Printable View
Okay, I know XP is superior to ME, however I've a hard time explaining this to a few people I know (they're using ME). Other than reasons (personal) you may have, can someone post actual documentation why ME is so bad (for lack of better words).
I explained to them if I had my way, I'd be using 98 instead of ME!! (if XP, 2000 and NT didn't exist). They are really sold on ME! They must be converted.. LOL
I have been fooling around with computers before there was windows. I've bought Win 3.1, 95,98,Me, and now XP. Every one crashes. If a program crashes in XP, ctrl alt del, stop the program that's causing the problem, and continue. All other Windows, you have to resart the computer. Also, the hibernate. I've had my computer on for 27 day's, and all I do is let it hibernate at night. Next morning, start it, right back where I left off. I'm no expert, but I think it's the best Windows ever made. Peace. An Old Hippie.
I agree with old musicman,
welcome to the forums btw :)
WindowsXP is the only M$ os that I have used that doesnt need to reboot everytime the clock passes GO!
I can video capture next play a movie, play a game surf the internet burn a cd do anything without having to reboot.
You wont be able to show an old user apples and oranges but the compatibillity is really impressive and now that directx is leaving 9x behind they have no choice unless they only type all day.
I will not go back to 98 or millenium unless i have an old computer that i want to sell to a newbie.
My computer boots faster than a fart. hehe!!!
and is very dependabl and I will be happy to use it like it is for years to come :)
just an egghead comment.
No real proof here.
In addition to all the above posts,
XP is better than ME for a variety of reasons. The reasons for me are:
(1) NTFS file support, NTFS is better at disk management, compresses better, and uses less space than the FAT32 counterpart of ME.
(2)With XP you never have to worry about system resources. They are well managed. With ME, you have to reboot all the time because the system resources can cause the system to crash, when they go..
(3) The system restore in XP is much more reliable, works everytime for me at least.
(4)XP is more visually impressive than the ME OS.
(5)XP allows for error reporting to MS, so that if you do have an error, you can report it right away to MS so that they can work on a fix for future releases of windows.
(6)With XP you can do remote desktop. Which means you can control another XP machine from your XP environment without installing extra software.
(7) XP is and will be supported for a while to come, whereas ME,98, 2K are all being phased out slowly.
(8) last but not least, is the driver support which is really good, except for ancient hardware.. and the compatibility mode. If you have a software and it will not work in XP, you can right click the excutable setup file, and emulate windows 95, 98, ME, or 2000. Which has, several times saved me!!
ME is fine but was a rushed attempt for MS to add some extra funds to the bankroll... It should have never been released, IMHO..
they were trying to fill a gap between the time 2K was released and the time XP would be released. I have used ME when it first came out, and I liked the features. It was fairly stable for me.. as good as 98se, with the added benefit of system restore..
But it used resources like crazy and no matter how much ram you had, it would still devour the resources prompting you for a restart after 12 or more hours of use.. I am a power user so it wasn't for me..
BB
For me its pretty simple (it would have to be for me to understand it)
1- NTFS is a better file system then FAT32
2- XP never crashes
3- It never freezes up
4- I love the eye candy, and I love coustomizing the look
Never say never...LOL :pQuote:
Originally posted by Smoke286
2- XP never crashes
3- It never freezes up
I've manage both, however it isn't even an 1/8th as bad as ME was on my system. Can't wait for Longhorn myself.
One huge reason why ME blows is that it's the only OS that is dependant upon IE for it's functionality. Ever heard of an error 29 in ME, a misisng control panel or missing system restore. Thats a hosed IE. The bad thing is that depending on how corrupt IE is, if you try to repair or restore it, sometimes it can screw things up alot more and basicly make your computer un-boot-able. So tell your friends unless they back up their important data alot, theres a good chance on day they'll never have access to it again.
Hex
This was my biggest fault with ME, constant BSOD with my sb live card. Not to mention back in those days I only had a 10 gig drive (which was big then) and the ME install was about 600mb - compared to 98se being about 300mb tops.Quote:
Originally posted by Big Booger
(2)With XP you never have to worry about system resources. They are well managed. With ME, you have to reboot all the time because the system resources can cause the system to crash, when they go..
BB
Simply I always found it to be too clitchy:(
ME should have been an upgrade version period.. it should have never been a full OS.. and in fact, it should have never been released... it was just a way for MS to bide time, and release something in the middle of XP/2k....
:P
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Smoke286
[B]
2- XP never crashes
3- It never freezes up
Well, KP crashes a lot at my work computer, so it does happen. Plus the registry is so corrupted that I cannot install printers or add users to the machine. (I have that machine because I exchaneg mine with a customer)
But then, that woul be really easy to fix with the CD since you can run a restore of the OS, and that can fix most problems without having to reinstall the whole system, and that could take a lot of time.
With 98Se (I didn't use much ME, but they are similar, just ME is a bit worse) when you have too many problems, the best is to format and start from scratch.
This is true mostly when you use the system a lot for video games,
beware of system restore as a problem solver,
if you backup any programs to a directory other than my documents, you will risk the loss of all .exe's in your directories prior to restore
My friend is using ME and recently, he had a problem with IE 6.0 and had to reinstall it. After uninstalling it, he rebooted the computer and got an error message with goes like: ERROR: SHELL32 not found. I had to help him make his OS work again by using the Quick Restore Disks which came with his computer. Luckily, we managed to get ME working again but he lost all his important files and documents.Quote:
One huge reason why ME blows is that it's the only OS that is dependant upon IE for it's functionality. Ever heard of an error 29 in ME, a misisng control panel or missing system restore. Thats a hosed IE. The bad thing is that depending on how corrupt IE is, if you try to repair or restore it, sometimes it can screw things up alot more and basicly make your computer un-boot-able.
Having the same kernel as w98se I never found it apealing or neccessary to install ME.However when some customers wanted os upgrades from ME they gave me their opsys oem cd's,and I got to see for myself what all the talk of a crap system you could have.While I could always get 98se to perform decently,Win ME was way to fussy with hardware compatability.I installed it on my laptop which was suppose to be ready for the os but which came with 98se and even after all the correct drivers and software was installed from the manufacturers website and flashing the bios it was a dog as far as performance and froze up consistantly.I later installed win xp with the updated drivers and it is very stable.Better memory management made xp a winner.