Yes or No

Especially that ME!

When Win95 first came out, I was so impressed - it was a dream, it looked nice, and was actually easy to use!
But it never really progressed much in the 6 years that it's taken MS to take it to the next level - basically Windows ME was Windows 95 with patches!

So, the answer is kind of yes, and kind of no: at the time, it rocked, after 6 years of the same thing, it sucks!

AndyF
I'll get down off the fence now

It does not really suxx when using it as a back door to nt5
Most other usages (running apps) suxxx.
The same I use win2k as a backdoor to nt4
Ask my admins (large corp). I can fuxxx any of their nt4 setups whatever they do. I can do anything I want :p

Win9X as a "backdoor" to NT? I am not sure I follow. And as for being able to "fuxx" any NT setup, my network doesn't even allow Win9X workstations to participate. If properly setup, a Win9X box won't have the ability to do any more damage than any other OS on an NT network.

Win9x doesn't suck. When used lightly as a home OS it is just fine, and it runs games well too! Honestly I think WinME is better than 98 and 98 better than 95, especially when using a VIA chipset. I don't know why but with a VIA chipset, 6 PCs I know ran so much better with ME than 98. On Intel/AMD sets 98 ran better, I think it was just Microsoft's crappy support VIA in 98. 95 was good when it came out, better than 3.1/DOS/OS2 and NT 3.51. Its time is gone now with XP's release, but ME will still be hanging around for a least 1 more year, maybe 2. Microsoft will retire ME and 2000 at the same time.

BTW, most people will say Win9x sucks but this being an NT BUFF forum, that doesn't surprise me

Am I the only one who thinks ME sucks?

I rest my case.

ME=Money Extortion. ME is a pile of sh1t

XP = eXtra Problems?
XP = eXceptionally good?
ME = Money Extortion?
ME = Memory Eater?
ME = Mostly Excellent?

Everyone has their opinion of an MS product, here is mine.
MS is just MORE SH1T!

Win98SE, the best and fastest gaming OS out there...

Messed up? Re-install in 10 minutes from scratch, beat that!

It is a stupid shell over a dos based operating system. I mean, so unstable, how can people even work on it.
Personally, They just messed up with programming, i mean so many memory conflicts....its a shame...

Theres a simple answer to this and that is "THAT PIECE OF S**T ME"

MS= Megash*t

95 was good for 1995, 98 was ok, for 1998. ME BLOWS CHUNKS!!! This is 2002, it's NT 5.0 or 5.1, stop living in the past. Windows 9.x, ANY version SUX for those of us who actually use our computer for more than email and chatting!!! IF you actually produce music, videos, or write software 9.x is the worst memory leaking peeeeeeece of sheeeeeet! Yes I JUST LOVED HAVING TO REBOOT SEVERAL TIMES A DAY!!!Not from crashing (well sometimes) but from loss of resources. At least 2000 doesn't lose so much memory. Windows 9.x is for AOL-ellaZ and those who have 3 programs they run and that's it.
And as far as reinstalling in 10 minutes from scratch that's BS! You must have a 20K RPM drive, a gig of DDR and a 3.0 GIG chip!!! Because after OS install, Windows update, patches, drivers, and your fuqqed up programs and games 10 minutes is long past.

All win9x/ME versions suck big time if you want to have a reliable and stable system. For gaming they're quite good, but yet on this task they crash often. MS move with win2k was a checkmate. The system absolutelly rocks, and i bet that XP will get as good as win2k in a little while.

CyberGenX you are correct 10 minutes is kind of silly. After reinstalling and reconfiguring and customizing my settings, and applications a couple of hours minimum have gone by. But usually I set aside a Sunday morning to get it done.

back in 95, weren't all of you home users happy to see a nice gui and have your pnp? I know I was, I'd use anything over win3.11. True, some people stated that if you throw everything at it, it would become unstable, or require a reboot just to free up resources. So very true, but I did not have the money back then to buy win nt 3.51! I really liked win98se, that was fast and almost steady...but at that time, i was already dualbooting with nt4. That was the time that I favoured that production line: nt4,win2000,winxp.....not having to reboot every 3 hrs is so nice! I have over 35 apps and 30 games installed currently and not a sign of a bsod. if i did that with 98se, my pc would definately NOT like it at all (putting it politely).

regards,
tsonta101

PS I didn't even get winme, from what i saw it's just win98 with a lot of bells and whistles...why through away some good money?

so,
it doesn't suck if you dont do anything heavy on it (like play a few games, make a DivX movie, go on the net etc) and it sucks bigtime for everything else (doing paid work, as stability & performance are not guaranteed etc), rendering it an insensible choice for corporate people.

right?

In all my experiences in the corporate computer world (like those phone support, data entry, database, graphic design offices I visit etc.) They all use either NT 4.0, 5.0, MAC or Linux. Windows 9.x was for small businesses and home users that couldn't afford NT and site the licenses. It IS DOS with a freakin pretty shell on it, NOT TRUE 32Bit OS either. Why do you all think MS came out with NT so quickly during that era? 9.x was a mistake, a 5 year failed BETA, and even MS admits that. If you run Windows 95 these days you either have an old machine or you need to upgrade. As for 98, SE is starting to get OLD!!! Your are driving a 4 year old OS in your 2 month old machines people!!! ME is not an option. The code got more unstable when DOS (its mommy)was ripped from it (almost entirely). The polls don't lie, 9.x sucked, it's dead w/DOS, so cover it with dirt and get NT.

ehhh, Back when Windows 95 came out. I was using just Dos, from 1991-1994 I was using a 286 at home with 1mb of ram and I could run Windows 3.1 but only in standard mode. So basically I'd just load it up to check out Win3.1 but pretty much didn't do anything with it because there wasn't much point. DOS programs at that time were FAR more graphically pleasing than Win3.1 games. Even Win32 didn't come close.

Then I picked up a new 486DX4/100 with 12mb of RAM. Installed 95 on my brand spakin new machine. Stuck in my 95 demo disc. Nothing worked! Woohoo! I still had to boot into DOS to play my games because there weren't any good Windows 95 games out yet. In fact the day before I received my new computer I bought Mechwarrior 2...which guess what.. Only ran in DOS! Windows 95 was a buggy POS when it first came out but it was a nice little improvement over Windows 3.1.

Not NT4...now that was nice. Was actually able to get some work done dual-booting with NT4/95/98.

Win9x was good until Win2k came out. then the NT kernel became a realistic option for the power-user. USB Support, Windows 98 ease of use, and NT stability was great.

After 2k came out, I had a great hatred of 98. I dual booted for 5 months, and eventually, never even booted into 98 for 3months.

After that, 9x has not been on one of my primary systems as a REAL OS. I've not revered 9x as my option since June of 2000.

Do I still use it? Yeah, on systems slower than 400mhz, I'll install 98SE. I install it on customers' systems if they want to play their old games, after testing them in XP first(**** You, EA!).

I think 98SE is the best. ME runs slower than 98SE and it doesn't play DOS games very well. 95 doesn't handle USB very well. Microsoft should either refund money to those who bought ME or give them XP for free.

No, I find that 98 Second Edition is OK and works fine on my PC.

Windows 9x sucks, there are no two ways about it.

Win98 SE was great for me, although it's dated now, so I use Win2k. But releasing WinME was a crime! I've never encountered Windows that crashed so often. It's junk! So, I really can't say whether Win9x suck or not. Except for ME, they're OK, I guess.

Windows ME sucks. It was just a crappy OS which was like a hold over until XP came out. It is the worst OS that MS has came out with.

Actually, that's debatable... have a look here:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/02q3/020930/os_comparison-04.html