Forget ME and 98!

[Marktait 0]

Iv moved to windows2000 pro and its great..all you users of ME and 98 go get urself windows2000 and forget ME and 98.2000 runs all my games and just as good as 98 and ME and no crashes at all.

 

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

1.2Ghz @ 1.32Ghz AMDK7 Athlon Thunderbird

512MB PC133 Hyundai RAM

ATX Gigabyte 71XE4 Motherboard

40GB Seagate ATA/100 5400RPM

16x 10x 40x LiteON ReWriter

40x Compaq CDDrive

17" NEC Monitor

64MB Nvidia GeForce 2Mx

Ambient 56k V.92Fax Modem

Creative 128PCI Soundcard

Hauppage WinTV Card with Radio

EPSON 580 USB Printer

BlackWidow 648HOME USB Scanner

Windows2000Professional SP2 IE6

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

 

 

Who agrees...?

[Brian Frank 0]

Another convert!

ME is total trash: promised much, but failed to follow through. IMO, ME is worse than 98---hell, I'd say it might be worse than 95.

[reversing_drive 0]

I love it when this topic is brought up now and again

 

Won't be long before some dude comes in and starts blazing away about how good ME is or something, it's usually quit funny to read , like the last one you were involved in BrianF.

 

Yeah i agree WindowsME is a JOKE!, Windows98 is OK, if you only use it for games. But Win2K ROCKS!, i love it.

I'm also quit a big fan of NT4 still, I mean it got 2K where it is today, and it does quit fine if your not a gamer.

 

Hey thats my veiw,

Cheers.

[DosFreak 2]

and for that 1...or mabye 2 ME advocates. We are not saying that since ME is the absolute worse OS on the planet that 98SE suxs even more. Not so. 98SE is BETTER. MUCH BETTER. Than ME. Yes. Sad isn't it?

[Brian Frank 0]

That ME sux thread was the biggest flame pot I've ever had with anybody. I know some ppl had problems with jdulmage (sorry to bring him up) but there was one dude with problems (not me:p).

ME promised a lot and delivered zilch, providing the opposite effect.

There are people who think it sux more than 98, and they aren't geeks.

[HarU 0]

I don't really care anymore. I used to defend ME for GAMING ONLY...but im kinda sick of this topic. If 2k was compatible with all old games as well as the new ones, there would be no need for the 9x kernal anymore. I run 2k on four machines, and ME on one. ME works fine for my games...never have problems. 2k works great for my servers as well, so hell, im not complaining. I've said it many many times before, every OS has its uses. NO OS is perfect in every sense. But thats what makes the market so great and competitive. Pretty soon Linux will be compatible with all the new games as well...hehe

[pmistry 0]

When dealing with the 9x line of OSes, I really think they got less stable as we go up. From my viewpoint, Windows 95 was a heck of a lot more stable than Windows 98, 98 was more stable than 98 SE, and 98 SE is more stable than ME. I remember using Windows 95 on my old 486 and it ran beautifully, then later on my Pentium, much better than 3.1. Then I had a dual boot of 95 with NT4, sweet setup if I say. Overall I still think 95 is the best 9x OS. If you've got 95 B or 95 C then you can get all of that USB/AGP crap if you're an expert PC user.

[Tapek 0]

ME is good for gaming only, 98se is better for gaming only - 2k is **** and XP is the best for everything!

[Brian Frank 0]

Troll.

Win2k does not suck, and you'd be unwise to spout that in this forum.

[pmistry 0]

ME vs 2K will it ever end?

[Marktait 0]

Xp Is crap.muns no games and wont even use standby.I HATE *Microsoft*

[Tapek 0]

xp rewls - 2k suk0rs

[AndyFair 0]

That's what I love about NT Compatible - the high callibre of participants and standard of debate on the message board

 

AndyF

 

PS - My PCs better than yours!

PPS - Sorry, couldn't resis

[Admiral LSD 0]

Quote:

Xp Is crap.muns no games and wont even use standby.I HATE *Microsoft*

Tried running too many old DOS games have we? I'm running XP now and it runs every Windows game I've thrown at it. DOS games are a different story with the only two that I've tried that ran flawlessly being Rise of the Triad and Duke Nukem 3D (unless you count the lack of networking a flaw) and even then that was a surprise. IMO XP is much better than 2k but both are infinitely better than any of the 9x OS' (even 98SE).

[pmistry 0]

best 9x OS was Win95 because it wasn't baggaged with DirectX, IE, and technology was crap then so it only 50 megs of disk space, but times have changed.

[pbuckne 0]

Milleniam is basically service pack 2 for win98- not much of an improvement... I have seen it run decent with the system restore turned off, (completely).

Fat32 itself has inherent issues, so anything running on it tends to have problems to begin with. I am much happier with Win2k than previous, and am still a bit iffy about the ole XP thing.

I will be putting it on an old K62 350 for testing purposes, and we shall see...

[shassouneh 0]

Hi All,

The problems with Windows 95/98/Me come from the following two major reasons:

 

A.) vfat: FAT 32 is NOTORIOUS for having issues. Have you ever shut down your machine normally, only to find scandisk loading up EVERY time windows loads up? yup, we'ver all been there. FAT32 seems to have issues with file and directory loss and corruption. If you want a SOLID file system that probably will not fail you, take my advice and get NTFS (of coarse that means you'll need windows NT4/2000/XP).

For more information on NTFS vs FAt32 check out my other post here:

http://www.ntcompatible.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18854

 

B.) DOS kernel: The first person who wrote DOS (even before Microsoft laid hand on it) called DOS a "quick and dirty Operating System". In many respects, it remained that way too! In 1995 Microsoft took the DOS kernel and gave it a nice graphical shell called "Windows 95". Ever since, it has built windows 98 on windows 95, and further renamed Windows 98 as Windows ME (with a new splash screen, more bugs and system restore). So Win95/98/Me are ALL based (in some way) on the buggy DOS kernel, which means those "Operating Systems" where not written from scratch as Operating Systems, but as nice graphical SHELLS on top of dos. You find evidence of this evry time you boot up a win95/98/Me machine as it requires command.com to start the boot-up process, and your autoexec.bat file loads up every time.

 

vs Windows NT:

Windows XP was built from Windows 2000.

Windows 2000 was built from Windows NT

Windows NT was written from scratch!!!!

 

Yes, Windows NT MAY have used code from Windows 95, but the majority of the Operating System was written from scratch. End result being a TRUE Operating system, NOT a graphical shell on top of a crappy OS.

 

If you are runnign win95/98/Me I STRONGLY urge you to dump it and get yourself an NT kernel! LOL

[pmistry 0]

Those who use 9x, use it for compatibility and overall performance, not everyone needs NT.

 

I find that Win2k has great performance, and stability, but compatibility can be bothersome sometimes...not always.

I find that Win9x has great performance and compatibility but can strike out on stability sometimes...not always.

 

I started to use WinXP and for me I am gonna wait until some newer drivers are released for my hardware. Especially my Linksys Network USB Adapter. Right now it has good compatibility and stability but its performance is crap, I have that mouse lag in games, AGP fast writes are disabled in all Nvidia drivers above 2x.xx. And the OS seems sluggish at running games and browsing the net, but its pretty snappy otherwise, I also sblive troubles until I got ahold of those new Creative drivers. I am running an Athlon 750 with a 32 meg Geforce2, and 512 Megs of RAM.

 

I dual ME/2000, the compromise right now. ME is there for compatibility problems in Win2k, which right now is nothing, but I still won't ditch it right away.

[insaNity 0]

The purpose of 9x was to provide a transition to the new generation in windows.

It runs just about everything, and runs it fast, with stability being a trade off.

 

It served its purpose, and now we must move on.

 

RIP 9x