Windows ME

[Ronin 0]

So anyone played with beta 2 or 3 and if so how is it?

 

 

...

[Tim Bazzinett 0]

Just like Win98 with a win2000 look and feel. Not worth paying for... (Especially when you can play around with BeOS 5 for free.)

[tylau 0]

Wow, BE0s, where do you guys can d/l soft for BE, very scarce on the net. cheers.

 

[This message has been edited by tylau (edited 10 April 2000).]

[Yearout 0]

Man ME is So much better than Win98. I'm sorry but I don't think the other guy tried it. In testing with Win98 and Win98se I get so many lock ups with those yet with ME so far Great. Windows 2000 does play alot of games but if you like playing games I would go with ME.

[Andersony 0]

I won't go with ME just cuz the name sounds GAY !!!

 

Someone would ask me what system do ya have...?

 

In a manly voice:

1Ghz P IV

1GB of RAM

A 75GB Hardisk

A GeForce DDAAMMFFAASSTT Video Card

 

And what OS?

 

In a teenage breaking voice I would have to reply:

 

MEeeeEEeeeeeEEEEeeee.

 

WTF, Gay GAY GGGAAAAYYYY. Heh

[farphle 0]

I guess you think that's a valid reason to not use a particular OS? I don't care what they call it as long as it's better than 98.

[EddiE314 0]

i've used WinME beta2 and beta3, I also used to run Win98SE, i hate win98se to death, it seemed that winMEb2 crashed less than win98se. But its a 9x OS and it's gonna suck, at least its supposed to come with a $100 price tag, its okay for the novice user and the consumer who doesn't wanna pay $320 for an OS.

[Andersony 0]

Ooooops, sorry Farphle.

 

I let my mouth (or fingers in this case) go to far sometimes - didn't mean to offend anyone.

 

I've just been an NT person since day one. Haven't crashed since the day I put 2k on my machine, and have only rebooted to update Nvidia drivers and such... Stress freeeee computing ... ahhhhhhhh

[Tim Bazzinett 0]

Yearout, I did test it a bit and yes, it runs more stable than my win95 partition, but slower. Of the win9x OS's, I prefer win95 above the others just for the shear speed of it (nevermind the crashing part, which only happens so very often). What I meant by not paying for it is that with win2k professional out, and other much more stable OS's out for free, win ME is just not worth the money that MS is going to charge for it. It should just be released as some fix for free to windows98. But you know MS wants your money and people will pay for the OS.

[MSGuy 0]

Yea! Screw MS for wanting to get paid for a product they have been developing. Dirty bastards!

 

 

Get real, MS has every right to charge for this product. It may not be exactly what you want but lets face it pal, your not Boeing or some other HUGE customer so your one voice doesnt count for a whole lot. If you don't like it don't buy it, no big deal for MS.

[Yearout 0]

Sorry Tim,

 

I did not mean anything bad by it...

[Woodlet 0]

Where can one get a Beta copy of ME?

From MS I mean..

; )

[EddiE314 0]

i'm sure a WaReZ site can help you with that.

[tristan777 0]

yea. to hell with paying for stuff. heh... i agree with tim. 95 is soooo much faster. its too bad it's so unstable. right now i am going to have to stick with 2000 though. its so damn stable its amazing. the only time i have ever restarted is to install drivers or take it to lan parties. i assume they will continue the trend of making each 9x release slower than the last with a few minor fixes, so i will probably stay away from "ME". i definately wont pay for it. thats for sure.

[Tim Bazzinett 0]

Yearout, no offense taken

 

MSGUY, (and I hope not to offend you with this. Just my opinions) there are a few reasons for why I wont consider buying Windows Me (sorry, but that name just is to irritating. Falcon, eagle, monster, something else other than Me). One is once again that tight integration of the browser/active desktop that just eats up resources and slows things down. Hopefully, another version of 98Lite for Win ME that will fix that problem. You would think after the Anti-trust trial, this feature would be removed (making the OS a whole lot faster).

 

Another is that Win2k Pro is such a much better choice, utilizing NTFS security and incredible stability.

 

Microsoft is at it once again by removing support for other NOS systems such as Novell and Banyan (to force people to use Win2k pro, which is costly to the small business world. And to somehow make people use the Active Directory services instead of NDS of Novell).

 

Another good reason is the availabilty of alternative OS's out there, most of them free.

 

For me, Win95 still has not outgrown my needs (I just wish it would stop crashing once every so often). Win2k and Red Hat fill the gaps that win95 doesnt cover.

 

I do agree with you that the programmers at microsoft should get paid for their work, but not for buggy software. But one features of windows 98 was to download any updates. If win Me is really nothing more than an update to win98, why are we still paying for a whole new upgrade?

 

If Microsoft was to change the name into something more "ballsy" and was to remove the active desktop/web intergration to speed up the OS, I would actually consider buying this product. But for now, I dont see myself wanting a slower OS that win2k pro can easily replace.

 

------------------

Celeron 300A@450, Abit BH6, 160 RAM, Seagate Barracuda 20.4gig 7.2k rpm UDMA66, Modified Promise ultra66 turned into a Fasttrack hack, 48x Lite-on CDROM

Diamond v770 tnt2 16 meg, Voodoo2 8, meg, 17"Daytek

[farphle 0]

Andersony, I didn't say I cared for the 9x kernel. I'm a huge 2K fan myself, not one problem yet.

[Skywise 0]

Used ME for a couple of months...then went back to 98SE. At least if some of my files are corrupt and I can't get into windoze I can use dos scandisk to repair the system. Not so with ME. Also ME has a horrible "backup/recovery" system that sounds nice on paper, but in reality just eats up space and slows down your system. I eventually figured out to turn it off, but by then it had taken up almost 2 gigs of my HD.

 

I actually see no point in ME. If I'm not going to use dos, then I'll use win2k. If I need dos/backwards compatibility that win2k doesn't offer I'll use 98. ME can't be used, and that means it's totally useless for my purposes.

[Woodlet 0]

Looks like I'm gonna stay away from ME then....

lol

Thanks..

and I was acually looking for a LEGAL place to get ME...

/me slaps self with a trout for being so stupid

[PseudoMan 0]

Not paying for software which isn't 'bug free', what?!? You don't pay for any software?

 

I think its funny that people beleive the myth about bug free software. In the end no software is bug free. There are just too many people trying to integrate too many things for there not to be some gaps where this don't mesh perfectly. Drivers are the perfect example. Driver installers are constantly up[censored] dll's. This works fine if you're using a standard install of the OS, but what happens if you have an older driver which already updated that dll? The newer version of the dll may not contain the APIs that the older driver relied on to work correctly which causes the older driver to begin to fail/BC/bsod...

[Yearout 0]

Well went to Beta 3 of "ME" and so far explorer keeps crashing, looks like more bugs. I did not and never expect it to be bug free but it was for me a lot better then win98se... Plus some of the icons went black...

[Mondain98 0]

WinME is nothing more than Win98se with the most recent "Winsows Update" updates, as well as some driver updates. Oh, and the GUI of Win2k. It's still based on the outdated and problematic Win9x kernel. Have fun rebooting.

 

BeOS? BeOS is useless to 99% of the population. If you arent in a serious multimedia editing position, BeOS isnt worth your time. It's a free download? So what.

 

As much as I am anti-Microsoft-juggernaut, Win2k contains more advancements in OS technology than any other OS on the market. Any informed expert on operating systems would agree.

 

Games developed with Win2k in mind will, hands down, blow away the experience of gaming on a Win9x environment. IMHO.