Windows ME verses 98?

Wayne Carver · From: Martinez, Georgia, USA

My daughter has ME on her 550mhz pc and has trouble staying online with AOL. It seems slower than my 233mhz with 98. I was wondering if anyone has had trouble with ME. I could easily remove it and do a clean install of 98 after saving any of her wanted files.

Les Green · From: Jefferson City, MO, R.I.P.

Wayne,
Don't know if this will help or not. I have ME and the same problem. Constantly getting booted off. I had the same problem with 95 and 98. Seriously thinking about leaving AOL. I have a Gateway computer, 1 GHZ, and plenty of memory so computer should not be problem.
Les

JB Arnold · From: Longmont,Co,USA (deceased)

There's lots of things wrong with ME-it's very subject to viruses getting into upper memory where they never go away-and other weird things-but I never had that problem. I dumped it for other reasons. In my mind, anything is better than ME.

JB

------------------
Fulawka D-10 9&5
Fessenden D-10 8&8
Mullen Royal Precision D-10 8 & 5
"All in all, looking back, I'd have to say the best advice anyone ever gave me was 'Hands Up, Don't Move!"
www.johnbarnold.com/pedalsteel
www.buddycage.net

http://www.nrpsmusic.com/index.html

Bill Crook · From: Goodlettsville, TN , Spending my kid's inheritance

I have installed "Win98 SE" on many machines that came with "ME" as the O/S due to bugs and other problems. Most "New" computer users who purchase these "ME" machines, arn't aware of the problems with the O/S.

My best advice is go with the "Win2000 Pro" operateing system or (if money is a factor) go back to "Win98 SE".

"Win2000 Pro" took care of many problems related to the "NT" series. (Some of you know what I'm refering to) And "Win98 SE" was the fix for the previous defective "Windows XX thru XX" versions.

Now in all earnest tho,I must say that the "Service Pak" for "Win2000 Pro" should NOT be installed as it has a few bugs that actually slow down the O/S. I have spent a lot of time and have researched this to find that pros verus the cons of the service pak is NOT a better thing.

The next time you have to re-install the "Win2000" package,try it with-out the "Service-Pak", I know you will find things run better,faster,and without the problems you were haveing before.

Now,With that said,I must admit that if you are a "Power" user,you will find a couple of defects that still remain from the older version O/S. However,as a consumer and a general PC user, one will find the "Win2000 Pro" package the best O/S around today.

I don't wish to start a O/S/ war here but only want to help folks who are haveing problems with things they don't understand or really want to know.

My 2cents .....

[This message was edited by Bill Crook on 08 April 2003 at 06:40 AM.]

Wayne Carver · From: Martinez, Georgia, USA

My daughter is telling me that now her pc hangs up sometimes during "shutdown". I researched this on the net and found that other ME users are having this problem. I think i'll put 98 on it this weekend. 98 is the latest I have.

Earnest Bovine · From: Los Angeles CA USA

I like ME better than 98 because in ME, Windows Explorer can show little pictures of your .jpg and other image files.

Wayne Cox · From: Chatham, Louisiana, USA * R.I.P.

My "other" hobby and part-time profession is repairing computers. Personally, I have had much better luck with ME than '98 on most machines. Here is some food for thought: If you buy a "proprietary" machine,such as HP,
IBM,Compaq,Gateway,etc.,you will usually get a bug-free operating system pre-installed. The Technicians who work for these larger companies go to great extemes to ferret out the operating system's bugs and gliches to prevent irate consumers from blaming the manufacturer of the actual machine. Then WE start upgrading and mess everything up. Let me give a simple but true example. I installed ME on an old HP Vectra Pentium Pro machine. ME's "Windows Media Player" would not play my music CD's because the 8x CD-Rom player was simply too slow. I replaced it with a 48x and everything now works fine. Older operating systems were designed for the computers which existed at the time the older hardware existed. Another sad but true fact is that some programs simply will not work with some operating systems that they profess to work with on certain computers. I hope this isn't offensive to anyone,but I tried to keep things simple,here.
~~W.C.~~

Wayne Cox · From: Chatham, Louisiana, USA * R.I.P.

Incidentally,most of the time,when you get "booted off" the net,it is actually a problem with the phone company ("Carrier")with whom the ISP has contracted. It is usually not the Internet Company's fault,not the computer's fault, and not the operating system's fault. I said,"usually". Many carriers have a time limit of 7-15 minutes of line inactivity before they cut you off.
This is a nuisance to all of us,but I haven't found a viable solution yet.
Hope this helps!
~~W.C.~~

Everett Cox · From: Marengo, OH, USA (deceased)

Several weeks ago, I setup a machine for a friend that had come with Win ME preinstalled but no OS CDrom. Seemed to run OK with minimal software loaded but got rather 'sluggish' as I added more - even without anything 'extra' loaded at startup. Other commitments at the time prevented me from doing any 'tweaking'.

Last week, I was at their house to load some more software and just couldn't accept the poor performance. The machine had adequate disk space, 256MB RAM, Celeron 667MHz CPU. Took nearly 3 minutes to boot completely. Common app's like MS Word, MS Publisher, required about 20 seconds to load. The screen frequently refreshed and opening Windows Explorer or Control Panel often had the little 'paint brush' thing as they slowly filled in their display.

So I took the machine home with me to make a serious effort to speed it up. As someone else stated above, the thing seemed slower than an old 233MHz computer. I did manage to improve performance SLIGHTLY after doing all the normal tweaks. Swapped out the mother board with another one that had a 1.2MHz AMD processor. Got a noticable performance boost but still not acceptable considering the quality of the components. Took 2 min 40 sec to boot.

Win ME simply is too much and too slow! It loads many more system modules which take time and memory. What's worse, its memory manager seems to be faulty. Several common app's, especially MS Word, exibited severe memory leaks. (When a program loads, it is allocated a certain amount of memory. When closed, the program should release that memory back to the system. When all the allocated memory does not get released that is termed a 'memory leak'.)

Yesterday, I gave up on Win ME and reverted the machine back to Win 98SE. MAJOR, MAJOR improvement in performance! Boots in about a minute with nothing extra and 1.5 with the anti-virus and several other app's loaded. Nearly all my performance benchmarks show 98 to be much more efficient than Win ME. And hardly any memory leak problems.

Too bad, because I *did* like some of the features included with Win ME. Especially the 'Restore' function. --Everett

Wayne Carver · From: Martinez, Georgia, USA

I did a clean install of 98 and my daughters PC is working great. I wish ME had worked better to as I also liked some of the features. When ME was on her computer everything was getting slower and slower such as opening programs or just opening the control panel. I also understand that kids download all sorts of games, screensavers, wallpaper, friends internet user things, and they never remove anything. All of this can really slowdown a PC. I tried cleaning it up but still had problems, but i'm sure after time it'll be clogged up with crap again.
One thing I noticed is that 98 didn't load any cab files so you have to insert the 98 disk alot when loading software.

Forum Index > Computers		Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic

All times are GMT - 8 Hours	Jump to: