can't handle. If I were
to only turn it on for an hour, or so, of playing legacy games, I am certain
it would run fine, thus, for not five, but ten years, or more or until the
hardware failed. Whichever happened first. However, my intent is to run an
MTA on this system. The MTA is not a bloated bit of code, but runs lean and
mean for as long as the OS is up.

As a single-user, single-task system, Windows Me is as good as any OS MSFT
has ever shipped, and better than many. As a server, that HP Pavilion needs
a more robust OS than Windows Me has proved to be.

--
Norman
~Shine, bright morning light,
~now in the air the spring is coming.
~Sweet, blowing wind,
~singing down the hills and valleys.

 

[Mike M]

I used to run my Win Me box for several weeks at a time without problem
however, as you rightly say, once free resources drop below 9% or so it is
difficult to recover without rebooting. This was a box (well still is but
only now run occasionally) where the main applications in use were parts
of Microsoft Office 2000 (mainly Word and Excel), WordPerfect and
PhotoPaint from Corel, IE and Outlook Express 7 and WinAmp. The clue to
keeping Win Me running for protracted periods is to close windows when not
in use rather than minimising them to the task bar. Nevertheless Win Me
does benefit from being regularly rebooted rather than being run for long
periods.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


N. Miller <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:47:00 -0700, Corday wrote:
>
>> I'm the I.T. guy in my house. My wife uses Vista and I get by with
>> ME. Frankly, it's the operator, not the system that results in who's
>> having "problems". Anyone still on ME should put in as much RAM as
>> possible. Don't overclock and operate in less than 80F and your good
>> to go for another 5 years.
>
> System resources are independent of system RAM. On my ancient HP
> Pavilion 6745C, Windows Me starts just fine. Mercury/32 loads just
> fine. It runs just fine at the ambient temperatures in a garage
> attached to a residential premises in a suburban neighborhood just
> fine. Until it has run for 48 hours, or more, without a proper
> shutdown. When I was running with it as my main computer, I usually
> shut it down for the night. Using it in that manner, I had so few
> problems, I wondered why people hated it so.
>
> I now run it 24x7 as a server and it is just not up to the stress. I
> am convinced that it is an OS issue because it reports running low on
> system resources. Not system RAM, but the 64kB User GDI stuff. When
> those drop below 9%, even Windows Me is irrecoverable, except by
> power cycle.
>
> That is an OS limitation. The only operator issue that I can see is
> that the operator is trying to run the OS in a mode which it can't
> handle. If I were to only turn it on for an hour, or so, of playing
> legacy games, I am certain it would run fine, thus, for not five, but
> ten years, or more or until the hardware failed. Whichever happened
> first. However, my intent is to run an MTA on this system. The MTA is
> not a bloated bit of code, but runs lean and mean for as long as the
> OS is up.
>
> As a single-user, single-task system, Windows Me is as good as any OS
> MSFT has ever shipped, and better than many. As a server, that HP
> Pavilion needs a more robust OS than Windows Me has proved to be.