Windows Me

aarathi

OSNN Junior Addict
#7
Is windows Me so bad? Why? it works fine 4 me?
Windows Millennium Edition, or Windows Me , is a hybrid 16-bit/32-bit graphical operating system released on September 14, 2000 by Microsoft. It was originally codenamed Millennium. It is the successor to Windows 98, Windows Me was marketed as a "Home Edition" when compared to Windows 2000 Professional, which had been released seven months earlier. (Thus making it hold a very similar position to the cancelled Windows Neptune.) It included Internet Explorer 5.5, Windows Media Player 7, and the new Windows Movie Maker software, which provided basic video editing; and was designed to be easy for home users. Microsoft also updated the graphical user interface in Windows Me with some of the features that were first introduced in Windows 2000.
Compared with other releases of Windows, Windows Me had a short shelf-life of just over a year; it was soon replaced by the NT-based Windows XP, which was launched on October 25, 2001.
 

Johnny

.. Commodore ..
Political User
#9
Windows ME was too tushed to be released. I was full of nothing but bugs and more bugs. I had for a total of ten minutes; after which I put XP in and never looked back.
 

LeeJend

OSNN Veteran Addict
#10
ME was just a shell with plug and play improvements over the 98SE version of Windows. There is nothing wrong with it. It runs Windows 98 vintage code just fine, does not use much resources. It was problematic when first relesed which is why so many people are down on it.

Windows 2k was a significant step up but also plagued by compatiblity issues and lack of drivers when released. Win 2k and XP both benchmark about 25% faster than ME for a given application. I confirmed this myself.

Windows XP was the evolutionary successor to 2000 and got the GUI, plug and play and built in drivers right. It has been the PC workhorse for years.

VISTA was released winter 2007 and combined all the bugs, quirks, needless changes, lack of backward compatibility and shortage of drivers found in all the previous versions of windows rolled into one. Early benchmarks show VISTA 25% slower than XP doing the same task. This may be early drivers, quirks in the benchmarks, or crud preinstalled on the systems being tested. I have not been able to confirm this myself since the only VISTA I have is installed on a laptop that has hardware that does not support XP very well.

The guys above were being sarcastic comparing VISTA and ME.

So far it looks like you either Love VISTA and it's all you use, Hate VISTA and will die clutching your copy of XP, or are Disgusted with VISTA but waiting patiently for the real release of VISTA to occur...

If you are running ME do not expect that computer to run VISTA. VISTA is a resource hog requiring a $150 video accelerator and 2 Gig of main memory to run as well as XP does with half those resources.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Perris Calderon wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Ep, glad to see you come back and tidy up...did want to ask a one day favor, I want to enhance my resume , was hoping you could make me administrator for a day, if so, take me right off since I won't be here to do anything, and don't know the slightest about the board, but it would be nice putting "served administrator osnn", if can do, THANKS

Been running around Quora lately, luv it there https://tinyurl.com/ycpxl
Electronic Punk wrote on Perris Calderon's profile.
All good still mate?
Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
Xie
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Threads
61,971
Messages
673,299
Members
89,016
Latest member
Poseeut