How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millenium?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

XP Home is far superior to Windows ME, as it is based on the rock-solid NT/2000 code base, rather than the unstable Win 98 one.


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:53 am, Mike Smith wrote:
>How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millenium?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Yes, XP is probably a better choice over NT. To elaborate on why... After Windows3.1 went to market and MS Windows became popular, MS split onto two tracks. One they focused on home user and the other was business oriented. Home users got a shot in the arm with Win95. It was a significant improvement over 3.1. At the same time, the NT kernel was being massaged and was fast becoming an increasingly robust and stable business platform. These separate tracks continued until the release of XP. XP marks MS decision to move back to a single product track. It makes sense - combine the features of both systems that were appealing and ran well and package them together. The code is already written. To create a "home" version and "professional" version MS need enable and disable certain functions. It has been long known that the NT kernel is more stable than the 9x/Me architecture. Most Win9x/Me users will agree to that. You feel like you have to be very careful when you are using your system so as to avoid lockups and the Blue Screen of Death. NT platforms on the other hand are much more stable and can theoretically be kicked around, thrown in the dirt and it will still run strong. Me was really just 98SE with an Earl Shieb paint job. "Any operating system, any desktop scheme, $99.95!" It seemed like it was just an attempt to make some bucks on the Y2K issues of that time. Many were concerned about their operating system crashing at 1259, 31 Dec 1999. Bill saw this and used it to market Me. You feel safer if you get the new operating system. I just recently upgraded from 98SE to XP. My significant other runs a cookie cutter system with Me installed. My 98SE system ran better than her Me system. I decided to upgrade after running into problems getting multiple monitors to work following some hardware upgrades. Long story short, XP solved all the issues I was having. Many are hesitating to do the upgrade because of the software/hardware compatibility issues. Most of those seem to be resolved. Many companies have updated drivers available on the web. If they are not yet ready, they at least have a schedule so you can see when they might be ready. I spent time downloading updated XP drivers for stuff only to have XP load up fine. The only thing that was problematic was my scanner. Apparently a few people have trouble with scanner installation. Dunno why. There is also the issue of file systems. This is a transparent issue to most users but as we get more and more computer savvy, things like this surface. XP runs on an NTFS file system. Win 9x run on FAT or FAT32. Go to howstuffworks.com for info on what these are. Basically these determine how your CPU stores data on the hard disk. It boils down to how big the chunks of data (packets) are. The NTFS file system also allows you to set permissions for files and volumes (drives ….C:, D:, etc) which add to security and functionality. FAT based systems offer no data security. Ok, we fear change. Don't. It’s hard to bring down an NT based computer and seemingly just as, if not more so, with XP machines. Driver compatibility is a negligible issue. Price is reasonable. How often do you buy a new operating system? On that note – if you do upgrade to XP, buy the upgrade versus the full version. Both are the same. When you install on a clean drive (strongly recommended to format your hard drive and wipe all old versions of Windows off before you begin) XP will ask you to prove you qualify for the upgrade version. Putting your old Windows CD in the CDROM drive proves that. From there it performs a full install. So get the upgrade version and save yourself some money. Hope this helps.


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:53 am, Mike Smith wrote:
>How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millennium?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

XP is based on NT technology which SHOULD be better, BUT (BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT!!!) Let me give you 2 real world examples...... 1. On my machine I run the Seti At home app. On my machine running ME, it takes 8-10 hours per work unit. NOW.. install new disk drive, FRESH install of XP home edition and now each Seti At home work unit runs at the blistering pace of 24-30 hours per work unit. Yes, XP runs the same app on the same machine SLOWER than Windows ME. Example 2. Friend of mine bought a brand new portable pre-loaded with XP professionsal. Loads ALL his business stuff on it and his correspondence. THEN, his USB connector on the motherboard fails. XP's respone?? BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH!!!. With a failing USB controller, there is NO WAY to boot the portable even to safe mode, so there is no way to get my friends data off his failing machine. His response?? He sent his PC back and when it was repaired, he re-loaded with Win2k.. Good luck...(I think you will need it) Bob


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:53 am, Mike Smith wrote:
>How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millenium?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Oops. Correction: Yes XP is probably a better choice over Me, not NT. As the previous poster pointed out, XP does have certain limitations, as with any Windows based operating system. Wow, what an oxymoron - an 'operating' system. Anyway, assuming you are using this PC for home use, I'd spend the cash and upgrade to XP over Me. NT2000 would be a good choice for a business application. Read lots of reviews before deciding. Good luck.


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 6:39 am, J B wrote:
>Yes, XP is probably a better choice over NT. To elaborate on why...
>
>After Windows3.1 went to market and MS Windows became popular, MS split onto two
>tracks. One they focused on home user and the other was business oriented. Home
>users got a shot in the arm with Win95. It was a significant improvement over 3.1.
> At the same time, the NT kernel was being massaged and was fast becoming an increasingly
>robust and stable business platform. These separate tracks continued until the release
>of XP. XP marks MS decision to move back to a single product track. It makes sense
>- combine the features of both systems that were appealing and ran well and package
>them together. The code is already written. To create a "home" version and "professional"
>version MS need enable and disable certain functions.
>
>It has been long known that the NT kernel is more stable than the 9x/Me architecture.
> Most Win9x/Me users will agree to that. You feel like you have to be very careful
>when you are using your system so as to avoid lockups and the Blue Screen of Death.
> NT platforms on the other hand are much more stable and can theoretically be kicked
>around, thrown in the dirt and it will still run strong.
>
>Me was really just 98SE with an Earl Shieb paint job. "Any operating system, any
>desktop scheme, $99.95!" It seemed like it was just an attempt to make some bucks
>on the Y2K issues of that time. Many were concerned about their operating system
>crashing at 1259, 31 Dec 1999. Bill saw this and used it to market Me. You feel
>safer if you get the new operating system.
>
>I just recently upgraded from 98SE to XP. My significant other runs a cookie cutter
>system with Me installed. My 98SE system ran better than her Me system. I decided
>to upgrade after running into problems getting multiple monitors to work following
>some hardware upgrades. Long story short, XP solved all the issues I was having.
>
>
>Many are hesitating to do the upgrade because of the software/hardware compatibility
>issues. Most of those seem to be resolved. Many companies have updated drivers
>available on the web. If they are not yet ready, they at least have a schedule so
>you can see when they might be ready. I spent time downloading updated XP drivers
>for stuff only to have XP load up fine. The only thing that was problematic was
>my scanner. Apparently a few people have trouble with scanner installation. Dunno
>why.
>
>There is also the issue of file systems. This is a transparent issue to most users
>but as we get more and more computer savvy, things like this surface. XP runs on
>an NTFS file system. Win 9x run on FAT or FAT32. Go to howstuffworks.com for info
>on what these are. Basically these determine how your CPU stores data on the hard
>disk. It boils down to how big the chunks of data (packets) are. The NTFS file
>system also allows you to set permissions for files and volumes (drives ….C:, D:,
>etc) which add to security and functionality. FAT based systems offer no data security.
>
>
>Ok, we fear change. Don't. It’s hard to bring down an NT based computer and seemingly
>just as, if not more so, with XP machines. Driver compatibility is a negligible
>issue. Price is reasonable. How often do you buy a new operating system? On that
>note – if you do upgrade to XP, buy the upgrade versus the full version. Both are
>the same. When you install on a clean drive (strongly recommended to format your
>hard drive and wipe all old versions of Windows off before you begin) XP will ask
>you to prove you qualify for the upgrade version. Putting your old Windows CD in
>the CDROM drive proves that. From there it performs a full install. So get the
>upgrade version and save yourself some money.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>


>On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:53 am, Mike Smith wrote:
>How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millennium?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

health warning xp leads to alcho abuse bad temper swearing what ese can you do when your computer dosent work


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:53 am, Mike Smith wrote:
>How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millenium?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

XP runs on FAT32 not only on NTFS it does have NTFS loader though or whatever it's called.


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 6:39 am, J B wrote:
>Yes, XP is probably a better choice over NT. To elaborate on why...
>
>After Windows3.1 went to market and MS Windows became popular, MS split onto two
>tracks. One they focused on home user and the other was business oriented. Home
>users got a shot in the arm with Win95. It was a significant improvement over 3.1.
> At the same time, the NT kernel was being massaged and was fast becoming an increasingly
>robust and stable business platform. These separate tracks continued until the release
>of XP. XP marks MS decision to move back to a single product track. It makes sense
>- combine the features of both systems that were appealing and ran well and package
>them together. The code is already written. To create a "home" version and "professional"
>version MS need enable and disable certain functions.
>
>It has been long known that the NT kernel is more stable than the 9x/Me architecture.
> Most Win9x/Me users will agree to that. You feel like you have to be very careful
>when you are using your system so as to avoid lockups and the Blue Screen of Death.
> NT platforms on the other hand are much more stable and can theoretically be kicked
>around, thrown in the dirt and it will still run strong.
>
>Me was really just 98SE with an Earl Shieb paint job. "Any operating system, any
>desktop scheme, $99.95!" It seemed like it was just an attempt to make some bucks
>on the Y2K issues of that time. Many were concerned about their operating system
>crashing at 1259, 31 Dec 1999. Bill saw this and used it to market Me. You feel
>safer if you get the new operating system.
>
>I just recently upgraded from 98SE to XP. My significant other runs a cookie cutter
>system with Me installed. My 98SE system ran better than her Me system. I decided
>to upgrade after running into problems getting multiple monitors to work following
>some hardware upgrades. Long story short, XP solved all the issues I was having.
>
>
>Many are hesitating to do the upgrade because of the software/hardware compatibility
>issues. Most of those seem to be resolved. Many companies have updated drivers
>available on the web. If they are not yet ready, they at least have a schedule so
>you can see when they might be ready. I spent time downloading updated XP drivers
>for stuff only to have XP load up fine. The only thing that was problematic was
>my scanner. Apparently a few people have trouble with scanner installation. Dunno
>why.
>
>There is also the issue of file systems. This is a transparent issue to most users
>but as we get more and more computer savvy, things like this surface. XP runs on
>an NTFS file system. Win 9x run on FAT or FAT32. Go to howstuffworks.com for info
>on what these are. Basically these determine how your CPU stores data on the hard
>disk. It boils down to how big the chunks of data (packets) are. The NTFS file
>system also allows you to set permissions for files and volumes (drives ….C:, D:,
>etc) which add to security and functionality. FAT based systems offer no data security.
>
>
>Ok, we fear change. Don't. It’s hard to bring down an NT based computer and seemingly
>just as, if not more so, with XP machines. Driver compatibility is a negligible
>issue. Price is reasonable. How often do you buy a new operating system? On that
>note – if you do upgrade to XP, buy the upgrade versus the full version. Both are
>the same. When you install on a clean drive (strongly recommended to format your
>hard drive and wipe all old versions of Windows off before you begin) XP will ask
>you to prove you qualify for the upgrade version. Putting your old Windows CD in
>the CDROM drive proves that. From there it performs a full install. So get the
>upgrade version and save yourself some money.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>


>On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:53 am, Mike Smith wrote:
>How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millennium?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Me is a piece of Crap. Anything is better than Me. Even Windows XP which so far is running quite nicely for me.


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:53 am, Mike Smith wrote:
>How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millenium?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

XP is probably the best thing MS has created to date. That's not saying very much, but it's better than any Win9x or NT4. No experience with Win2K.

I've been running XP Pro for about 2 months on a new Dell and haven't encountered any major problems or anything that has infuriated me beyond the typical MS rot. I'm gradually getting the system the way I want it.

I can't believe some of the features listed in this article that are in XP Pro and not XP Home. Win95 was able to connect to an NT domain, it's rediculous that XP Home can't. I'd only consider the Pro version. I hate anything that's been dummed down.

XP: Yes, it's an emoticon for a dead guy with his tongue hanging out.




On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:53 am, Mike Smith wrote:
>How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millenium?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I'd have to agree that I like XP better than anythign else M/S has produced... I am running XP pro and previously ran 2K, previous to that i ran triple boot redhat/2k/Me.... I think winME has it's place.. it runs great on some computers... i run it on an older pII 400mHz without a hitch... but would not even consider running it on my personal computer (athlonXP 1700+) One thing that I have noticed is that both Me and XP have great driver/hardware support... I usually run my computers full of expansion cards... my last computer had 5 PCI, 1 ISA, and 1 AGP card in it... this was a problem for win98 and win2k (irq conflicts) but winXP and Me seemed to work fine... kudos to M/S.. Additionally, winXP comes included with almost all the drivers i needed so i didnt have to hunt down drivers for all my software... >8- ) So, I'd have to reccomend XP pro over ME on a new computer... but if you are trying to compare XP home and XP pro... it really depends on if you need to extra features... personally, i dont understand why XP home doesnt support something as simple as NON-ADMIN accts... along with supporting the full use of NTFS security ... that seems like a big boner for M/S... I think the dumbbed down version of XP will be good for most "home users" but i run several websites... 1 off XP.. and I NEED the security and flexibility that NTFS provides me with... so XP home edition is out...


On Tuesday, April 9, 2002 at 8:45 am, Bottom Feeder wrote:
>XP is probably the best thing MS has created to date. That's not saying very much,
>but it's better than any Win9x or NT4. No experience with Win2K.
>

>I've been running XP Pro for about 2 months on a new Dell and haven't encountered
>any major problems or anything that has infuriated me beyond the typical MS rot.
> I'm gradually getting the system the way I want it.
>

>I can't believe some of the features listed in this article that are in XP Pro and
>not XP Home. Win95 was able to connect to an NT domain, it's rediculous that XP
>Home can't. I'd only consider the Pro version. I hate anything that's been dummed
>down.
>

>XP: Yes, it's an emoticon for a dead guy with his tongue hanging out.
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

reply: compare windows me to xp






On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:53 am, Mike Smith wrote:
>How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millenium?


windows me had many major issues most of witch should of been fixed before the release. 
like for instance windows me only supports 512 megs of system memory you can make 
a crude atempt at fixing this by limiting page file cache but the b.s.o.d's will 
continue. me is a good solid system for the most part if you have a computer that 
is slower than 750 mhz and has less than 512megs of memmory and less than 4 installed 
cards pci and only plan to network with only one other computer. anything more than 
that (wich most of us had by the time of the windows me release ) will only work 
solid with windows xp or 2000 windows 2000 is a great solid os but lacks user friendly 
operation for the home user it was made for larger networks running servers and data 
banks windows xp is kind of confusing when first moving from windows me but once 
you learn to ignore the typical microsoft bs that is packaged with all microsoft 
os's its good solid running it uses the nt kernel engine but has all the uses and 
features of windows me the visual aspect is a shock at first but you can change that 
to look the way that you were used to before about the only problem is getting some 
of my hardware drivers to install because the evil empire microsoft set up xp to 
not install any drivers that havent been signed by them even if you click the install 
anyway button xp will install any microsoft driver it currently has in its library 
but there is a way to force the unsigned drivers in through the hardware configuration 
utility just dont let it search and always use have disk and instruct it to the correct 
drivers once past that crap and getting all your software installed its good and 
if you got software that wont run use the compatibility wizard it has worked. 

in closing im actually impressed with it after all the years of crap they have force 
fed us and to give some insight in to what im dealing with heres my system config

soyo motherboard
sb audigy platnum
pci modem
pci lancard
radeon 9700 pro
amd athalon xp 2800+
via chipset
3 gb memory ddr
2 western digital 120gb harddrives ata 133
70x cd
42x cdr
floppy and colorado tape backup


over 1000 titles of software installed
ranging in digital audio and video recording w/ a full digital recording studio hooked 
in 3d graphic modeling and video design web design photo editing software and creation 
programs desktop publishing and about 80 high end games it also serves as a server 
for our 3 machine home business and sometimes i swap video cards for a 3dlabs wildcat 
card and it has been running for four good months and not one error or blue screen 
of death
(wich is a gift from god himself for that not to happen from any microsoft product 
including solitare) so think wisely and invesigate your real needs before changing 
os's cause the last thing anyone really needs to do on this planet is give bill antichrist 
gates one more red cent

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

"XP will ask you to prove you qualify for the upgrade version. Putting your old Windows CD in the CDROM drive proves that" Does it work with a recovery CD with OEM windows?


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 6:39 am, J B wrote:
>Yes, XP is probably a better choice over NT. To elaborate on why...
>
>After Windows3.1 went to market and MS Windows became popular, MS split onto two
>tracks. One they focused on home user and the other was business oriented. Home
>users got a shot in the arm with Win95. It was a significant improvement over 3.1.
> At the same time, the NT kernel was being massaged and was fast becoming an increasingly
>robust and stable business platform. These separate tracks continued until the release
>of XP. XP marks MS decision to move back to a single product track. It makes sense
>- combine the features of both systems that were appealing and ran well and package
>them together. The code is already written. To create a "home" version and "professional"
>version MS need enable and disable certain functions.
>
>It has been long known that the NT kernel is more stable than the 9x/Me architecture.
> Most Win9x/Me users will agree to that. You feel like you have to be very careful
>when you are using your system so as to avoid lockups and the Blue Screen of Death.
> NT platforms on the other hand are much more stable and can theoretically be kicked
>around, thrown in the dirt and it will still run strong.
>
>Me was really just 98SE with an Earl Shieb paint job. "Any operating system, any
>desktop scheme, $99.95!" It seemed like it was just an attempt to make some bucks
>on the Y2K issues of that time. Many were concerned about their operating system
>crashing at 1259, 31 Dec 1999. Bill saw this and used it to market Me. You feel
>safer if you get the new operating system.
>
>I just recently upgraded from 98SE to XP. My significant other runs a cookie cutter
>system with Me installed. My 98SE system ran better than her Me system. I decided
>to upgrade after running into problems getting multiple monitors to work following
>some hardware upgrades. Long story short, XP solved all the issues I was having.
>
>
>Many are hesitating to do the upgrade because of the software/hardware compatibility
>issues. Most of those seem to be resolved. Many companies have updated drivers
>available on the web. If they are not yet ready, they at least have a schedule so
>you can see when they might be ready. I spent time downloading updated XP drivers
>for stuff only to have XP load up fine. The only thing that was problematic was
>my scanner. Apparently a few people have trouble with scanner installation. Dunno
>why.
>
>There is also the issue of file systems. This is a transparent issue to most users
>but as we get more and more computer savvy, things like this surface. XP runs on
>an NTFS file system. Win 9x run on FAT or FAT32. Go to howstuffworks.com for info
>on what these are. Basically these determine how your CPU stores data on the hard
>disk. It boils down to how big the chunks of data (packets) are. The NTFS file
>system also allows you to set permissions for files and volumes (drives ….C:, D:,
>etc) which add to security and functionality. FAT based systems offer no data security.
>
>
>Ok, we fear change. Don't. It’s hard to bring down an NT based computer and seemingly
>just as, if not more so, with XP machines. Driver compatibility is a negligible
>issue. Price is reasonable. How often do you buy a new operating system? On that
>note – if you do upgrade to XP, buy the upgrade versus the full version. Both are
>the same. When you install on a clean drive (strongly recommended to format your
>hard drive and wipe all old versions of Windows off before you begin) XP will ask
>you to prove you qualify for the upgrade version. Putting your old Windows CD in
>the CDROM drive proves that. From there it performs a full install. So get the
>upgrade version and save yourself some money.
>
>Hope this helps.
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

XP is better for being capatable with different componets (CD burners, ect.), but thats it. It other wise sucks. I have owned every versoin of windows since 3.0 and never had a bit of trouble till XP. I've got over $5000 dollars worth of software that will not run under XP. So I wiped my hard Disk and went back to win 98 se, the best, most stable version of windows I have ever owned.


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:53 am, Mike Smith wrote:
>How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millenium? XP is better for being capatable with different componets (CD burners, ect.), but thats it. It other wise sucks. I have owned every versoin of windows since 3.0 and never had a bit of trouble till XP. I've got over $5000 dollars worth of software that will not run under XP. So I wiped my hard Disk and went back to win 98 se, the best, most stable version of windows I have ever owned.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

you can not be for real?? win98 se is the most stable version you tried?? did you write this before win2000 and XP came out? jaysus..


On Sunday, February 2, 2003 at 10:40 am, Mike B. wrote:
>XP is better for being capatable with different componets (CD burners, ect.), but
>thats it. It other wise sucks. I have owned every versoin of windows since 3.0 and
>never had a bit of trouble till XP. I've got over $5000 dollars worth of software
>that will not run under XP. So I wiped my hard Disk and went back to win 98 se, the
>best, most stable version of windows I have ever owned.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Hey I find Windows ME the most stable operating system E.V.E.R people ''MUST'' buy this software,but this is my opinion,but it goes without saying,allot of people say ''its windows 98 with a tint of windows 2000 thrown in for good measure'' but on the other hand people say ''its windows 98 with an earl screib paintjob'' oh but no the skin looks like windows 2000 which is NT 5.0 but on the other hand Windows me is based on the Windows 9x Kernel,But Windows ME has most good and new features,thrown in there for good like System Restore,this is a good feature,very good indeed.But you can always soup up the performance of Windows ME with disk disfragmenter,No we know you can do it with windows 95/98 but ME adds a bit of humor and also it suits the whole family,no errors at all!!!!!! :) :) :) My System Specs: BN730 N motherboard with on/b AGP controllers 120GB Seagate Hard disk 7500 RPM 512 MB of High Performance SDRAM AMD Athlon XP 2400 + Geforce 4 MX 440 64 Meg AGP (Accelerated Graphics Port) A Soundblaster Live! Soundcard 6 coolers and 1 watercooler 2 floppy disk drive controlers


On Sunday, February 2, 2003 at 10:40 am, Mike B. wrote:
>XP is better for being capatable with different componets (CD burners, ect.), but
>thats it. It other wise sucks. I have owned every versoin of windows since 3.0 and
>never had a bit of trouble till XP. I've got over $5000 dollars worth of software
>that will not run under XP. So I wiped my hard Disk and went back to win 98 se, the
>best, most stable version of windows I have ever owned.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

i've never saw a person that likes ME so much. IMO, its the worst OS that came out of Microsoft. its just Windows 98 with System Restore and Windows Media Player 7. Heck, Windows 98 SE is more stable than SE. Back on topic, XP is far more superior than ME. It is based on NT technology, which is rock solid, as it was demonstrated in Windows 2000, another OS that I like. XP is just more flashy and user-friendly than Win2k


On Thursday, May 8, 2003 at 2:41 pm, MilleniuME wrote:
>Hey I find Windows ME the most stable operating system E.V.E.R people ''MUST'' buy
>this software,but this is my opinion,but it goes without saying,allot of people say
>''its windows 98 with a tint of windows 2000 thrown in for good measure'' but on
>the other hand people say ''its windows 98 with an earl screib paintjob'' oh but
>no the skin looks like windows 2000 which is NT 5.0 but on the other hand Windows
>me is based on the Windows 9x Kernel,But Windows ME has most good and new features,thrown
>in there for good like System Restore,this is a good feature,very good indeed.But
>you can always soup up the performance of Windows ME with disk disfragmenter,No we
>know you can do it with windows 95/98 but ME adds a bit of humor and also it suits
>the whole family,no errors at all!!!!!! :) :) :)
>
>My System Specs:
>
>BN730 N motherboard with on/b AGP controllers
>120GB Seagate Hard disk 7500 RPM
>512 MB of High Performance SDRAM
>AMD Athlon XP 2400 +
>Geforce 4 MX 440 64 Meg AGP (Accelerated Graphics Port)
>A Soundblaster Live! Soundcard
>6 coolers and 1 watercooler
>2 floppy disk drive controlers
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I have been running WinME for yeras now,NEVER had a major problem. I went to WinXP and my system seemed to go to a crawl. SPEC: biostar MOBO 512megs 1.4 gig athlon 60gig Maxtor soundblaster LIVE 5.1 Nvidia TNT2 With these WinXP should run fine,but it was buggy to ME. Folders to along time to open and I hated the bootup time. I went back to WinME and things are fantastic. YES winXp does have a NICE driver catalog,but so far winME has been great for me.


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:53 am, Mike Smith wrote:
>How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millenium?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Windows XP is a peice of crap. The only thing it's good for is allowing hackers to wipe your hard drive, and its interface. Although Windows ME's system restore is good, XP's is not much better. Windows XP will not run anything older, and Windows ME can even run programs from Windows 3.1. I went to a friend's house with XP and it took me over 10 minutes to find the folder that interfaces with the Start Menu. I strongly urge people to buy Windows ME over XP. It's cheaper, more efficient, more stable, and more user friendly, espesially if you've used 9X before.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

So it took you ten minutes right-clicking on Start and selecting Open? Intresting.... Me stable, right...sure it is. And by the way, most old 3.11 programs runs fine.


On Monday, July 28, 2003 at 1:55 pm, Ian wrote:
>Windows XP is a peice of crap. The only thing it's good for is allowing hackers to
>wipe your hard drive, and its interface. Although Windows ME's system restore is
>good, XP's is not much better. Windows XP will not run anything older, and Windows
>ME can even run programs from Windows 3.1. I went to a friend's house with XP and
>it took me over 10 minutes to find the folder that interfaces with the Start Menu.
>I strongly urge people to buy Windows ME over XP. It's cheaper, more efficient, more
>stable, and more user friendly, espesially if you've used 9X before.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

It took me about 90 mins to upgrade to windows XP Pro from Me and poof most of my hardware dont work anymore especially my ancient TV capture card. I though downloading the drivers would be a good option so i connect to the internet and poof again XP tells me that there has been an error and my system is going to shut down in about 60 seconds. After 2 hrs of trial and error, I uninstalled XP and went back to my earlier configuration (ie Me) and poof (for the third time) my antivirus program no longer works. It says "filter32.vxd not found". god what a mess... SM


On Saturday, September 6, 2003 at 11:39 pm, Dave wrote:
>So it took you ten minutes right-clicking on Start and selecting Open? Intresting....
>Me stable, right...sure it is.
>And by the way, most old 3.11 programs runs fine.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I agree whole heartedly. Windows xp home edition is the biggest lot of bullsh-t i've ever purchased. Gates should be ashamed of himself. Cowboy or what? I cant get half of my old games to work, even after compatibility checks. I've already had to purchase a new video card, as voodoo 3 won't operate with xp, unless someone out there knows different. I cant even get my sidewinder game pad to install. Geez, how much more do I have to spend to get this crap to work out? Should've stuck to win 98 as I had no problems with that system, and they call this progress? The proverbial two steps forward and three steps back. Gates! back to the classroom.


On Friday, September 19, 2003 at 11:08 pm, SM wrote:
>
>It took me about 90 mins to upgrade to windows XP Pro from Me and poof most of my
>hardware dont work anymore especially my ancient TV capture card. I though downloading
>the drivers would be a good option so i connect to the internet and poof again XP
>tells me that there has been an error and my system is going to shut down in about
>60 seconds. After 2 hrs of trial and error, I uninstalled XP and went back to my
>earlier configuration (ie Me) and poof (for the third time) my antivirus program
>no longer works. It says "filter32.vxd not found". god what a mess... SM
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I'm really sorry to hear about your problems with XP Home. My computer came with ME preinstalled. I loved ME. Never had a problem with it. Then along came XP Home. I heard about all the negative issues people had with XP, so I stayed away from it. One day, out of sheer curiosity, I purchased a copy of XP Home, you know, just for shits and giggles. Best damned purchase I ever made. My computer has never worked so efficiently before. It's fast now. Not one problem what so ever. It plays all of my old games as well as all of the newest stuff, FFFFaaaaaaasssssstttt!!!!! I guess I'm just one of the lucky ones! Good Luck!


On Friday, February 27, 2004 at 11:42 am, Shuggy wrote:
>I agree whole heartedly. Windows xp home edition is the biggest lot of bullsh-t i've
>ever purchased. Gates should be ashamed of himself. Cowboy or what? I cant get half
>of my old games to work, even after compatibility checks. I've already had to purchase
>a new video card, as voodoo 3 won't operate with xp, unless someone out there knows
>different. I cant even get my sidewinder game pad to install. Geez, how much more
>do I have to spend to get this crap to work out? Should've stuck to win 98 as I had
>no problems with that system, and they call this progress? The proverbial two steps
>forward and three steps back. Gates! back to the classroom.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I ran ME for years too. If I had a dime for every blue screen of death during the ME reign on my systems, I'd be a richer than Bill. I have switched to a new system FIC K8-800T AMD 64 3400 1 Gig of DDR400 2 x 120 Mb 8M buffer 7200 rpm drives DVD-R/RW and the ever present floppy. 9200 SE 256 MB card Does anybody here think you can run ME on this. I hope not. XP Pro is good, not that good, but stable. Linux however, rules on this system Cheers

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I don't see why so many people are stuck on Windows 9x/ME and try to claim that it is stable. I have never tried ME, but I ran 98 for three years before purchasing a computer with XP. With 98, I would get the BSOD when playing games, surfing the web, and even after clicking Start and pointing to Find. This was with a fresh installation of 98, not one of those polluted installations with all the useless adware downloaded from the web that boggs down the system. I thought this unacceptable for an operating system, and I would in no way call that "stable." XP, on the other had, has only crashed 3 times since I began using it a year ago. Two of them times the crash was my fault. XP is not perfect, being as there are so many security flaws and what not, but it is like apples and oranges compared to the 9x/ME line when it comes to stability. If you are at all computer enthusiast, I highly recommend is getting XP Pro instead of Home. Pro is much more customizable, robust, and secure. I received a student copy of Pro and like it even better than I did Home. Just do a fresh installation instead of upgrading your current version of Windows.


On Saturday, September 6, 2003 at 11:39 pm, Dave wrote:
>So it took you ten minutes right-clicking on Start and selecting Open? Intresting....
>Me stable, right...sure it is.
>And by the way, most old 3.11 programs runs fine.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I agrede I had ME running on my pc for 3 years and I no people won't belave this but hmm theres a blue screen of death in me? Well 3 years running stight I never see one.hmmm I must have not done somthing wong in that given time but Windows ME is a rock solid o/s. well waz for me... I wnet thur ever other o/s and longhorn for that fact but they keep crashing.. Hell I even had linux crash on me and not ME whats wrong with that pic? any wazsme is the bomb and I would use it any day. well bsuide to day I using xp home. Hey any oen have a compleat box set with papers and ever thing that windows ME cam with I looking for a full box set any one wishto pass one over?


On Thursday, May 8, 2003 at 2:41 pm, MilleniuME wrote:
>Hey I find Windows ME the most stable operating system E.V.E.R people ''MUST'' buy
>this software,but this is my opinion,but it goes without saying,allot of people say
>''its windows 98 with a tint of windows 2000 thrown in for good measure'' but on
>the other hand people say ''its windows 98 with an earl screib paintjob'' oh but
>no the skin looks like windows 2000 which is NT 5.0 but on the other hand Windows
>me is based on the Windows 9x Kernel,But Windows ME has most good and new features,thrown
>in there for good like System Restore,this is a good feature,very good indeed.But
>you can always soup up the performance of Windows ME with disk disfragmenter,No we
>know you can do it with windows 95/98 but ME adds a bit of humor and also it suits
>the whole family,no errors at all!!!!!! :) :) :)
>
>My System Specs:
>
>BN730 N motherboard with on/b AGP controllers
>120GB Seagate Hard disk 7500 RPM
>512 MB of High Performance SDRAM
>AMD Athlon XP 2400 +
>Geforce 4 MX 440 64 Meg AGP (Accelerated Graphics Port)
>A Soundblaster Live! Soundcard
>6 coolers and 1 watercooler
>2 floppy disk drive controlers
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

My first computer was an Acer Aspire, 300meg AMD K6-2 with a whopping 3gig hard drive. 
It came with Win98 (not second editon) and I never once had a problem. Never.  All 
games and software (except my Visual Studios compiler) run very good on it.

My second computer, a Comcrap (Compaq) Presario 5108US with a 1.2gig Amd Athlon came 
with WinMe and I had nothing but trouble with it. I hated it and I found myself running 
my restore CD every 3 months just to keep it running smoothly. 

I eventualy reformatted and installed Win2k, it works very well HOWEVER, it either 
doesn't play some of my older games well, or won't play them at all. It does however 
run all my business software very good.

No clue about XP. I do however have a friend that uses it and he swears by it. But 
he does say that just like Win2k it won't play some games.(if 2k won't play it, xp 
won't play it either.)

Even though I use my computer mostly for production purposes I do still like to play 
games so I run dual OS. I tried a hard partition so that the files from one OS couldn't 
be accessed while on the other OS but couldn't get that to work correctly so I just 
dropped both installations on one partition and switch back and forth at startup.

I haven't see the blue screen of death since I got rid of ME 8 months ago.  

Compaq software sucked anyway.






On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:53 am, Mike Smith wrote:

>How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millenium? 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Windows Me is an OK operating system that works well for minor tasks such as word processing, web surfing and listening music. Microsoft marketed Win Me in a way that made consumers think that they could actually edit home movies, use web cam and other more complex tasks. Although it does that to a certain extent, once you get the hang of it you obviously want to go for more, but guess what? Dead end! You can't do much if you want to try more complex stuff and I personally had gone to hell and back trying to "understand" how Win Me works. Once, I lost ALL of my hard drive info because the OS crashed down and I could not re boot it, no matter how many things I tried. I have a Pent III, HP Pavillion and the Win Me came with it. It worked fine for a while but now I'm ready to dump this thing and get something new. I have heard many complaints about Win XP HE and Pro that now I'm not sure what to get. I want to edit movies and music...I guess MAC is better suited for that. What do you think???


On Thursday, May 8, 2003 at 2:41 pm, MilleniuME wrote:
>Hey I find Windows ME the most stable operating system E.V.E.R people ''MUST'' buy
>this software,but this is my opinion,but it goes without saying,allot of people say
>''its windows 98 with a tint of windows 2000 thrown in for good measure'' but on
>the other hand people say ''its windows 98 with an earl screib paintjob'' oh but
>no the skin looks like windows 2000 which is NT 5.0 but on the other hand Windows
>me is based on the Windows 9x Kernel,But Windows ME has most good and new features,thrown
>in there for good like System Restore,this is a good feature,very good indeed.But
>you can always soup up the performance of Windows ME with disk disfragmenter,No we
>know you can do it with windows 95/98 but ME adds a bit of humor and also it suits
>the whole family,no errors at all!!!!!! :) :) :)
>
>My System Specs:
>
>BN730 N motherboard with on/b AGP controllers
>120GB Seagate Hard disk 7500 RPM
>512 MB of High Performance SDRAM
>AMD Athlon XP 2400 +
>Geforce 4 MX 440 64 Meg AGP (Accelerated Graphics Port)
>A Soundblaster Live! Soundcard
>6 coolers and 1 watercooler
>2 floppy disk drive controlers
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Here is my thought: If you have an old computer or a cheap one, run 98 SE. It will crash and burn from time to time, but thats the nature of it. I see too many people who expect perfection and dont get it. If you have a halfway decent computer, and pride yourself on your computer illiteracy, run XP Home. Its cheaper and you will not even notice it is lobotomized. You really dont need a PC anyway. It will also crash from time to time, just dont be too dependent on it and believe whatever the tech tells you and dont argue. You might actually be better off with a Mac, it will work better and is easier, but you may be too cheap to buy one If you have any technical inclination, run XP Pro or Windows 2000. They are halfway decent, though not nearly as stable as good old DOS. Have a backup. Disable the accursed automatically reboot on error "feature" or kiss your OS goodbye when it does crash. Keep it up to date (though back up first, updates can be deadly) If you are a real techie, run Linux.


On Thursday, July 29, 2004 at 4:16 pm, Ernesto Catalan wrote:
>Windows Me is an OK operating system that works well for minor tasks such as word
>processing, web surfing and listening music. Microsoft marketed Win Me in a way that
>made consumers think that they could actually edit home movies, use web cam and other
>more complex tasks. Although it does that to a certain extent, once you get the hang
>of it you obviously want to go for more, but guess what? Dead end! You can't do much
>if you want to try more complex stuff and I personally had gone to hell and back
>trying to "understand" how Win Me works. Once, I lost ALL of my hard drive info because
>the OS crashed down and I could not re boot it, no matter how many things I tried.
>I have a Pent III, HP Pavillion and the Win Me came with it. It worked fine for a
>while but now I'm ready to dump this thing and get something new. I have heard many
>complaints about Win XP HE and Pro that now I'm not sure what to get. I want to edit
>movies and music...I guess MAC is better suited for that. What do you think???
>
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

>I strongly urge people to buy Windows ME over XP. It's cheaper, more efficient, more
>stable, and more user friendly, espesially if you've used 9X before. Unless you happen to be a Dos/command line user. Several of the command line utilities (such as sys) are crippled, and you can't use a normal AUTOEXEC.BAT/CONFIG.SYS file to automaticly load Dos based drivers. There is no good technical reason for this, this was done in an attemt by M$ to "ween" users off of Dos. If you want to go with a 9x-based version of Windows, Windows 98SE seems to be the best choice based on what I've read.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

There are unofficial patches to make Winme's Dos functiol like 9x's. Do a google search on dos patch "windows me"

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Personally, I liked Millenium very much. I never had a bug with it and when I wanted to format my hard drive and re-install, it was a charm. Recently I got a new computer PIV 3.0 Gig and 1 Gig of PC3200 and was it ever a problem to load XP on an empty hard drive and no bootable CD. I used my Millenium start-up diskette to format my hard drive, loaded Me, and then upgraded to XP. (Why would you do a compatibility test when all your components are new) When XP was loaded I didn't have access to the internet because the XP driver for my network card was not loaded!. I finally connected my other PC, downloaded the service pack 1a, burned it on a CD (as well as the program to make XP boot diskettes)....and got XP running...what a pain in the ..... Once XP running I found it very fast, I did the service pack 2 update, and what happened next is that my dvd rom could not play DVD's anymore and my ATI video updated driver caused the display to take only about 75% of the screen. If it was wasn't that I have a processor that supports hyperthreading, I'd load Millenium on my new computer. At least with Millenium, I can tweak the system to get the most out of it, and there are no "tons of services">I don't play tennis; which wonder if they are all necessary. With Me, if something go wrong , I can easily fix it. But since motherboard and computer companies are designing equipment to operate with the next operating system, it is not easy to decide. Constantly manufacturing new operating system is a real bugger; when is Microsoft gonna stop.


On Tuesday, April 9, 2002 at 8:45 am, Bottom Feeder wrote:
>XP is probably the best thing MS has created to date. That's not saying very much,
>but it's better than any Win9x or NT4. No experience with Win2K.
>

>I've been running XP Pro for about 2 months on a new Dell and haven't encountered
>any major problems or anything that has infuriated me beyond the typical MS rot.
> I'm gradually getting the system the way I want it.
>

>I can't believe some of the features listed in this article that are in XP Pro and
>not XP Home. Win95 was able to connect to an NT domain, it's rediculous that XP
>Home can't. I'd only consider the Pro version. I hate anything that's been dummed
>down.
>

>XP: Yes, it's an emoticon for a dead guy with his tongue hanging out.
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

been running it since it came out and have not found anything that it would not run 
as far as stability cant be beat (at least where windows is concerned) 


best advice for somebody upgrading to xp is 
1 DOWNLOAD LATEST DRIVERS and BURN them to CD
2 DO A FULL CLEAN INSTALL on an NTFS partition
3 INSTALL LATEST DRIVERS (the ones that you burned before install) then UPDATE xp 
with LATEST SERVICE PACKS (SP2 as of this post) 
4 BEFORE YOU INSTALL ANY SOFTWARE go here http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm 
and TWEAK xp it will boot faster and run better 
5 last but not least INSTALL YOUR SOFTWARE (games and apps that you use)


hope this helps 

this site also has OS installation guides www.blackviper.com

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Yet, as most people know, SP2 has some serious issues!  For anyone reading the above 
(Or below, in this case), please use caution when installing Windows XP SP2!  (Look 
on the internet and find details about the problems this can cause with some software, 
and games!)

However, XP is by far the best operating system going (Well, for those who don't 
like 2K anyway.) - And for those who seem so adamant on using ME, then I pity you. 
 How any of you see fit to claim this is the best operating system is beyond me (Avid 
gamer and IT/Network engineer BTW!) as ME was released and then promptly forgotten 
about.  98SE is more stable than ME, and ME does not offer anything of value over 
98SE (Apart from serious lack of ME drivers.)

For those who find XP difficult - Get over it.  It's a new OS and is not that hard 
to use - Get a book.  We're not running on steam any more (No HL2 jokes!) so why 
insist on using an out-dated OS?







On Sunday, August 29, 2004 at 8:15 am, black_demon69 wrote:

>been running it since it came out and have not found anything that it would not 
run 

>as far as stability cant be beat (at least where windows is concerned) 

>

>

>best advice for somebody upgrading to xp is 

>1 DOWNLOAD LATEST DRIVERS and BURN them to CD

>2 DO A FULL CLEAN INSTALL on an NTFS partition

>3 INSTALL LATEST DRIVERS (the ones that you burned before install) then UPDATE xp 

>with LATEST SERVICE PACKS (SP2 as of this post) 

>4 BEFORE YOU INSTALL ANY SOFTWARE go here http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm 

>and TWEAK xp it will boot faster and run better 

>5 last but not least INSTALL YOUR SOFTWARE (games and apps that you use)

>

>

>hope this helps 

>

>this site also has OS installation guides www.blackviper.com
 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Is it possible to change your OS from Windows ME to Windows XP without doing anything except using the XP CD to load it?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Im not exactly sure what u mean by"Not doing anything" but i just changed from ME to XP there last weekend.I got my upgrade cd from dell. N.B. it is NOT a bootable cd, u MUST install it through ME. It gives you two options- quick and new installation, quick keeps all your files and settings and litterally upgrades u to XP os, while new deletes everything and starts you from scratch. Well thats what it says anyway, i found that it left my files though to access them i had to reinstall the programs associated. My advice, back up everything, EVERYTHING, reformat ur computer, install ME, do quick install for XP.Ur computewr will run like new


On Sunday, January 9, 2005 at 6:17 pm, Eddie wrote:
>Is it possible to change your OS from Windows ME to Windows XP without doing anything
>except using the XP CD to load it?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Now to add to the few decent answers without all the bashing and wining. J B, your reply says it best I think.

The simple answer is, you need to look at what you want to do with your system.

9x was good for its time and I liked it. ME, I thought was lousy, I didn't have the time or patience to tweak it into stable working order. NT through XP I think are the most stable yet. Blue screens are now a thing of the past. A lot of my older hardware/software still works. It works even without having to use a nifty function called compatibility mode found in XP.

Someone mentioned that 9x and ME could join a domain and XP Home could not. This is incorrect. 9x and ME like XP Home do not use machine accounts in an NT or 2000/2003 domain. The user accounts are created, but not the machine accounts. 9x, ME and XP Home can still access resources on a domain though.

Regards,
Crash Override


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 6:39 am, J B wrote:
>Yes, XP is probably a better choice over NT. To elaborate on why...
>
>After Windows3.1 went to market and MS Windows became popular, MS split onto two
>tracks. One they focused on home user and the other was business oriented. Home
>users got a shot in the arm with Win95. It was a significant improvement over 3.1.
> At the same time, the NT kernel was being massaged and was fast becoming an increasingly
>robust and stable business platform. These separate tracks continued until the release
>of XP. XP marks MS decision to move back to a single product track. It makes sense
>- combine the features of both systems that were appealing and ran well and package
>them together. The code is already written. To create a "home" version and "professional"
>version MS need enable and disable certain functions.
>
>It has been long known that the NT kernel is more stable than the 9x/Me architecture.
> Most Win9x/Me users will agree to that. You feel like you have to be very careful
>when you are using your system so as to avoid lockups and the Blue Screen of Death.
> NT platforms on the other hand are much more stable and can theoretically be kicked
>around, thrown in the dirt and it will still run strong.
>
>Me was really just 98SE with an Earl Shieb paint job. "Any operating system, any
>desktop scheme, $99.95!" It seemed like it was just an attempt to make some bucks
>on the Y2K issues of that time. Many were concerned about their operating system
>crashing at 1259, 31 Dec 1999. Bill saw this and used it to market Me. You feel
>safer if you get the new operating system.
>
>I just recently upgraded from 98SE to XP. My significant other runs a cookie cutter
>system with Me installed. My 98SE system ran better than her Me system. I decided
>to upgrade after running into problems getting multiple monitors to work following
>some hardware upgrades. Long story short, XP solved all the issues I was having.
>
>
>Many are hesitating to do the upgrade because of the software/hardware compatibility
>issues. Most of those seem to be resolved. Many companies have updated drivers
>available on the web. If they are not yet ready, they at least have a schedule so
>you can see when they might be ready. I spent time downloading updated XP drivers
>for stuff only to have XP load up fine. The only thing that was problematic was
>my scanner. Apparently a few people have trouble with scanner installation. Dunno
>why.
>
>There is also the issue of file systems. This is a transparent issue to most users
>but as we get more and more computer savvy, things like this surface. XP runs on
>an NTFS file system. Win 9x run on FAT or FAT32. Go to howstuffworks.com for info
>on what these are. Basically these determine how your CPU stores data on the hard
>disk. It boils down to how big the chunks of data (packets) are. The NTFS file
>system also allows you to set permissions for files and volumes (drives ….C:, D:,
>etc) which add to security and functionality. FAT based systems offer no data security.
>
>
>Ok, we fear change. Don't. It’s hard to bring down an NT based computer and seemingly
>just as, if not more so, with XP machines. Driver compatibility is a negligible
>issue. Price is reasonable. How often do you buy a new operating system? On that
>note – if you do upgrade to XP, buy the upgrade versus the full version. Both are
>the same. When you install on a clean drive (strongly recommended to format your
>hard drive and wipe all old versions of Windows off before you begin) XP will ask
>you to prove you qualify for the upgrade version. Putting your old Windows CD in
>the CDROM drive proves that. From there it performs a full install. So get the
>upgrade version and save yourself some money.
>
>Hope this helps.
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Just so people know, you don't have to install 9x if your XP(or 2k) CD in non-bootable or can't boot from CD. http://www.tweakxp.com/article139419.aspx


On Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at 3:55 am, Richy wrote:
>Im not exactly sure what u mean by"Not doing anything" but i just changed from ME
>to XP there last weekend.I got my upgrade cd from dell. N.B. it is NOT a bootable
>cd, u MUST install it through ME. It gives you two options- quick and new installation,
>quick keeps all your files and settings and litterally upgrades u to XP os, while
>new deletes everything and starts you from scratch. Well thats what it says anyway,
>i found that it left my files though to access them i had to reinstall the programs
>associated. My advice, back up everything, EVERYTHING, reformat ur computer, install
>ME, do quick install for XP.Ur computewr will run like new
>
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

XP (Home or Pro) is better than WIN2k, which in tern is better than WIN98SE which is also better than WIN98 and WINME which are better than WIN95 which is better than the 3.x series of Windows. It really IS that simple. If you are having problems with your software/hardware with XP, its either time to upgrade, or seek some professional IT advice with regards to setting up your hardware/software correctly. XP is different to Win 9x OS's, don’t expect it to work in exactly the same way and you wont be disappointed when its doesn't. Use whatever OS you like, or better still, learn how to program and build your own to rival MS, but remember, each new version (ME excluded) of Windows, improves on the last with all things considered. It’s an OS evolution, with ME as the genetic freak that we keep in the cellar and feed stray tourists to. BTW: This thread has been going on since 2002. I'm sure we can all agree by now (2005) that XP is the best current MS OS. --------------------------------------- ASRock P4S61 3GHz Prescott 800MHz FSB 1MB L2 512 MB DDR400 PC3200 RAM Asus A9600XT 128-bit 128MB Seagate 80GB 7200 ATA100 2MB Windows XP Home ---------------------------------------

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I installed a game called battlezone 2 on windows me and it took only 300 mbs but I tried it xp and it fricken took 781 mb! what a space! i wanted to smack xp with a bat!a metal bat

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Dude you guys suck so bad... To all you stupid losers out there who blindly promote XP... First of all, XP is for sissies. Who says it's hard to use XP is out of their mind. What sucks most is you can't do anything you want with it... With ME you have much better control over your drivers and your computer does not do crap that you do not know about.... Second, XP might provide more resources but it is heck of a lot slower than 98SE or ME. You guys never seem to have done a FIND on win XP have you? Freaking thing takes HOURS! But that's the filesystem problem... All that extra crap XP comes with actually slows down your other processes compared to ME. The only good thing about XP is that it has very good support of plug and play. Oh... Except for older hardware parts... You get so many friggin conflicts that are impossible to fix unlike in ME... I would only suggest XP if you are getting a new computer that can handle it and comes preinstalled with it... and heh, if you actually wanna install SP2, then I'll probably see you in hell, from killing someone out of frustration... get that also preinstalled with your pc... darn losers... some of you guys are so dumb... i commend the ones who actually put up good arguments for xp.. like 2 ppl...


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:53 am, Mike Smith wrote:
>How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millenium?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Enlighten us oh wise one. What are you running XP on that makes you believe it is slower than 998 or ME???? Probably the same clunker that you got your 98 or ME on a billion years ago.

Clean Install XP
Regards,
Crash Override

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

"You guys never seem to have done a FIND on win XP have you?" Actually, I have. Agent Ransack.

"All that extra crap XP comes with actually slows down your other processes compared to ME." So disable them.

Ever plugged a network card into your ME machine and had the whole registry go belly-up? I have. Ever used your ME computer for a week with no reboots? I haven't.

My Malware Removal Instructions

Perform the following:

1. Disable System Restore ^*
2. Perform an online virus scan ^{* * * *} .
3. Download, update, and run these tools:
   • Spybot Search & Destroy ^*
   • Lavasoft Adaware ^*
   • CWShredder ^*
   Repeat as necessary until clean.
4. If you still experience problems after doing these steps, download HijackThis ^* and post a log to this forum.
5. To protect against reinfection, download and use these:
   If at all possible, I recommend that you use alternative software, particularly web browsers and email clients:
   • Web Browsers ^{* * *}
   • Email Clients ^{* *}
   If this is not a viable option, or for additional protection, use these:
   • Javacool's SpywareBlaster ^*
   • Javacool's SpywareGuard ^*
   • Malware-blocking HOSTS file ^*
   • IE-SPYAD ^* , Internet Explorer only
6. Optionally Reenable System Restore ^* . Better alternatives to System Restore.

If you encounter any broken links, please inform me of them. Also note that these links direct through my web server to allow me to keep them up-to-date or post additional info. If you are unable to use the links above, click the stars instead, which are a direct link to the page in question.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Falcon, how ya doin, chief. With only a single post to his name, he was most likely just here to try and start some S%*t.

Clean Install XP
Regards,
Crash Override

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Accually, Windows Millennium Edition is better than Windows XP Home Edition, because Windows ME to Microsoft is called Windows 2000 Home Edition, but that is accually wrong. Windows ME is called Windows 2000 Dos Kernel Edition, because Windows ME can run MS-DOS Based Programs and Windows XP (All Editions) cannot, since it is on the Windows NT Kernel. Also if you are part of a network domain, Windows ME can log into your Domain User. Windows XP Home Edition cannot, since Home Users use stand-alone computers. Other than those 2, Windows XP is still more stable and reliable than Windows ME. However, I would reccommend Windows XP Professional.


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:53 am, Mike Smith wrote:
>How much better is XP HOME edition vs. Millenium?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Also Windows XP cannot run DOS Programs Properlly than Win 9x and ME.


On Tuesday, April 9, 2002 at 8:45 am, Bottom Feeder wrote:
>XP is probably the best thing MS has created to date. That's not saying very much,
>but it's better than any Win9x or NT4. No experience with Win2K.
>

>I've been running XP Pro for about 2 months on a new Dell and haven't encountered
>any major problems or anything that has infuriated me beyond the typical MS rot.
> I'm gradually getting the system the way I want it.
>

>I can't believe some of the features listed in this article that are in XP Pro and
>not XP Home. Win95 was able to connect to an NT domain, it's rediculous that XP
>Home can't. I'd only consider the Pro version. I hate anything that's been dummed
>down.
>

>XP: Yes, it's an emoticon for a dead guy with his tongue hanging out.
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Sure it can. DosBox

My Malware Removal Instructions

Perform the following:

1. Disable System Restore ^*
2. Perform an online virus scan ^{* * * *} .
3. Download, update, and run these tools:
   • Spybot Search & Destroy ^*
   • Lavasoft Adaware ^*
   • CWShredder ^*
   Repeat as necessary until clean.
4. If you still experience problems after doing these steps, download HijackThis ^* and post a log to this forum.
5. To protect against reinfection, download and use these:
   If at all possible, I recommend that you use alternative software, particularly web browsers and email clients:
   • Web Browsers ^{* * *}
   • Email Clients ^{* *}
   If this is not a viable option, or for additional protection, use these:
   • Javacool's SpywareBlaster ^*
   • Javacool's SpywareGuard ^*
   • Malware-blocking HOSTS file ^*
   • IE-SPYAD ^* , Internet Explorer only
6. Optionally Reenable System Restore ^* . Better alternatives to System Restore.

If you encounter any broken links, please inform me of them. Also note that these links direct through my web server to allow me to keep them up-to-date or post additional info. If you are unable to use the links above, click the stars instead, which are a direct link to the page in question.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

No it only works with a full version not recovery/oem disks.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Let's see now: is W2000 older or newer than ME? Either way, I thought that the fallibility of ME was long since an accepted fact. I've had some kind of WinNT ever since there was any such, and mostly found it wanting. But I have W2K installed on two of my own PC's, plus one I'm doing some servicing on for a grandkid.

I wouldn't stick anyone who wasn't already my enemy with ME. (I didn't like XP well enough to leave it running on anything, going back to a dual-boot of W98se/ W2000. When the grandkid gets older, I'll let him decide on XP himself {by then I suppose it will be Vista, though}.)

What I wanna know is why periodically someone like "Mad_Dog" above here, and others as well, feel compelled to reanimate this old living dead thread.

.

Kiwi

**


On Monday, July 11, 2005 at 9:15 am, Crash Override wrote:
>Falcon, how ya doin, chief. With only a single post to his name, he was most likely
>just here to try and start some S%*t.
>

Clean Install XP
>/>
>Regards,

>Crash Override

>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Accually, Windows XP Professional is better than Windows 2000 Professional, but Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 95,98 and ME is better than Windows XP Home Edition, because even though XP is the latest, XP Home does not contain some feaures The earlier versions of Windows had.


On Monday, May 2, 2005 at 11:09 pm, Tired & Confused wrote:
>XP (Home or Pro) is better than WIN2k, which in tern is better than WIN98SE which
>is also better than WIN98 and WINME which are better than WIN95 which is better than
>the 3.x series of Windows. It really IS that simple. If you are having problems with
>your software/hardware with XP, its either time to upgrade, or seek some professional
>IT advice with regards to setting up your hardware/software correctly. XP is different
>to Win 9x OS's, don’t expect it to work in exactly the same way and you wont be disappointed
>when its doesn't. Use whatever OS you like, or better still, learn how to program
>and build your own to rival MS, but remember, each new version (ME excluded) of Windows,
>improves on the last with all things considered. It’s an OS evolution, with ME as
>the genetic freak that we keep in the cellar and feed stray tourists to. BTW: This
>thread has been going on since 2002. I'm sure we can all agree by now (2005) that
>XP is the best current MS OS.
>---------------------------------------
>ASRock P4S61
>3GHz Prescott 800MHz FSB 1MB L2
>512 MB DDR400 PC3200 RAM
>Asus A9600XT 128-bit 128MB
>Seagate 80GB 7200 ATA100 2MB
>Windows XP Home
>---------------------------------------

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Well, the NT-Kernel is better than the MS-DOS Kernel but is not as compatible (For MS-DOS Based Programs) as the MS-DOS Based Kernels. Also Windows XP Home Edition doesn't have features Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000 and XP Professional Have.


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 5:59 am, Elvis Pack wrote:
>XP Home is far superior to Windows ME, as it is based on the rock-solid NT/2000 code
>base, rather than the unstable Win 98 one.
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Uhm, I have a correction (or maybe I am wrong) Windows XP cannot run DOS Programs, not Windows 3.1 Programs. Also Windows XP Isn't that bad, once you get used to it. If hackers get into your system, get SP2.


On Monday, July 28, 2003 at 1:55 pm, Ian wrote:
>Windows XP is a peice of crap. The only thing it's good for is allowing hackers to
>wipe your hard drive, and its interface. Although Windows ME's system restore is
>good, XP's is not much better. Windows XP will not run anything older, and Windows
>ME can even run programs from Windows 3.1. I went to a friend's house with XP and
>it took me over 10 minutes to find the folder that interfaces with the Start Menu.
>I strongly urge people to buy Windows ME over XP. It's cheaper, more efficient, more
>stable, and more user friendly, espesially if you've used 9X before.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

The Rock-Solid NT Kernel is not very compatible than the MS-DOS Based Kernels. Windows 2000 and XP cannot run DOS Programs Properlly.


On Wednesday, May 21, 2003 at 7:04 am, Nforcr wrote:
>i've never saw a person that likes ME so much. IMO, its the worst OS that came out
>of Microsoft. its just Windows 98 with System Restore and Windows Media Player 7.
>Heck, Windows 98 SE is more stable than SE. Back on topic, XP is far more superior
>than ME. It is based on NT technology, which is rock solid, as it was demonstrated
>in Windows 2000, another OS that I like. XP is just more flashy and user-friendly
>than Win2k
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Yep Mr.Ian your are 100 percent correct. We keep the truth and they fall for the booby trap. Please respond to me please. your friend, Jonas Gates

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I believe that you shoudn't upgrade Windows ME to Windows XP. I suggest that you install Windows XP Professional by using a clean install method. Also, you should make your Windows XP Professional partition an NTFS partition. Make another partition a FAT32 one and install Windows ME. That way, you can use that os for 16 bit legacy software support and use Windows XP for the latest security, etc.


On Wednesday, August 25, 2004 at 9:02 pm, zero4zero wrote:
>Personally, I liked Millenium very much. I never had a bug with it and when I wanted
>to format my hard drive and re-install, it was a charm.
>Recently I got a new computer PIV 3.0 Gig and 1 Gig of PC3200 and was it ever a problem
>to load XP on an empty hard drive and no bootable CD. I used my Millenium start-up
>diskette to format my hard drive, loaded Me, and then upgraded to XP. (Why would
>you do a compatibility test when all your components are new)
>When XP was loaded I didn't have access to the internet because the XP driver for
>my network card was not loaded!. I finally connected my other PC, downloaded the
>service pack 1a, burned it on a CD (as well as the program to make XP boot diskettes)....and
>got XP running...what a pain in the .....
>Once XP running I found it very fast, I did the service pack 2 update, and what happened
>next is that my dvd rom could not play DVD's anymore and my ATI video updated driver
>caused the display to take only about 75% of the screen. If it was wasn't that I
>have a processor that supports hyperthreading, I'd load Millenium on my new computer.
>At least with Millenium, I can tweak the system to get the most out of it, and there
>are no "tons of services">I don't play tennis; which wonder if they are all necessary.
>With Me, if something go wrong , I can easily fix it. But since motherboard and computer
>companies are designing equipment to operate with the next operating system, it is
>not easy to decide. Constantly manufacturing new operating system is a real bugger;
>when is Microsoft gonna stop.
>
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

DosBox isn't stable, so it doesn't count.


On Monday, August 8, 2005 at 7:14 am, Falcon wrote:
>Sure it can. DosBox
>

>style="margin-left: 0; line-height: normal; color: black; font-size: medium">
>

>
>

>

>

My Malware Removal Instructions

>
>

>

>

Perform the following:

>

>
>
1. 
   > Disable
   >System
   >Restore
   >
   > ^*
   >
   >
   >

>
>
2. Perform an online
   >virus scan
   >
   > ^*
   >
   >
   >
   > ^*
   >
   >
   > ^*
   >
   >
   > ^*
   >
   > .
   >

>
>
3. Download, update, and run these tools:
   >
   
   >
   • Spybot
     >Search
     >& Destroy
     >
     > ^*
     >
     >
     >
   
   >
   • 
     > Lavasoft
     >Adaware
     >
     > ^*
     >
     >
   
   >
   >
   • 
     > CWShredder
     >
     > ^*
     >
     >
   
   >
   
   > Repeat as necessary until clean.
   >

>
>
>
4. If you still experience problems after doing these steps, download
   > HijackThis
   >
   > ^*
   >
   > and post a log to this forum.
   >

>
>
5. To protect against reinfection, download and use these:
   
   >
   > If at all possible, I recommend that you use alternative software, particularly
   >web browsers
   > and email clients:
   >
   
   >
   • 
     > Web Browsers
     >
     > ^*
     >
     >
     >
     > ^*
     >
     >
     > ^*
     >
     >
   
   >
   • 
     > Email
     >Clients
     >
     >
     > ^*
     >
     >
     > ^*
     >
     >
   
   >
   
   >
   > If this is not a viable option, or for additional protection, use these:
   >
   
   >
   • Javacool's
     >SpywareBlaster
     >
     > ^*
     >
     >
   
   >
   • 
     >
     > Javacool's
     >SpywareGuard
     >
     > ^*
     >
     >
   
   >
   • 
     > Malware-blocking
     >HOSTS file
     >
     >
     > ^*
     >
     >
   
   >
   • 
     > IE-SPYAD
     >
     > ^*
     >
     > , Internet Explorer only
   
   >
   
   >

>
>
6. Optionally Reenable
   >System Restore
   >
   > ^*
   > . Better
   >alternatives
   >
   >to System Restore.

>

>
>

> If you encounter any broken links, please inform
> me of them. Also note that these links direct through my web server to
>allow me to keep them
> up-to-date or post additional info. If you are unable to use the links above,
>click the stars
> instead, which are a direct link to the page in question.
>

>

>

>

>
>

>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

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

• Report abuse of the forum