Does anyone had reasons to regret having upgraded Windows from ME to XP; if so, why? Thanks in advance for any forthcoming comment. Jean-Pierre.-

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Jean-Pierre

XP needs a much higher spec PC than ME - everything including all drivers must be 
XP compatible.

For hardware you can check MS Hardware Compatibility list - but even then there are 
100% guarntees for compatibility - IMHO for XP new installation and new computer 
are recommended.

I'm sure already know these things anyway.

Also bear in mind that Xp/2000 are different to 95/98/Me.

Arde

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Jean-Pierre, I would ask that question on the XP forum, but I will say this and that is that NEW computers with XP are usually running 512Mb RAM with a P4 or top-end PIII processor. This is the biggest failing of ME to have less than 512Mb RAM. Ian.


On Sunday, July 14, 2002 at 3:02 pm, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> Does anyone had reasons to regret having upgraded Windows from ME to XP; if so,
>why?
>Thanks in advance for any forthcoming comment.
>Jean-Pierre.-
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Hi Ian, Thanks for the advice, I will do as you suggested, that is put the question on the forum, thanks again, Jean-Pierre,


On Monday, July 15, 2002 at 9:58 am, Ian wrote:
>Jean-Pierre, I would ask that question on the XP forum, but I will say this and that
>is that NEW computers with XP are usually running 512Mb RAM with a P4 or top-end
>PIII processor. This is the biggest failing of ME to have less than 512Mb RAM. Ian.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Hi Arde. I suspected something of the kind, I thank you for your kind assistance. All the best, Jean-Pierre,


On Monday, July 15, 2002 at 12:19 am, Arde wrote:

>
>Jean-Pierre
>
>XP needs a much higher spec PC than ME - everything including all drivers must be 
>XP compatible.
>
>For hardware you can check MS Hardware Compatibility list - but even then there 
are 
>100% guarntees for compatibility - IMHO for XP new installation and new computer 
>are recommended.
>
>I'm sure already know these things anyway.
>
>Also bear in mind that Xp/2000 are different to 95/98/Me.
>
>Arde
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Ian,

I am running Windows 2000 Pro, and am thinking of upgrading to ME. From what I've 
heard all over the web, it looks better, more stable, and cheaper than XP.

I do wonder, having built a PC myself, if you know what RAM is? It is the memory 
of the computer. It comes in sticks and is an internal part. There is no limit to 
how much RAM am O.S. can deal with. It is limited only by the PC's motherboard, and 
the cost of RAM/memory. It is hardly fair to blame ME (the O.S., not myself!) for 
the fact that most ME PCs have less RAM than XPs. This is due only to the fact that 
XP came out later, and therefore is used on more recent PCs, which might happen to 
have more RAM than ones running ME.

I should probably point out that this computer I am using, which I built, is running 
Windows 2000 Pro (older than ME) and has 512mb RAM. I think I rest my case.

It is just what the PC manufacturers choose to put in their systems.





On a weirder note, if anyone wants to win a brand new mobile phone booster by doing 
hardly anything (retails for $19.99 in the States), check out my new web site, the 
official waste land of the Internet, its-not.me.uk, 
and click on "competitions"! Just to give you folks a chance, the first letter was 
"D". Click 4 more info.  '-)

*shameless plug over*

Back on the PC front, does anyone have any other comments about possibly upgrading 
to ME from 2000? Maybe from 2000 to XP, although I'm reluctant to do this. What do 
people think?








On Monday, July 15, 2002 at 9:58 am, Ian wrote:
>Jean-Pierre, I would ask that question on the XP forum, but I will say this and 
that 
>is that NEW computers with XP are usually running 512Mb RAM with a P4 or top-end 
>PIII processor. This is the biggest failing of ME to have less than 512Mb RAM. Ian.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

From ME to 2000 is not an upgrade. XP works much better with a clean install rather 
than an up-grade.

Useful info:XP 64-bit & CPU's 64-bit

You say: "It is just what the PC manufacturers choose to put in their systems."

A VERY obvious statement, if I may say so.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough.

I do realise that is a very obvious statement, but you seemed to be critising ME 
for not having enough memory! The memory is completely unrelated to the O.S., apart 
from the minimum memory needed to run.

I am using a machine which runs both 2000 Pro and 98SE. I nearly always use 2000 
unless I want to run a 16-bit program, something 2000 can't do. I am thinking of 
upgrading the 98 half of the computer to ME, and making that my main OS. I realise 
you can't upgrade from 2000 to ME, even though ME came out slightly later.

Of course I might upgrade to XP instead, but I have heard many a tale of incompatible 
software and hardware, and I'm told that whenever you upgrade your hardware, you 
must re-register XP with Microsoft. There is also a limit to the number of times 
you can re-register. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This sounds like a lot of hassle 
for me, as I quite often shuffle hardware around and upgrade.

Any thoughts?






On Tuesday, October 8, 2002 at 9:11 am, Ian wrote:
>From ME to 2000 is not an upgrade. XP works much better with a clean install rather 
>than an up-grade.
>
>Useful info:XP 64-bit & HREF="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,,231,00.asp">CPU's 64-bit
>
>You say: "It is just what the PC manufacturers choose to put in their systems."
>
>A VERY obvious statement, if I may say so.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

You would be much better off to stay with '98 rather than change to ME. Ian.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Are or did you upgrade from Win2KPro to ME? Did I read that correctly? If so, I'm curious to know if you prefer ME or W2KPro. I think ME was the biggest mistake Bill has made to date. I use all of the O.S.'s and Me has proven to be the least secure. Let me know.


On Tuesday, October 8, 2002 at 9:00 am, RL, Sussex wrote:

>Ian,
>
>I am running Windows 2000 Pro, and am thinking of upgrading to ME. From what I've 
>heard all over the web, it looks better, more stable, and cheaper than XP.
>
>I do wonder, having built a PC myself, if you know what RAM is? It is the memory 
>of the computer. It comes in sticks and is an internal part. There is no limit to 
>how much RAM am O.S. can deal with. It is limited only by the PC's motherboard, 
and 
>the cost of RAM/memory. It is hardly fair to blame ME (the O.S., not myself!) for 
>the fact that most ME PCs have less RAM than XPs. This is due only to the fact that 
>XP came out later, and therefore is used on more recent PCs, which might happen 
to 
>have more RAM than ones running ME.
>
>I should probably point out that this computer I am using, which I built, is running 
>Windows 2000 Pro (older than ME) and has 512mb RAM. I think I rest my case.
>
>It is just what the PC manufacturers choose to put in their systems.
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Nope! I am still thinking about it, but while I have heard some rave reviews saying 
how stable it is, I have also heard people like yourself condemning it for being 
the least stable version of Windows so far! Don't quite know what to make of what 
it's really like. The O.S. you love to hate? Or hate to love? Or would love to love, 
but just can't? Oh, I dunno!

Anyway, after hearing how XP makes you re-register the O.S. after 3 hardware changes 
(and update something with Microsoft every time you make 1 hardware change), I am 
not very keen on it! I've also heard about compatability issues with XP. ME, being 
part of the 9x series, is sure to be compatible with more stuff, although Windows 
2000Pro is nearly as bad as XP in this respect. I think perhaps a dual boot ME/2000 
or ME/XP system may be good? Obviously, the latter would be substantially more expensive, 
given I already own 2000 and have 98 as a second boot option on my 2000 machine anyway. 
This means the first option would mean a simple ME upgrade, the second an XP upgrade. 
And they don't come cheap. Would you recommend XP in particular over 2000, despite 
the cost and compatability issues? If so, what do you find is better about it?






On Monday, November 11, 2002 at 11:40 am, PhilMac wrote:
>Are or did you upgrade from Win2KPro to ME?  Did I read that correctly?  If so, 
I'm 
>curious to know if you prefer ME or W2KPro.  I think ME was the biggest mistake 
Bill 
>has made to date. I use all of the O.S.'s and Me has proven to be the least secure. 
> Let me know.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I guess you just gotta mess around with all of them to be really sure. I've lived in Chicago all of my life but Atlanta is where I "grew up" because that's where I went to college. That's how I feel about Win2KPro compared to all that came before. You get me? It's not as much "fun" as '98 (and I am a gamer), but I love the stability. To me that's the biggest issue. And it can handle high end programs better. I'm trying to get used to XP Pro. It is built on the same frame as Win2K and Nt4 before it. XP home is an extension of 98 (I refuse to recognize the mistake called ME. OS-10 made Bill very nervous). I have XP Pro and 98 on a dual boot and it works fine except when it comes to networking issues. Good luck.


On Monday, November 11, 2002 at 12:10 pm, RL, Sussex wrote:

>Nope! I am still thinking about it, but while I have heard some rave reviews saying 
>how stable it is, I have also heard people like yourself condemning it for being 
>the least stable version of Windows so far! Don't quite know what to make of what 
>it's really like. The O.S. you love to hate? Or hate to love? Or would love to love, 
>but just can't? Oh, I dunno!
>
>Anyway, after hearing how XP makes you re-register the O.S. after 3 hardware changes 
>(and update something with Microsoft every time you make 1 hardware change), I am 
>not very keen on it! I've also heard about compatability issues with XP. ME, being 
>part of the 9x series, is sure to be compatible with more stuff, although Windows 
>2000Pro is nearly as bad as XP in this respect. I think perhaps a dual boot ME/2000 
>or ME/XP system may be good? Obviously, the latter would be substantially more expensive, 
>given I already own 2000 and have 98 as a second boot option on my 2000 machine 
anyway. 
>This means the first option would mean a simple ME upgrade, the second an XP upgrade. 
>And they don't come cheap. Would you recommend XP in particular over 2000, despite 
>the cost and compatability issues? If so, what do you find is better about it?
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I have come to regret upgrading to XP from ME. While rebuilding the wireless networks and installing McAfee 2003 anti-virus/firewall, I lost all connection to the internet and had to work for 4 hour with a technician to get it back. In the meantime, XP created networks which are uncessary and cannot be eliminated. In all the whole machine is slower. I would add a question of my own. If I unistalled XP down to ME, and then reinstall XP (as it is required for the wireless network), would the new networks set up by XP during the original mess be eliminated? I could then recreate the wireless network without using the XP functionalities. Pierre


On Sunday, July 14, 2002 at 3:02 pm, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> Does anyone had reasons to regret having upgraded Windows from ME to XP; if so,
>why?
>Thanks in advance for any forthcoming comment.
>Jean-Pierre.-
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Hi All, I have read all the posts in reply to my original question, and in conclusion I find it all very confusing. There are as many different opinions as they are replies. So far, I have been running windows ME for approximately a year; it took me a long time to get used to it, but in conclusion, I have to say the problems of upgrading from ME to XP are numerous and conflicting, especially when it comes to hardware compatibility. I asked the question in the first place as I wanted to stay ahead of the new Microsoft's policies which, after a while, let go of their support for the older versions. e.g. 3.2, 95 and soon 98. I now believe that once used to it, ME is quite reliable, less costly in resources, and gives the opportunity to create restore points, should something go wrong; I think I will stick with ME, upgrade from 256 to 512Mb of Ram and accept it as it is. As someone pointed out, ME is still of the Windows' family. Thank you all for having given your comments on this subject. Jean-Pierre.-


On Wednesday, January 8, 2003 at 1:40 pm, Pierre wrote:
>I have come to regret upgrading to XP from ME. While rebuilding the wireless networks
>and installing McAfee 2003 anti-virus/firewall, I lost all connection to the internet
>and had to work for 4 hour with a technician to get it back. In the meantime, XP
>created networks which are uncessary and cannot be eliminated. In all the whole
>machine is slower.
>
>I would add a question of my own. If I unistalled XP down to ME, and then reinstall
>XP (as it is required for the wireless network), would the new networks set up by
>XP during the original mess be eliminated? I could then recreate the wireless network
>without using the XP functionalities.
>
>Pierre
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I made the mistake of upgrading my computer (Sony Vaio PCV-RX51 865MHz 512MB RAM Pentium3) from ME to XP. Although I had to make all the software running on my machine XP compatable in addition to the upgrade, (new drivers, etc.) I though the hard work was well worth it... XP is faster and has less problems that ME. However, a month after completing the upgrade, I could no longer use the Internet. I was told that I have to re-install ME and then do another upgrade to XP!

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

So far, I have seen 2 laptops and 2 desktop pc's that were originally built for ME, and once they were upgraded to 2000 or XP; they ALL had weird problems and failures. I have looked and looked over the web to try to find an answer, and so far, I have nothing. I'm sure that if these machines were built specifically for ME, then all of the hardware drivers are for ME. I am just surprised that especially XP didn't just take care of it all, even though I do prefer XP so far over all of the other Windows operating systems. I work on computers and have had positive results with XP overall. XP is basically (in a sense) all of the Windows operating systems in one, however, ME seams to be kind of out there by itself. I have to admit, I don't have much experience with ME other than it giving me problems! IF all it is is a driver issue in upgrading, then how can someone know where to get the drivers? Windows Updates don't even help. I have been successful in fixing computers- but it seams that every time someone tells me they upgraded their machine which was originally ME when they bought it- they are now having problems ever since. Those machines are the ones I can't seem to fix- even when I do a clean install (format) and start all over again. They usually end up "blue screening" with different messages or not wanting to run certain programs correctly when I think I have finally fixed it. That brings me to think that there is still a hardware driver issue existing, but I can't figure it out. These computers had enough memory and processors that would work fine with 2000 or XP. Comparing them to other machines with the same aspects; the other machines worked wonderfully with XP (or 2000). BUT these machines WERE NOT originally built for ME- they were built for 98. ???? Has anyone ever heard of a problem like this before?


On Sunday, July 14, 2002 at 3:02 pm, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> Does anyone had reasons to regret having upgraded Windows from ME to XP; if so,
>why?
>Thanks in advance for any forthcoming comment.
>Jean-Pierre.-
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Well, I agree with the others. Windows ME is a smaller and operating system than Windows XP and the drivers must be compatible with the operating system. Also, since Microsoft tried to make Windows ME a home operating system, Windows ME can log into a network domain, where Windows XP Home Edition can't, plus it is still on the MS-DOS kernel, where it can run old DOS, DOS-4G and 16 bit games and programs. Now, I recommend you keep Windows ME, without upgrading to Windows XP. Then you buy and Install Windows XP on a seperate partition (If you have enough space) or hard drive (recommended) and dual-boot your system, running Windows ME and XP.


On Sunday, July 14, 2002 at 3:02 pm, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> Does anyone had reasons to regret having upgraded Windows from ME to XP; if so,
>why?
>Thanks in advance for any forthcoming comment.
>Jean-Pierre.-
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Want some good advice? Completely delete ME from your computer, go on ebay and buy an OEM version of Windows XP (complete system, not the upgrade) and install it on your system. It works better than the upgrade because it installs all the drivers you need....the upgrade doesn't. ME is way too unstable of an OS which is why MS reintroduced 98 after ME came out. XP is the bomb but you have to clear the crap out of your system. I know.....this is exactly what I've been through over the last 8 months!!


On Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 7:35 am, Jude Nihal Fernando wrote:
>Well, I agree with the others. Windows ME is a smaller and operating system than
>Windows XP and the drivers must be compatible with the operating system. Also, since
>Microsoft tried to make Windows ME a home operating system, Windows ME can log into
>a network domain, where Windows XP Home Edition can't, plus it is still on the MS-DOS
>kernel, where it can run old DOS, DOS-4G and 16 bit games and programs.
>
>Now, I recommend you keep Windows ME, without upgrading to Windows XP. Then you buy
>and Install Windows XP on a seperate partition (If you have enough space) or hard
>drive (recommended) and dual-boot your system, running Windows ME and XP.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum