What is wrong with WinME?

[letterman@invalid.com]

I have been running Win98SE since 1998. I have a WinME Cd. I tried
it in a spare harddrive. I saw no problems with it, but I only played
around with the OS. Never ran any real applications. I have
considered upgrading to WinME many times. I strongly dislike Win2000,
and XP. Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
They say it's buggy.

What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?

Thanks

 

[Mike M]

> What is really wrong with ME?

Simple. It's old and unsupported.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


letterman@invalid.com <letterman@invalid.com> wrote:

> I have been running Win98SE since 1998. I have a WinME Cd. I tried
> it in a spare harddrive. I saw no problems with it, but I only played
> around with the OS. Never ran any real applications. I have
> considered upgrading to WinME many times. I strongly dislike Win2000,
> and XP. Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
> improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
> They say it's buggy.
>
> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
>
> Thanks

 

[Mart]

Letterman asked :-

> What is really wrong with ME?

Nothing!

> Where are the bugs?

There aren't any (other than those inherent in other Win9x OS's).

Many of us in these WinMe Newsgroups have been running WinMe trouble free
(Finger trouble excepted, of course) from its release in June 2000 - and so
long as you look after WinMe, it will look after you!

The *major* upside in WinMe being System Restore - and better USB support.

The downside - like all Win9x OS's - is that it is relatively slow (compared
to say XP) and is now more than 8 years old, unsupported and obsolete.

However as :-
> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.

Then stick with Win98, - but bear in mind that when any Win9x system crashes
(and they do so fairly regularly) it can be a laborious process to reboot
and get going again. XP however is (in my experience) far more tolerant
(very rarely crashes) and recovers instantly on re-boot.

Good luck

Mart


<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:3u0ta4597s1gc5li5edh6gg3i8pdv1mhha@4ax.com...
>I have been running Win98SE since 1998. I have a WinME Cd. I tried
> it in a spare harddrive. I saw no problems with it, but I only played
> around with the OS. Never ran any real applications. I have
> considered upgrading to WinME many times. I strongly dislike Win2000,
> and XP. Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
> improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
> They say it's buggy.
>
> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
>
> Thanks
>

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:59:54 +0100, "Mart"
<mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote:

>Letterman asked :-
>
>> What is really wrong with ME?
>
>Nothing!
>
>> Where are the bugs?
>
>There aren't any (other than those inherent in other Win9x OS's).
>
>Many of us in these WinMe Newsgroups have been running WinMe trouble free
>(Finger trouble excepted, of course) from its release in June 2000 - and so
>long as you look after WinMe, it will look after you!
>
>The *major* upside in WinMe being System Restore - and better USB support.
>
>The downside - like all Win9x OS's - is that it is relatively slow (compared
>to say XP) and is now more than 8 years old, unsupported and obsolete.
>
>However as :-
>> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
>
>Then stick with Win98, - but bear in mind that when any Win9x system crashes
>(and they do so fairly regularly) it can be a laborious process to reboot
>and get going again. XP however is (in my experience) far more tolerant
>(very rarely crashes) and recovers instantly on re-boot.
>
>Good luck
>
>Mart
>
>
><letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:3u0ta4597s1gc5li5edh6gg3i8pdv1mhha@4ax.com...
>>I have been running Win98SE since 1998. I have a WinME Cd. I tried
>> it in a spare harddrive. I saw no problems with it, but I only played
>> around with the OS. Never ran any real applications. I have
>> considered upgrading to WinME many times. I strongly dislike Win2000,
>> and XP. Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
>> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
>> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
>> improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
>> They say it's buggy.
>>
>> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>

I know WinME is obsolete, but so is most everything when it comes to
computers these days. Buy a brand new computer today and it's
obsolete tomorrow. I use what works for me. I am not out to impress
others by using the latest technology. For what I do, I dont need
more power or features.

I asked this question because over the years I have had quite a few
people tell me to avoid WinME. They said it was full of bugs. Yet,
it looks and works darn near the same as Win98. I would upgrade to ME
solely for the better USB support. I was not aware of the better
system restore, but that would be desirable too.

Aside from that, I have never seen why MS even released ME. It's the
same thing as Win98se (unless there are other features I missed).
Yep, I know the defrag is faster, and I presently run ME defrag under
98.

I have never had any major problems with 98. If it got screwed up, it
was generally my fault, or spyware. I go to dos, clean things up, and
it works fine again, with no data loss. I've seen what happens when
XP fails to boot, and that was a total nightmare, ending with all data
lost. I wouldn't touch XP or Vista for any reason.

I do have Win2000 on my laptop. That's ok, I only have it because of
my Wifi card (requires 2k or above). Otherwise, I'd prefer having
Win98 on that puter too.

I dont find 98 to be slow. XP seems much slower. Of course it all
depends on the hardware being used. I think 98 would run faster on my
old laptop, which was designed for 98. This desktop cpmputer came
with 2K installed, but I removed it and installed 98se. 98 runs
faster on here.

Thanks for the advice.

LM

 

[dlsayremn]

As the others have said there is really nothing wrong with ME. Used to have
crashes quite often, but then figured out that they were occuring everytime a
certain AV program updated. Stop using that about 2 years ago. Have had two
crashes since. Both my fault, not the systems.

"letterman@invalid.com" wrote:

> I have been running Win98SE since 1998. I have a WinME Cd. I tried
> it in a spare harddrive. I saw no problems with it, but I only played
> around with the OS. Never ran any real applications. I have
> considered upgrading to WinME many times. I strongly dislike Win2000,
> and XP. Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
> improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
> They say it's buggy.
>
> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
>
> Thanks
>
>

 

[Corday]

It seems you're not "computer depdent" for work and are happy with what you
have. The solution will arrive when a major hardware component "goes" and
you'll be ready to spring for a new unit.
--
I mastered Wordstar graphics!


"letterman@invalid.com" wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:59:54 +0100, "Mart"
> <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
> >Letterman asked :-
> >
> >> What is really wrong with ME?
> >
> >Nothing!
> >
> >> Where are the bugs?
> >
> >There aren't any (other than those inherent in other Win9x OS's).
> >
> >Many of us in these WinMe Newsgroups have been running WinMe trouble free
> >(Finger trouble excepted, of course) from its release in June 2000 - and so
> >long as you look after WinMe, it will look after you!
> >
> >The *major* upside in WinMe being System Restore - and better USB support.
> >
> >The downside - like all Win9x OS's - is that it is relatively slow (compared
> >to say XP) and is now more than 8 years old, unsupported and obsolete.
> >
> >However as :-
> >> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
> >
> >Then stick with Win98, - but bear in mind that when any Win9x system crashes
> >(and they do so fairly regularly) it can be a laborious process to reboot
> >and get going again. XP however is (in my experience) far more tolerant
> >(very rarely crashes) and recovers instantly on re-boot.
> >
> >Good luck
> >
> >Mart
> >
> >
> ><letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
> >news:3u0ta4597s1gc5li5edh6gg3i8pdv1mhha@4ax.com...
> >>I have been running Win98SE since 1998. I have a WinME Cd. I tried
> >> it in a spare harddrive. I saw no problems with it, but I only played
> >> around with the OS. Never ran any real applications. I have
> >> considered upgrading to WinME many times. I strongly dislike Win2000,
> >> and XP. Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
> >> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
> >> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
> >> improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
> >> They say it's buggy.
> >>
> >> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >
>
> I know WinME is obsolete, but so is most everything when it comes to
> computers these days. Buy a brand new computer today and it's
> obsolete tomorrow. I use what works for me. I am not out to impress
> others by using the latest technology. For what I do, I dont need
> more power or features.
>
> I asked this question because over the years I have had quite a few
> people tell me to avoid WinME. They said it was full of bugs. Yet,
> it looks and works darn near the same as Win98. I would upgrade to ME
> solely for the better USB support. I was not aware of the better
> system restore, but that would be desirable too.
>
> Aside from that, I have never seen why MS even released ME. It's the
> same thing as Win98se (unless there are other features I missed).
> Yep, I know the defrag is faster, and I presently run ME defrag under
> 98.
>
> I have never had any major problems with 98. If it got screwed up, it
> was generally my fault, or spyware. I go to dos, clean things up, and
> it works fine again, with no data loss. I've seen what happens when
> XP fails to boot, and that was a total nightmare, ending with all data
> lost. I wouldn't touch XP or Vista for any reason.
>
> I do have Win2000 on my laptop. That's ok, I only have it because of
> my Wifi card (requires 2k or above). Otherwise, I'd prefer having
> Win98 on that puter too.
>
> I dont find 98 to be slow. XP seems much slower. Of course it all
> depends on the hardware being used. I think 98 would run faster on my
> old laptop, which was designed for 98. This desktop cpmputer came
> with 2K installed, but I removed it and installed 98se. 98 runs
> faster on here.
>
> Thanks for the advice.
>
> LM
>

 

[dlsayremn]

Forgot to add, also have two other machines one running 98SE and a new one
with Vista.
Biggest difference between ME and 98SE is USB. ME machine has 5 USB ports
and no PS2. 98SE has only two USB ports. However, using a 4 port I am able to
run Boston USB digital speakers (own power supply), USB keyboard and mouse,
USR USB wireless adaptor, USB camera, and when the Vista is down it is hooked
up to the HP printer. All except the Boston speakers can be hooked up to the
ME and except for the dispals can't tell any difference. Change that, ME may
be faster than 98SE, but has fewer programs.

"letterman@invalid.com" wrote:

> I have been running Win98SE since 1998. I have a WinME Cd. I tried
> it in a spare harddrive. I saw no problems with it, but I only played
> around with the OS. Never ran any real applications. I have
> considered upgrading to WinME many times. I strongly dislike Win2000,
> and XP. Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
> improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
> They say it's buggy.
>
> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
>
> Thanks
>
>

 

[Joan Archer]

I see you've had plenty of answers to this, I still have a WinME machine
here running, granted it's not turned on every day now since my daughter
left at the end of last year.

She used that machine every day did all her school then college work on it
plus lots of photo work, never had any real problems with it and any she did
have were probably down to her.

When my husbands XP machine fell over he used it to keep up with his forums
so I think if you look after it there is nothing wrong with WinME, apart
from being out of support and no more patches for it. <g>

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:3u0ta4597s1gc5li5edh6gg3i8pdv1mhha@4ax.com...
> I have been running Win98SE since 1998. I have a WinME Cd. I tried
> it in a spare harddrive. I saw no problems with it, but I only played
> around with the OS. Never ran any real applications. I have
> considered upgrading to WinME many times. I strongly dislike Win2000,
> and XP. Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
> improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
> They say it's buggy.
>
> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
>
> Thanks
>

 

[LoneStar]

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:3u0ta4597s1gc5li5edh6gg3i8pdv1mhha@4ax.com...
>
> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
>


Adding my words to the crowd, there is NOTHING wrong with Windows ME, other
than the elitists who decry it for a number of irrelevant reasons. True,
Windows ME is unsupported for security patches however, the idiot hackers
are focusing their perversions on Vista, XP, Macs, and even Linux. For good
Internet security, use Firefox with Windows ME and you'll be just fine.

I've got 3 ME systems (along with 2 XPs and 1 Vista) and they are solid as a
rock.

EW

 

[Mart]

Letterman wrote :-

> I am not out to impress
> others by using the latest technology.

I would guess that pretty much applies to most who still run WinMe, but
remember that some hardware like parallel printers for example, are becoming
obsolete and cannot be replaced (sure, they can be replaced by USB kit) but
WinMe - and Win9x - drivers are no longer being written for these items.
However, it is amazing just how you can find a 'work around' when needs
must. I guess another worry for owners of 'old kit' will be availability of
IDE HDD's as they appear to be being phased out - SATA's seem to be taking
over.

> ... over the years I have had quite a few
> people tell me to avoid WinME.
> They said it was full of bugs.

Don't believe everything you hear <g>

> I was not aware of the better
> system restore ..

SR is a quantum leap from scanreg /restore - and sadly, grossly under-sold.
(And it doesn't exclude scanreg /restore in an extreme emergency - the more
tools in the box, the better!!)

> Aside from that, I have never seen
> why MS even released ME

I believe (amongst other things) it was the start to break away from (Real
Mode) DOS and to introduce SR - as a precursor and incorporated in XP and
Vista. 98SE introduced better USB handling than 98 - but this improved with
WinMe.

> ... I've seen what happens when
> XP fails to boot, and that was a total
> nightmare, ending with all data
> lost. I wouldn't touch XP or Vista for any reason.

My own experience of an XP box (catastrophically) failing to boot was when
the HDD died - so can't really blame it on XP. But have to admit that trying
to recover data from an NTFS HDD was "difficult" - Soon learnt to use a
backup regime after that!

> I don't find 98 to be slow, etc., ....

Perhaps I should have qualified that in as much as more recent 'updated'
(bloated) application releases are not particularly Win9x friendly. And I'll
leave you to guess which (of the many) applications I'm referring to. <g>

But by now you will have seen several other views aired in this thread which
hopefully will help dispel any misinformation about WinMe.

BTW - There is an option - if you choose - to be able to restore back to
Win98 if you decide to try the WinMe upgrade and then find that you don't
like it. (N.B. - You shouldn't leave it too long to revert, i.e. don't
install too many extra programs or change too many settings whilst you are
making up your mind - for (fairly) obvious reasons)

Why not give it a try?

Mart



<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:d15ua41el6fn4ch7akp7l8q4o11hfvb5di@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:59:54 +0100, "Mart"
> <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>>Letterman asked :-
>>
>>> What is really wrong with ME?
>>
>>Nothing!
>>
>>> Where are the bugs?
>>
>>There aren't any (other than those inherent in other Win9x OS's).
>>
>>Many of us in these WinMe Newsgroups have been running WinMe trouble free
>>(Finger trouble excepted, of course) from its release in June 2000 - and
>>so
>>long as you look after WinMe, it will look after you!
>>
>>The *major* upside in WinMe being System Restore - and better USB support.
>>
>>The downside - like all Win9x OS's - is that it is relatively slow
>>(compared
>>to say XP) and is now more than 8 years old, unsupported and obsolete.
>>
>>However as :-
>>> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
>>
>>Then stick with Win98, - but bear in mind that when any Win9x system
>>crashes
>>(and they do so fairly regularly) it can be a laborious process to reboot
>>and get going again. XP however is (in my experience) far more tolerant
>>(very rarely crashes) and recovers instantly on re-boot.
>>
>>Good luck
>>
>>Mart
>>
>>
>><letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>news:3u0ta4597s1gc5li5edh6gg3i8pdv1mhha@4ax.com...
>>>I have been running Win98SE since 1998. I have a WinME Cd. I tried
>>> it in a spare harddrive. I saw no problems with it, but I only played
>>> around with the OS. Never ran any real applications. I have
>>> considered upgrading to WinME many times. I strongly dislike Win2000,
>>> and XP. Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
>>> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
>>> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
>>> improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
>>> They say it's buggy.
>>>
>>> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>
>
> I know WinME is obsolete, but so is most everything when it comes to
> computers these days. Buy a brand new computer today and it's
> obsolete tomorrow. I use what works for me. I am not out to impress
> others by using the latest technology. For what I do, I dont need
> more power or features.
>
> I asked this question because over the years I have had quite a few
> people tell me to avoid WinME. They said it was full of bugs. Yet,
> it looks and works darn near the same as Win98. I would upgrade to ME
> solely for the better USB support. I was not aware of the better
> system restore, but that would be desirable too.
>
> Aside from that, I have never seen why MS even released ME. It's the
> same thing as Win98se (unless there are other features I missed).
> Yep, I know the defrag is faster, and I presently run ME defrag under
> 98.
>
> I have never had any major problems with 98. If it got screwed up, it
> was generally my fault, or spyware. I go to dos, clean things up, and
> it works fine again, with no data loss. I've seen what happens when
> XP fails to boot, and that was a total nightmare, ending with all data
> lost. I wouldn't touch XP or Vista for any reason.
>
> I do have Win2000 on my laptop. That's ok, I only have it because of
> my Wifi card (requires 2k or above). Otherwise, I'd prefer having
> Win98 on that puter too.
>
> I dont find 98 to be slow. XP seems much slower. Of course it all
> depends on the hardware being used. I think 98 would run faster on my
> old laptop, which was designed for 98. This desktop cpmputer came
> with 2K installed, but I removed it and installed 98se. 98 runs
> faster on here.
>
> Thanks for the advice.
>
> LM

 

[webster72n]

Now that I find time to reply, everything and more than I wanted to say,
already has been said and I totally must agree with your assessment of the
situation,
LoneStar: WinME may be obsolete, but because of it may be much less affected
by programs which try to destroy your system, especially if using Firefox.
Besides SR the scandisk feature, used when the start-up disk is needed,
seems to be the most valuable tool for me, in case of a freeze-up or even.a
crash.
All in all, WinME is 'o.k.', if you are operating 'on a shoestring' and your
demands are 'limited'.
My personal opinion: it is slightly above Win98(SE).

Harry.


"LoneStar" <e_wyatt_rem_@excite.com> wrote in message
news:g8nchq$cuh$3@news.datemas.de...
>
> <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:3u0ta4597s1gc5li5edh6gg3i8pdv1mhha@4ax.com...
> >
> > What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
> >
>
>
> Adding my words to the crowd, there is NOTHING wrong with Windows ME,
other
> than the elitists who decry it for a number of irrelevant reasons. True,
> Windows ME is unsupported for security patches however, the idiot hackers
> are focusing their perversions on Vista, XP, Macs, and even Linux. For
good
> Internet security, use Firefox with Windows ME and you'll be just fine.
>
> I've got 3 ME systems (along with 2 XPs and 1 Vista) and they are solid as
a
> rock.
>
> EW
>
>

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:07:03 -0700, Corday <10Swinner@net.net> wrote:

>It seems you're not "computer depdent" for work and are happy with what you
>have. The solution will arrive when a major hardware component "goes" and
>you'll be ready to spring for a new unit.

All I do is use this at home to go online, edit and store photos and
run some basic office programs. I have had major hardware failures
several times. Used older computers are cheap. I have moved this
same hard drive to at least 6 different computers. Several times I
cloned it, to get more drive space. Several more times I repaired the
computer, like when this one had the power supply die last winter.
that is the thing I like about Win98. Harddrives can be moved to
another computer. I tried that with a drive that had XP on it. Xp
would not even boot. Drives formatted with that NTFS format are near
helpless once the OS cant be booted. With a FAT partition I can
always boot to dos and save data. Win2000 seems to work ok with a
FAT32 format, but not XP. I hear vista is even worse. I wont trust
my data to an OS that relies on the actual OS having to boot in order
to access data. With Win9x and earlier, it's easy to use a boot
floppy to get the data saved.

What really irks me too, is that everytime a faster computer is
developed, MS slows it down with more of their bloat. Thus we never
get any faster. It's like this: I can go grocery shopping with my old
chevy or I can buy a limosene with all the bells and whistles. Both
will get me to the store and back just as fast, but the limo costs 25
times more and uses 3 times more gas. I'll still encounter the same
traffic jams, and pay the same for my groceries, and since I'm
driving, I wont be able to enjoy the bells and whistles anyhow.

MS seems to think we need all this bloat, when in the end, we all see
the same websites, type and print a document the same way, and nothing
else changes, except the new computer will cost more to run for both
purchasing and electric usage, as well as taking more time to use
because there are too many unneeded functions getting in the way.

 

[Mart]

LM, although I certainly wouldn't argue with your appraisal of the direction
of MS, bloatware and some of the other issues you raise, none of them are
WinMe specific and could be debated ad-nauseam.

From your subject title, you inferred that you believed there to be major
issues with WinMe in particular. I hope that in this thread, the various
contributors have helped dispel some of those myths, explained some of the
advantages and perhaps added a little optimism into your views and
understanding of WinMe.

But if Win98SE works for you, suits your needs and you are happy with it,
then stick with it. There's no point in changing just for the sake of it.

Mart



<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:fcrua4pnqmbmgfkrsio9kkb4gbjkkmcuo1@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:07:03 -0700, Corday <10Swinner@net.net> wrote:
>
>>It seems you're not "computer depdent" for work and are happy with what
>>you
>>have. The solution will arrive when a major hardware component "goes" and
>>you'll be ready to spring for a new unit.
>
> All I do is use this at home to go online, edit and store photos and
> run some basic office programs. I have had major hardware failures
> several times. Used older computers are cheap. I have moved this
> same hard drive to at least 6 different computers. Several times I
> cloned it, to get more drive space. Several more times I repaired the
> computer, like when this one had the power supply die last winter.
> that is the thing I like about Win98. Harddrives can be moved to
> another computer. I tried that with a drive that had XP on it. Xp
> would not even boot. Drives formatted with that NTFS format are near
> helpless once the OS cant be booted. With a FAT partition I can
> always boot to dos and save data. Win2000 seems to work ok with a
> FAT32 format, but not XP. I hear vista is even worse. I wont trust
> my data to an OS that relies on the actual OS having to boot in order
> to access data. With Win9x and earlier, it's easy to use a boot
> floppy to get the data saved.
>
> What really irks me too, is that everytime a faster computer is
> developed, MS slows it down with more of their bloat. Thus we never
> get any faster. It's like this: I can go grocery shopping with my old
> chevy or I can buy a limosene with all the bells and whistles. Both
> will get me to the store and back just as fast, but the limo costs 25
> times more and uses 3 times more gas. I'll still encounter the same
> traffic jams, and pay the same for my groceries, and since I'm
> driving, I wont be able to enjoy the bells and whistles anyhow.
>
> MS seems to think we need all this bloat, when in the end, we all see
> the same websites, type and print a document the same way, and nothing
> else changes, except the new computer will cost more to run for both
> purchasing and electric usage, as well as taking more time to use
> because there are too many unneeded functions getting in the way.

 

[Mike M]

The biggest problem that I have seen in the past eight years with Win Me
has been some of its users ranging from those who didn't like DOS being
hidden, although there are a number of hacks that can restore that
functionality, through to those who complain because it won't run on the
latest hardware, hard drives, etc. etc.. Once one accepts that it is
neither Win 98 nor XP with a number of additional features to those in Win
98 although not yet as mature as those same features in XP then the user
should be OK to go. The OS itself has few major problems and on the right
hardware and will serve the sensible user well.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Mart <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote:

> LM, although I certainly wouldn't argue with your appraisal of the
> direction of MS, bloatware and some of the other issues you raise,
> none of them are WinMe specific and could be debated ad-nauseam.
>
> From your subject title, you inferred that you believed there to be
> major issues with WinMe in particular. I hope that in this thread,
> the various contributors have helped dispel some of those myths,
> explained some of the advantages and perhaps added a little optimism
> into your views and understanding of WinMe.
>
> But if Win98SE works for you, suits your needs and you are happy with
> it, then stick with it. There's no point in changing just for the
> sake of it.

 

[Pogle S. Wood]

> My own experience of an XP box (catastrophically) failing to boot was
> when the HDD died - so can't really blame it on XP. But have to admit
> that trying to recover data from an NTFS HDD was "difficult" - Soon
> learnt to use a backup regime after that!
>


The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing to boot
due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being found and,
usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect boot.ini. And apart
from the fact you can correct that via booting with a BartPE disc - though
that is quite a lot of effort to make in the first place - you can edit
boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered). Burn one to cd (especially since odds
are you won't have a floppy drive anymore!) and there is no need to update
it. With SATA and RAID (and NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a BING cd
from 2006, and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of
boot.ini and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.


P.

 

[Mart]

A big AMEN to that Mike!

Mart

BTW - have you disabled your 'usual' email address recently Mike? I've sent
you some over the past couple of weeks. They've not bounced and I've not had
a response. Maybe you're just busy <g>



"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:%23oAN5ARBJHA.4816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> The biggest problem that I have seen in the past eight years with Win Me
> has been some of its users ranging from those who didn't like DOS being
> hidden, although there are a number of hacks that can restore that
> functionality, through to those who complain because it won't run on the
> latest hardware, hard drives, etc. etc.. Once one accepts that it is
> neither Win 98 nor XP with a number of additional features to those in Win
> 98 although not yet as mature as those same features in XP then the user
> should be OK to go. The OS itself has few major problems and on the right
> hardware and will serve the sensible user well.
> --
> Mike Maltby
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> Mart <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>> LM, although I certainly wouldn't argue with your appraisal of the
>> direction of MS, bloatware and some of the other issues you raise,
>> none of them are WinMe specific and could be debated ad-nauseam.
>>
>> From your subject title, you inferred that you believed there to be
>> major issues with WinMe in particular. I hope that in this thread,
>> the various contributors have helped dispel some of those myths,
>> explained some of the advantages and perhaps added a little optimism
>> into your views and understanding of WinMe.
>>
>> But if Win98SE works for you, suits your needs and you are happy with
>> it, then stick with it. There's no point in changing just for the
>> sake of it.
>

 

[Mike M]

Mart <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote:

> A big AMEN to that Mike!
>
> Mart
>
> BTW - have you disabled your 'usual' email address recently Mike? I've
> sent you some over the past couple of weeks. They've not bounced
> and I've not had a response. Maybe you're just busy <g>

Apologies for that Mart, I must check. I suspect that I might have read
them, marked them for reply and then forgot all about them. As you have
already suspected I've not been feeling too hot recently (a different
problem from normal) and have also been keeping myself busy with
finalising the accounts for the development where I live. I'll try and
respond later although I see I did reply to your most recent e-mail (21
August, re scanner post).
--
Mike M

 

[Mart]

Thanks S - I appreciate your suggestion which sounds like a d**m good idea.
(Although in my case it was a failed HDD rather than just a missing file)
But I suppose I've veered a bit OT and we are in danger of highjacking LM's
thread.

Mart


"Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:%239tlc4RBJHA.4368@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> My own experience of an XP box (catastrophically) failing to boot was
>> when the HDD died - so can't really blame it on XP. But have to admit
>> that trying to recover data from an NTFS HDD was "difficult" - Soon
>> learnt to use a backup regime after that!
>>
>
>
> The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing to boot
> due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being found and,
> usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect boot.ini. And apart
> from the fact you can correct that via booting with a BartPE disc - though
> that is quite a lot of effort to make in the first place - you can edit
> boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered). Burn one to cd (especially since
> odds are you won't have a floppy drive anymore!) and there is no need to
> update it. With SATA and RAID (and NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a
> BING cd from 2006, and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy
> of boot.ini and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just
> rename.
>
>
> P.
>

 

[Mike M]

Pogle S. Wood <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote:

> The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing to
> boot due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being found
> and, usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect boot.ini.
> And apart from the fact you can correct that via booting with a
> BartPE disc - though that is quite a lot of effort to make in the
> first place - you can edit boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered). Burn
> one to cd (especially since odds are you won't have a floppy drive
> anymore!) and there is no need to update it. With SATA and RAID (and
> NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a BING cd from 2006, and it can
> be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini and leave it
> in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.

BING can not only handle and edit boot.ini but can also use BCEdit to edit
the Vista equivalent although you will probably need to be using a later
version of BING than one from 2006.

> Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini and leave it
> in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.

Which is what I do on my XP systems.
--
Mike

 

[Pogle S. Wood]

> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
> improvements. Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME.
> They say it's buggy.
>

They are a mix of those who just echo what they've heard (and naively hope
no-one will catch on) and the ones they parrot, who probably feel threatened
by anything that has the potential to put them back into the 'novice'
category. It's like the way most of us stop listening to new music when we
enter middle age and thereafter deride it (I know I do!).

> What is really wrong with ME? Where are the bugs?
>

While System Restore is not a failure, it does have a bug in that case is
not restored and after restoring using it there is a good chance you'll find
numerous file names now all in uppercase (which I for one found really
annoying! In the end I'd rather restore 'last night's image' than go through
the file system rewriting dozens of names. Mind you, 'The Rename' is bloody
wonderful for automating that!).

There is an issue with manipulating large no.s of files - notably when
deleting them (mind you, that isn't so very different from operations in
Vista - though possibly that has been corrected in SP1). If you have a
folder containing a few thousand files and you want to delete them, or
Recycle Bin contains a few thousand files, it will likely be quicker to
select them a few hundred at a time. So for instance you go into the Recycle
Bin, highlight 500 files and click 'delete', rather than 'Empty Recycle
Bin', then do it again. And again.

Of course, there is the Scandisk and Defrag continually restarting (that led
to the development of ScanDefrag).

WinME's Spider Solitaire has a strange bug - that not everyone seems to have
found - whereby the dealing slows to a crawl (and stays that way for ever
after). This can be worked around, but the workaround varies and it may be
you have to experiment until you find it. For one, selecting 3D cursors
cured it. For another it was having Outlook Express running in the
background.

Can't think of anything else offhand. Many who do not deride WinME still
prefer 98. I prefer ME over all other 9x versions but figure this is just a
matter of taste.

The notion that what you have to look out for are hackers - who are only
interested in XP, Vista - even Linux - is naive. If you go online with an NT
system and no firewall you will be infected, not because some particular
hacker is sitting there watching, but because the malware is out there, in
the wild. The network is infected. There are trojans out there to exploit
vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer 5.1/5.5/6.0, some of which will require
an NT system to run on but far from all of them. And as we surely all know,
the no. of signatures our AV software has defs for these days is well over
the 100,000 mark.

Those who think 9x is so old as to be below the radar are the gamblers. Me,
I don't gamble: I can spot an idiot, just like the malware writers in the
pay of the criminal gangs can. And the data is just syphoned away, silently,
without any messages coming up on the screen gloating at you. If there are
still hundreds of thousands of users with 95/98/ME, then stealing from them
is still big business.

P.