i had no prblem with ME my aunt and uncle had it on their IBM machine a while ago. i never got a bsod on 95 either. 98 i hated not becaus of the bsod but because of the stupid illegal operation thing. XP i got a bsod when i overclocked it too high, Vista not single one.
I use ME on a P3 machine (because its the only one that will properly install on it for somereason).
Its lightweight, a little robust, and does crash once a month. But all in all, I don't think its as bad as every says it is. I'd take Windows ME over Mac OS 9 any day.
I didn't respond to the poll because I Don't understand the poll yes/no question. Do I hate it? yes. Do I use it. No.
I don't like it because it was a patch to console consumers for the fact that WIN2K wasn't aimed at them. It was also designed to allay Y2K fears and rode on the Y2K marketing hype. I don't believe in rewarding software companies by purchasing their patches.
I also don't really believe win95/98 were great products either and the effort that went into 95 should have been spent on a DOS win 16 compatibility layer for NT....
But then again I'm business oriented, not consumer oriented and my views are slanted in this way....
My experience with it is that it's good for a while, then problems arise shortly after. I used Me for a while, until I finally found XP (yay). And it really wasn't that bad for a while, it had a lot of cool stuff in it (for 2000 mind you) and I loved using it. Then about 2 months into it, I couldn't take it anymore. I was getting errors, BSODs, slow performance, incompatibilty, etc. So I guess it depends...on what I have no clue.
I don't hate Windows Me, but I've never really used it enough to really know it. But, a friend had it on an old Gateway, and it was nothing but trouble on their machine, but I don't blame the trouble on the OS anymore then the user.
I never owned a computer with ME on it, but some of my family and friends did, and just from using it like that, I could see slow performance, and daily crashes. Hate it.
I used it a couple of years and it was fine indeed although I still
prefer 98 SE and set it up to look and run like 98 SE. It really
improved after I added ram to the 64 MB it came with. I felt like
it really didn't need the XP type stuff on it though. I don't care
if anybody hates it or not, I just know it's fine and I can use it
with no trouble.
This computer I'm working on was created to work with Me. And I ran it on Me for the longest time, and it worked great. But as I said, problems start to set it quite quickly.
I hated ME due to hardware compatability issuse's with some older hardware. I also hated it's icon set for some odd reason. I disliked the idea of not being allowed to natively access DOS mode in it.
(But I have a hacked copy of V8 somewhere which had Windows stripped away from it:P)
I liked having the ability to use nearly any flashdisk in it at the time and now even. Now If the drivers form ME could have been put to 98SE it'd be cool and I would never have a reason to put ME back on my old lappie ever again. (32meg of ram really isn't enough for ME :P) also with a few other tweeks ME can be run withouht any problems. The only reason I have BSOD's with any 9x OS is if I did something wrong. Back in the day when 95 first came out I don't remember ever having a bluescreen. At least not after my dad upgraded his ram fro like 8 to 32 meg :P. For years I used 95 on a Compaq Presario 2200 or something like that (I'm looking into buying one off of ebay for memory sake:P)
Do I hate ME Yes
Do I like ME YEs
Do I not Hate ME Yes
Do i not like ME Yes.
After tweeking it and ddoing a few others I have found it to be fine as long as you have 64+ meg of ram otherwise it is annoying and slow, giving BSOD's and lock out's. But it was just MS's way of making money on the whol public Millenium Bug crap. Not voted as I contradicte the terms of the poll.
You know Q I never thought to try them. Really all you need is Precopy 2 and another file I think and any USB drive can be installed then (on ME anyway). I had to install my USB floppy drive on my old lappie. I had deleted my ME isntall folder (options folder in Windows) as I needed the space. So I just copied them over. I might try it before I go to sleep later.
If that's the only thing keeping you on ME it might be worth it, it's worth a try. You might have to edit the .ini to get the system to go along with it.
Oh no I use 98Se but that was the only reason why I had ME on my lappie. Might read up and see if some one else has done this. Save me time messing around with it
Not sure about ME, but I know 98 was very picky about the hardware it was running on.
I've seen 98 run fast, even if it were short lived, I have seen it.
And then I see 98 run slower than shit, and practically every program gives an Illegal Operation or a driver install gives a BSOD
I've seen 95 run fast more offten than I've seen 98.
I think the 9x line was somewhat stable in the begining, and with each new version, it got worse and worse.
take 3.1 for example, I never had a BSOD in 3.1, except maybe if I accidentally tried to access the A: drive when there was no floppy in the drive. But that wasn't really a "Death", it was a blue screen, but you hit a button and your back to windows.
95 was ok about the BSOD's, I think I had maybe 1 or 2. I had quiet a few Illegal Operations though.
98 I've seen too many BSOD's to count and a deffinate increase in Illegal Operations.
Alright maybe it was just my computer. It was Windows XP on an AMD Athlon XP 2000+ processor and now I've got a Windows 2000 on an Intel Core 2 Duo. I'll install it later and maybe I'll see different results.
Comments
Anyway, all the machines that I saw/used it on were overextended to begin with, so I didn't get to appreciate it.
-Q
I use ME on a P3 machine (because its the only one that will properly install on it for somereason).
Its lightweight, a little robust, and does crash once a month. But all in all, I don't think its as bad as every says it is. I'd take Windows ME over Mac OS 9 any day.
I don't like it because it was a patch to console consumers for the fact that WIN2K wasn't aimed at them. It was also designed to allay Y2K fears and rode on the Y2K marketing hype. I don't believe in rewarding software companies by purchasing their patches.
I also don't really believe win95/98 were great products either and the effort that went into 95 should have been spent on a DOS win 16 compatibility layer for NT....
But then again I'm business oriented, not consumer oriented and my views are slanted in this way....
I just heard bad things about it and since I hated 9x anyways, I figured why use the newest version of it?
But I did download windows ME off FTP a little while ago, so I think I might finally try it in a VPC or something.
prefer 98 SE and set it up to look and run like 98 SE. It really
improved after I added ram to the 64 MB it came with. I felt like
it really didn't need the XP type stuff on it though. I don't care
if anybody hates it or not, I just know it's fine and I can use it
with no trouble.
Thump
(But I have a hacked copy of V8 somewhere which had Windows stripped away from it:P)
I liked having the ability to use nearly any flashdisk in it at the time and now even. Now If the drivers form ME could have been put to 98SE it'd be cool and I would never have a reason to put ME back on my old lappie ever again. (32meg of ram really isn't enough for ME :P) also with a few other tweeks ME can be run withouht any problems. The only reason I have BSOD's with any 9x OS is if I did something wrong. Back in the day when 95 first came out I don't remember ever having a bluescreen. At least not after my dad upgraded his ram fro like 8 to 32 meg :P. For years I used 95 on a Compaq Presario 2200 or something like that (I'm looking into buying one off of ebay for memory sake:P)
Do I hate ME Yes
Do I like ME YEs
Do I not Hate ME Yes
Do i not like ME Yes.
After tweeking it and ddoing a few others I have found it to be fine as long as you have 64+ meg of ram otherwise it is annoying and slow, giving BSOD's and lock out's. But it was just MS's way of making money on the whol public Millenium Bug crap. Not voted as I contradicte the terms of the poll.
-Q
-Q
I've seen 98 run fast, even if it were short lived, I have seen it.
And then I see 98 run slower than shit, and practically every program gives an Illegal Operation or a driver install gives a BSOD
I've seen 95 run fast more offten than I've seen 98.
I think the 9x line was somewhat stable in the begining, and with each new version, it got worse and worse.
take 3.1 for example, I never had a BSOD in 3.1, except maybe if I accidentally tried to access the A: drive when there was no floppy in the drive. But that wasn't really a "Death", it was a blue screen, but you hit a button and your back to windows.
95 was ok about the BSOD's, I think I had maybe 1 or 2. I had quiet a few Illegal Operations though.
98 I've seen too many BSOD's to count and a deffinate increase in Illegal Operations.
I haven't tried ME yet, so I can't speak on that.
I mean that it would play a sound and repeat the end of it when it finished playing. So I think that Windows ME is much better natively.
-Q
-Q