Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-10-2001, 03:25 PM   #1   [permalink]
wstml32
Inactive Email Account
 
wstml32's Avatar
 
Join Date: 1 Sep 2001
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 2,473
Send a message via ICQ to wstml32 Send a message via AIM to wstml32
Question Should i upgrade to Windows ME?

I currently have Windows 98 SE on my computer. It seems to be getting the job done.
Could anyone advise me on whether or not i should upgrade to ME?
It looks alright plus its cheap. Does anyone own Windows ME? If so is it any good? Would you reccomend it to Windows 98 users?
Is Windows ME really idiot proof? I ask that because ive heard ME doesnt allow you to delete system files.
I also want to get Windows ME in case i want to upgrade to XP, in which case ypull prbably have to upgrade from ME.
Any feedback would be much appreciated.
wstml32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2001, 09:51 PM   #2   [permalink]
ATh
Ex Moderator V.I.P.
 
ATh's Avatar
 
Join Date: 24 Jun 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5,982
Send a message via ICQ to ATh
ME is slow, and there is no DOS worth meantioning.

ive removed it from my sisters pc twice, but as i cant find the sound drivers she is still stuck with it.

ATh
ATh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2001, 05:43 AM   #3   [permalink]
Nulani
Forum Master
 
Nulani's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Dec 2000
Location: Norway.
Posts: 6,840
Send a message via ICQ to Nulani Send a message via AIM to Nulani Send a message via MSN to Nulani Send a message via Yahoo to Nulani
No.. No.. and NO!.
I've had WinME, to me it swallowed up resources, crashed a lot, runned slowly... you don't earn anything on it.
I'd suggest keeping to Win98SE.

WinXP upgradge's supposed to function from Win98, WinME, WinNT and Win2k.. so I don't think that'll be any problem.
__________________
Evil is Good.
Evil.
Nulani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2001, 05:45 AM   #4   [permalink]
Nairohe
Ex Moderator V.I.P.
 
Nairohe's Avatar
 
Join Date: 19 Aug 2000
Location: Makai
Posts: 5,762
Send a message via AIM to Nairohe Send a message via Yahoo to Nairohe
Maniacal laughter*

omigosh... you're funny... hah... never laughed so hard.... sigh* snicker*
__________________
http://www.idle-thoughts.com
Nairohe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2001, 10:07 AM   #5   [permalink]
bloodgod
Forum Master
 
bloodgod's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Aug 2000
Posts: 2,309
Actually my lapbox has been running Winbox ME since I got it and ever since I got an RAM upgrade it haven't crached.
It has been cracking WU'z Since I joined SETI and it haven't been rebooted once
It's an Asus A1 thingy P3 850MHz 320MB RAM

My friends Workbox is also running Winbox ME and he says it haven't crashed yet either.

If your gonna use Winbox ME you need to have the right hardware coz preformance REALLY depends on it ("Not" high-end Hardware)

Last edited by bloodgod; 04-10-2001 at 10:09 AM.
bloodgod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2001, 10:23 AM   #6   [permalink]
DARK
Banned
 
Join Date: 6 Mar 2001
Posts: 102
Windows ME is the worst OS yet. I think you should definately install it
DARK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2001, 11:38 AM   #7   [permalink]
orochi X
V.I.P. Member
 
orochi X's Avatar
 
Join Date: 19 Apr 2001
Location: Plastic replica of Melbourne (Australia)
Posts: 11,356
Send a message via MSN to orochi X
nah keep win98 or get win2000 they are way better
__________________
you selfish generation!
you upset all the hong kong people;
and all the hong kong uncle!
orochi X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2001, 11:44 AM   #8   [permalink]
wstml32
Inactive Email Account
 
wstml32's Avatar
 
Join Date: 1 Sep 2001
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 2,473
Send a message via ICQ to wstml32 Send a message via AIM to wstml32
So what is the difference between Windows 2000 and ME?
wstml32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2001, 11:48 AM   #9   [permalink]
DARK
Banned
 
Join Date: 6 Mar 2001
Posts: 102
The difference? SImple. Windows ME is sh!t. Windows 2000 isn't (quite so sh!t)
DARK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2001, 01:37 AM   #10   [permalink]
SaMADog
Forum Addicted
 
SaMADog's Avatar
 
Join Date: 9 Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,055
Send a message via ICQ to SaMADog Send a message via AIM to SaMADog
98/ME run of a 16bit kernel
2000/XP run off a 32 bit kernel

note
ME runs off DOS in a small way. (i think its the start up)

2000/Xp run off the same code and don't use DoS what so ever.
__________________
pulseman_x@hotmail.com
SaMADog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2001, 10:04 AM   #11   [permalink]
bloodgod
Forum Master
 
bloodgod's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Aug 2000
Posts: 2,309
Quote:
Originally posted by SaMADog
98/ME run of a 16bit kernel
2000/XP run off a 32 bit kernel
note
ME runs off DOS in a small way. (i think its the start up)

2000/Xp run off the same code and don't use DoS what so ever.
Wrong!

During boot 9X runs of the 16bit DOS kernel untill the 32 bit system is initialized. Later the 16 bit kernel can be called if needed.

The NT or "New technology" kernel (Actually they just stoll the *BSD kernel) uses 32 bit at all time and it can also run 64 bit (just not on any curent proccessor and doubtful ever any)
bloodgod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2001, 04:26 AM   #12   [permalink]
Gokuneda
Executive Member
 
Gokuneda's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12 Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 564
Send a message via ICQ to Gokuneda Send a message via AIM to Gokuneda
I read recently in PCPowerplay that Intel were developing a 64 bit processor. Half the size, three times the power etc, etc... All these amazing things, but I doubt it will be ready before 2005 or even later.

They're slowly phasing out the x86 processors. And this new win XP has totally removed any need for DOS, so there goes another reliable OS... what happens if the sh#t hits the fan? (as it eventually does with most microsoft products) - Any safe mode? I guess they'll have to build in a reliable backup 'safe mode' type of program within the XP platform. Overcomplicating it all if you ask me. Whatever happened to 'KISS'?

Any which way, i'd love to get a copy to play around with. See how long it takes me to crash!
__________________
"Never Underestimate the Power of Judith Durham"
Try out Unit01 in combat today!
Kaneda's Modern Life. It's Modern.
Gokuneda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2001, 08:02 AM   #13   [permalink]
Nulani
Forum Master
 
Nulani's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Dec 2000
Location: Norway.
Posts: 6,840
Send a message via ICQ to Nulani Send a message via AIM to Nulani Send a message via MSN to Nulani Send a message via Yahoo to Nulani
Actually I think there's already supposed to be a 64-bit processor... at least that's what Intel brags about in their Itanium Processor.

http://www.intel.com/itanium

It's what I've understood of it all atleast .
__________________
Evil is Good.
Evil.
Nulani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2001, 12:32 PM   #14   [permalink]
bloodgod
Forum Master
 
bloodgod's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Aug 2000
Posts: 2,309
The only 64 bit proccessor in existence is SUNs UltraSPARC


I will bet a beer on that AMDs 64 bit Sledge Hammer CPU will be produced before Intel ever figures out how to build one.

Besides, Sledge Hammer is x86 compatible, Intels wet dream ain't
bloodgod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2001, 08:41 PM   #15   [permalink]
Specify
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 16 Aug 2001
Location: FL
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally posted by DARK
The difference? SImple. Windows ME is sh!t. Windows 2000 isn't (quite so sh!t)

couldn't have said it better.
__________________
I like this Place! :)
Specify is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.