bluecat1 Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 Just curious ... I've used ME for four years with some problems but nothing major. I just read it's unstable ... someone else said it was buggy ... what kind of problems are you talking about?Is anyone else happily using Windows ME?
XPero Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 I was a happy user of Windows ME, much better than 98 IMO
JoeMSFN Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 I've had one client that had ME and was the fastest / most stable thing alive. Then again kids never got ahold of it and installed programs supported by advertising software. He only checked email, viewed his financial websites, and kept his antivirus subscription current.Now I've also seen it choke big time the second advertising software and hosts of "internet enhancement" programs get installed.I suppose it's up the the wise choice of the users to keep it running fine.
rendrag Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 I'd have to agree... I never had many problems. I assume most problems came about because people installed those fun programs by gator, and other wonderful spyware programs
Drewdatrip Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 I had continual issues with BSOD, compatibility issues with Apps, games and all around instability.I run a tight ship when it comes to comps, so i can definativly blame it on the crappyness of Me. |Drew|
prathapml Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 Haha... its five-to-one now Q. Anyone using WinME happily?A. Yup, myself. I use WinME for older machines not powerful enough for XP. I feel its more stable and faster than 98/98se. And since I have done both (been strict with no app-installs, and also gone crazy with a million utils installed) and in both times winME handled just fine.
soldier1st Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 i did have me going good for awhile just afterawhile it slowed down n 98 se never did that,me is basicaly win 98 third edition with enhancements,if your good to me it will prolly be good to you
zoem Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 if i c ppl with windows me computers in distress i tell them to take it back to 98. my p133 compaq lte 5300 laptop runs great with me if u excuse the lack of functioning APM support.my AMD 750mhz machine ran unstable when i first built the machine back in 2001. but im sure it was because of the old ISA hardware (intel etherexpress 16 network card) win me didnt support that card, and i had to use the driver for win95 from intel with the system which worked but conflicted with the DMA...thus BSOD's...my 3rd cousin is running win me on his TX Pro mainboard with a Cyrix 200Mhz processor and says its working quite well. this surprises me and i think he is lying. hehe.when i was doing work experience at a computer repairs shop. (not a s***ty little corner store mind u..showroom and all). a pentium 3 came in which required a clean install of ME. we had trouble after a clean install trying to get it to not lockup on us. another technician walking by came over and bad-mouth win me from his experiences with it. so i guess he has seen a few win me problem comps in his time lol.
SiMoNsAyS Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 for my experience me is the worst os from m$ (including win3.1 and win1.0).i've used it a few years ago, bsod and a lot of problems with my modem driver (a 56k conexant) made me hate it. althought the thing that i really hated was the slowdown-lag while i was copying/moving/deleting or making intensive use of my HD!
soldier1st Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 win me should have been better with 2000 enhancements but i bet cuzz of it still being based partly on dos and the mixture of nt plus dos kernel=not a good combo,thats my theorywhy was 98 better and 2000 better?simple,2000 doesen't run off of the old dos kernel and 98 doesen't have any of win 2000's enhancementsa tried experiment gone bad,windows 3.1 was good when it was around(thats when it was,now you hardly see it around.
zoem Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 but if u mix the files from ME which are part ogf 2000's enhancements, with windows 98se, u get a stable os rite? weird how that works..im refering to that MDGx.com site or wateva its name was.win3.1 was one of the good guys. dont get dos and win3.1 confused. if you over look dos from this equation, u have a stable as hell os.
ravashaak Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 What I've found is that on certain hardware setups (usually with minimal extra software installed) ME can run stable. However, that doesn't cut the mustard. In my opinion, to be a good OS, it must be able to handle almost all the hardware I can throw at it as well as handle the installation of numerous programs.And blaming ME instability on adware/spyware is (no offence) laughable. ME was likely the worst OS product Microsoft has produced since the pre-3.11 days. - Ravashaak
zoem Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 o..forgot to mention. In vmware (a virtual computer)...ME was still unstable. now i think thats something to laugh about. clean install mind u.
soldier1st Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 me is always unstable,even in a vmware enviroment
FAT64 Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 It's not known as the Mistake Edition for nothing!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now