ME sucks

Windows ME is the worst operating system ever built. i cant belive microsoft went so low.i guess its called bill gates wants some doh.i guess 85 billion dollars isnt enough to get your kids food these days.:smoker2:

I suggest reading some reviews about the OS before buying it...thats how I avoided windows ME

Wow, now you realized this? Get 2000 or XP.:)

Originally posted by MBTN
Wow, now you realized this? Get 2000 or XP.:) Word! The general concensus (sic)--no matter who you talk you--is that winME sucks big time! I found out the hard way... it came pre-installed!! :mad:

Best system ( for me ) is 95 then 98 and then 2000 ( but 2000 needs memory and not good for games ! ) so i'l' go with 98 because i had a k6-II AMD and it wasn't compatible with 95 ! :(

MIKE

Win95 is good for older systems (233MHz and less) Windows 2000 for stability, Windows 98 if you absolutely must run those programs or games that wont run on 2K. Don't like XP yet, too many resources used on stupid shit like fancy graphics.

I had win2k, but it wasnt compatible with some of my hardware, so I went back to 98se, and I've been happy ever since.

Why does ME suck so bad? Can u give me some links on reviews.

I have ME, win2K that I got wasn't to good, don't like XP much, and mom won't let me put win98SE on, she doesn't like "downgrading".
Oh well:rolleyes:

So far (for me personally anyways) I have had very few problems with ME. I tried 2000 and was having file sharing problems with a few of my design programs. We even tried doing a dual boot for ME/2000 and that was nothing but a nightmare. Haven't touched XP yet but I heard it uses alot of memory. What problems does ME have for those of you who are having probs with it?

I agree with KatWoman.... Im not going to start bashing WinME either. Its kinda plain but isn't really all that bad.

I used it for almost 9 months and I do consider myself a power user. (Recently purchased WinXP Pro through work). WinME handled my day-to-day Visual Basic work, some photoshop, HTML, CGI, ASP, and overall was fairly stable, and I had few complaints.

I will agree tho, that it isnt the best choice for a power user that likes to customize everything. There are alot of things that you cant change, and you just have to learn to live with.

Just a thought...could not having lots of RAM be the cause of some of your ME problems? I have three 256M sticks in my computer. Awhile back I ran into trouble with some of my photoshop projects using up all the RAM I had (64M wasn't enough :rolleyes: ). Ever since I upgraded I haven't had too many problems. As long as ME is working for me I am sticking to it until it becomes as useful as Windows 3.1 or 95 :)

Originally posted by KatWoman
What problems does ME have for those of you who are having probs with it? Countless! Some newer software aren't even compatible with it--most noticebly Flash 5. It dies/freezes daily. It sometime mixes up the icons for file types (ex: HTML files have a JPEG icon). I think this one is caused by DirectX games changing the resolution. It has memory issues, but I have 128 MB, which should be enough for the stuff I run. The Open File feature fails after computer is on for a while. IE fails on the third run, but works again on the fourth, but then not the fifth... I use Mozilla mostly now.

I think the reason WinME is bad/unstable is cuz, IIRC, it was a mixture of winDOS code and winNT code. Sort of the bridge between Win98 and Win2000.

I think the reason ya'll have such bad experiences with Win2000 is because it wasn't pre-installed. So hardware incompatibilty may be an issue. From experience, Win2000 is rock solid. I have yet to have it freeze my system or die out on me like WinME does daily.

We have 256mb RAM. I think I just might get XP, even though I hate it. Nah, stick to ME, at least the interface doesn't drive me CRAZY!!!!!:flipa:

WinME came pre-installed,no major complaints so far.....can't say I've really used half of my pre-installed software though...:(

Originally posted by KatWoman
Just a thought...could not having lots of RAM be the cause of some of your ME problems? I have three 256M sticks in my computer. Awhile back I ran into trouble with some of my photoshop projects using up all the RAM I had (64M wasn't enough :rolleyes: ). Ever since I upgraded I haven't had too many problems. As long as ME is working for me I am sticking to it until it becomes as useful as Windows 3.1 or 95 :)

Well i have 512Mb RAM/1400mhz Athlon and i would say on average that out of 5 start ups Me will crash between 1 and 3 times. And no i never switch it off without properly shutting down first (unless it freezes on me, which is actually pretty often) I ran Windows 95 on a 150 processor and a 32Mb RAM for 6 years and never had it crash once, and this new supercomputer (compared with the old one at least) has a crash nearly every day. I get constant pop ups telling me "xxxx has caused an error in xxxx, click here to close xxxx, if the problem persists try restarting you're computer". See, ive seen it that often i know it off by heart:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Pennzoil GT-R


Well i have 512Mb RAM/1400mhz Athlon and i would say on average that out of 5 start ups Me will crash between 1 and 3 times. And no i never switch it off without properly shutting down first (unless it freezes on me, which is actually pretty often) I ran Windows 95 on a 150 processor and a 32Mb RAM for 6 years and never had it crash once, and this new supercomputer (compared with the old one at least) has a crash nearly every day. I get constant pop ups telling me "xxxx has caused an error in xxxx, click here to close xxxx, if the problem persists try restarting you're computer". See, ive seen it that often i know it off by heart:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You need to get on 2000. Thats the most stable windows version I've ever used. I haven't used XP enough yet to give it a sure nod, but its also been pretty solid with the things I've thrown at it.

2000 isnt compatible with some of the hardware i have. and anyway i cant afford a new OS, just have to borrow a mates copy of 98 or XP Pro i guess.

Originally posted by Pennzoil GT-R
2000 isnt compatible with some of the hardware i have. and anyway i cant afford a new OS, just have to borrow a mates copy of 98 or XP Pro i guess.

2000 isn't compatible? Thats the first I've heard of that. What kind of hardware is that?

when i have considered changing Me people have said that because 2000 is a work OS certain graphics applications wont run on it. i have heard my graphics card wont run with it (GeForce 2 MX400)

Originally posted by Pennzoil GT-R
when i have considered changing Me people have said that because 2000 is a work OS certain graphics applications wont run on it. i have heard my graphics card wont run with it (GeForce 2 MX400)

Your card will work with 2000 check out http://www.nvidia.com/docs/lo/560/SUPP/PO_GF2MX_03.pdf for the write up from NVidia

I have that video card at my moms, and Windows 2000 worked fine on that computer. But the games weren't so great, so I got XP Pro.

I HAD Win98, and it began exponentially crashing (as in 1 crash per day, then 2, then 4, then 8, then 16, then32, etc.) and my dad figured it was a memory problem, of a physical hardware problem. Installed WinXP, now the computed works, doesn't even crash. I love XP, and I have never, never loved an OS before. I have always hated them...but XP is smart without being patronizing like Macs are. It automatically set up most of my hardware. My absolute favorite thing is that in XP, they fixed the File Association control panel back like it used to be in 3.11. That's the thing that determines that mp3s open with Winamp, .psd opens with Photoshop, etc. In Win95 and 98, it was possible to have multiple programs associated with the same file types and it was nearly impossible to manage the associations. Fixed in XP. Oh, I love XP. I can play Neverwinter Nights (a geeky D&D game) for hours and hours and hours without crashing...though I do need a faster processor and more memory to fix the stuttering because it's a memory-intensive game. (Currently running P3 733 mhz, only 256 megs ram, but 90 gig HD)

But there is still hope for a solution....


http://homepage.mac.com/jpz1/.Pictures/win.jpg



;)

Now the mac zeolots are arrising again.

http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/238762powermac_733.jpg

One simple equation: AMD + Linux

I've had WIN ME since i first bought my computer last year (came with the computer installed) At first I didn't have any problems whatsoever, but it then started getting slow. So, instead of having only 32mb's of ram in my computer that it came with, i added a total of 191mb's of ram, and it still sucks! I wish i had 2000 or 98

Originally posted by Chevrolet1986
I've had WIN ME since i first bought my computer last year (came with the computer installed) At first I didn't have any problems whatsoever, but it then started getting slow. So, instead of having only 32mb's of ram in my computer that it came with, i added a total of 191mb's of ram, and it still sucks! I wish i had 2000 or 98

How the heck do you add 191 mb of ram? It only comes in even numbers, unless you have an 8086 circa 1983. Not to mention, if you only had 32 megs, than you're running a dinosaur and the OS is NOT your problem. BTW, ram currently comes in sticks of 128, for about $20-$30 and you can't even buy sticks of 32 anymore.

Originally posted by boingo82


How the heck do you add 191 mb of ram? It only comes in even numbers, unless you have an 8086 circa 1983. Not to mention, if you only had 32 megs, than you're running a dinosaur and the OS is NOT your problem. BTW, ram currently comes in sticks of 128, for about $20-$30 and you can't even buy sticks of 32 anymore.

Actually the memory sticks are rarely EXACTLY 128/256/512 whatever. they are often 1 or 2 Mb off. e.g, my 512 Mb is actually 511.2Mb. this happens with quite alot of RAM. So maybe he just got a few sticks to add up to 191Mb.

It seems weird to me that i have 191.0 mb's of RAM. What I did was take out the 32 mb stick, and added one 128 mb stick, and one 64 mb stick. That adds up to 192 mb's of RAM, but I dunno where my 1mb went.

Originally posted by Pennzoil GT-R


Actually the memory sticks are rarely EXACTLY 128/256/512 whatever. they are often 1 or 2 Mb off. e.g, my 512 Mb is actually 511.2Mb. this happens with quite alot of RAM. So maybe he just got a few sticks to add up to 191Mb.

That's true. I thought he meant he had a 128, a 32 a 16, an 6, a 4, a 2, and a 1. Or something. I thought he meant the package said 191.

Any case, I still say that any computer that came with 32 megs standard shouldn't be using anything more memory-intensive than Windows 98. I don't even think you can, seeing as XP uses nearly 100 megs of ram just for the OS.

get a damn mac i havne't turned off my mac or restarted for about four years now (except for restarting for updates and after install stuff) and never had a problem. if you get a mac you wouldn't have to go through all this.But i do have a pc(win 2k) for games and mac for everything else)

Wow, a nearly 2 year dead thread dragged up. Next time, please start a new thread if you wish to express your opinion of the superiority of Macs.
And a lot of people dont own Macs because
1) They're expensive
2) You pretty much need a PC if you want to game

I would own a Mac *if* I had the money, but Id never give up my PC (Watercooled and overclocked AMD AthlonXP2700 @2.53ghz, 228mhz FSB, 9800Pro @ 440 core, 380 memory, 512mb Kingston HyperX dual channel RAM at 2-3-3-6, Asus A7N8X Deluxe with modded BIOS).. I have 1 PC and an old laptop (400mhz P2).
While Macs may be nice, I couldnt live without a PC, and would rather spend my money on a second PC that I can build/upgrade easily.