Windows ME support?

[korhojoa]

Actually, our Old Compaq had win 95, with USB support. (95B, then)

[CLHatch]

OK, we're getting off the original topic. Windows ME may be "obsolete", but in my case it is more stable, more efficient, faster, and less expensive than Windows XP. I don't get these *****s about "Malfunction Edition", etc. I totally hate XP and ME is the last good operating system that Microsoft has made (No activation required!).

Personally, on one machine I have a multi-boot for Windows XP and Windows 98, on the other I have Windows 2000 and Windows 98. I only keep Windows 98 for any games that won't run in the newer OS's. I have ME, but wouldn't dream of putting it on my computer. As has already been said, even Microsoft has admitted that ME was a mistake (always thought it stood for Many Errors).

Hell, I'd rather bring up my third boot option of DOS 6.22 with Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (yes, the option is really there... hehe).

On the subject at hand, however... I completely sympathize with you on the lack of 9x support, but I understand it. Guess I'll have to stick with DT 3.4.7 on my Windows 98 boot partition.

[muffinhoo]

Windows ME IS more stable than XP - WITH MY SOFTWARE!

THE STABILITY OF AN OS IS HIGHLY DEPENDANT UPON THE SOFTWARE INSTALLED ON IT! I DO NOT USE THOSE PSYCHOTIC THIRD-PARTY APPLICATIONS THAT ARE MORE USEFUL AT MESSING UP YOUR COMPUTER THAN SERVING THEIR PURPOSE!

Oh, and the comment about not knowing much about PCs; I BUILD ALL MY OWN COMPUTERS, PICK ALL MY OWN HARDWARE, AND CHOOSE ONLY HIGHLY RATED SOFTWARE!

I would have Windows 2000, but I can't find it any more. I have 2 PCs with Windows XP, one with 2 HDs. I installed it, (And I also use Windows Classic Interface), and it is a DECENT Operating System. I, however, frequently get system crashes, lockups, and BSOD's (Blue Screen of Death!). These experiences certainly do not give me cause to rejoice over the excellence of Windows XP, and I certainly do not look forward to Windows Vista. I've been keeping up with the latest news on Vista, and it's just been horribly overdone.

Until my next post, I just want to tell you this: My Computer is stable with ME, and I DO have usb ports, 400 MHz Processor (Fair Performance), Reasonable graphics and audio. And I also have MS-DOS 6.2 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (And I hate everything about it!)

[muffinhoo]

One more thing - I am writing this from Windows 95! Be afraid, be very afraid!

[muffinhoo]

Think Windows ME is so unstable? Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Me#Criticism

If you would only try things before you criticize them. GEEZ!

[Underheaven]

Re: Windows Me

I don't want to take sides but I suggest reading the before and after paragraph here (scroll down until you see yellow and green boxes). They are good opposing viewpoints...

[muffinhoo]

If you truly want to compare Microsoft's Operating Systems, you have to divide them into categories - DOS Based, and NT based. Windows XP is based on Windows NT, and Windows ME is DOS based (remotely!). I have proven (perhaps only to myself) that, if set up properly, Windows Millennium can be as stable, if not more stable than other OS's.

[Faux Carnival]

You know, Win ME is REALLY dead. The worse OS ever written.

Windows 3.11 was even better. lol

[Jito463]

This is hardly the place for this discussion so I'll have my say and leave it at that. You can respond to your hearts content. I have tested Windows ME. I've worked on Windows ME. I've hated Windows ME. I've been working in the computer field for the better part of 14 years and I've seen many changes in computers. I would hesitate to say that ME was worse than 95. Windows 95 was a technological advancement over Win 3.1, but was buggy. Win98 (first edition) was not much better. Of the 9x based OS's, Win98SE was the best one available. WinME, whether due to buggy drivers or not, was still a mistake. They attempted to integrate parts of the NT kernel with the 9x kernel and got one of the most unstable operating system ever concieved. They did eventually iron out a lot of the issues with patches (that primarily removed the NT portions from the OS), but that does not alter the fact that it was a poor decision on Microsofts part to even attempt this.

Having said that, the NT kernel (from NT4 on up, not including NT3.51 and prior) is the most stable kernel released to date. And with each succeeding OS it gets better. 2000 is better than NT4, XP is better than 2000, XP x64 is better than XP. I have yet to see if Vista will improve on this, but I believe it will. Now keep in mind that I don't use the default GUI of XP or XP x64. I'm just referring to the state of the kernel and the OS in general. I've had my say now and will bow out of this discussion. Feel free to respond if you like. I'll probably read it but will not respond further.

[DomiOh]

@Jito: What GUI do you use with XP ?

[Jito463]

I just change the look back to the standard Win2k look. I'm not really fond of Luna's cartoonish look. That's one thing that almost turned me off to XP when it was introduced until I found out how to revert back.

[muffinhoo]

This will be my last post in Daemon-Tools forums:

Call it "Old-fashioned", call it what you want, but I don't need all the new features of XP to clutter up and slow down my PC. ME is simple, fast, and reliable (with my configuration). Unfortunately, Microsoft will terminate support for Windows ME in Mid-2006. I only use XP because of support issues, and I REALLY wish that Microsoft would make a new OS, that is similar to Windows ME, but "more stable" to please all you critics who have most likely never even used ME, but just go with public opinion. Windows is becoming too demanding as far as hardware, and cost. If someone would make a Windows alternative, that is easily affordable, and supports most Windows programs, I would DEFINITELY go with them!

MS is becoming the iron fist of power; they know they are getting a monopoly on Operating Systems, and they're elevating costs just out of greed.

--"Those who gain power, are afraid to lose it."

[AnalCobra]

If someone would make a Windows alternative, that is easily affordable, and supports most Windows programs, I would DEFINITELY go with them!

Use Linux, i use Linux and Windows. If i would be able to play all games on Linux i would uninstall windows. I also miss some programs in linux, but there are many useful and good designed open source programs/alternatives for linux. I also miss DT in Linux. If somebody knows an alternative for DT in Linux (mounting mds, iso, cue bin), please tell me.

[Underheaven]

DAEMON Tools 3.47 & Win9x

muffinhoo, I'm sorry to hear about you're last post here, I just wanted to add that even though DAEMON Tools 4 won't run on Win9x doesn't mean we'll stop forum support regarding helping people use DAEMON Tools 3.47 and all of its capabilities. Copytrooper also mentioned something along these lines if you're interesting in searching the forums.

[ceegee94]

daemon tools does not support windows me?

ya short question ...
if i am understandin all these posts right then daemon tools will not work on windows me...cause i have tried the 3.47 version.