Windows ME support?

[Copytrooper]

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!).

Get Windows 2000 then.

[FullMoon]

Come on! UNIX Daemon Process!

"Pronounced DEE-mun or DAY-mun. A process that runs in the background and performs a specified operation at predefined times or in response to certain events. The term daemon is a UNIX term, though many other operating systems provide support for daemons, though they're sometimes called other names. Windows, for example, refers to daemons as System Agents and services.

Typical daemon processes include print spoolers, e-mail handlers, and other programs that perform administrative tasks for the operating system. The term comes from Greek mythology, where daemons were guardian spirits. "

[muffinhoo]

Okay, well my PC was designed for Windows 95 (Now there's obsolete for you!), and so it is very compatible with all later OS's. (Oh, and those *****'s in my previous post were nothing offensive! Just an alternative word for 'joke' which can also mean a type of illegal drug!)

[Jito463]

Have you even tried XP, or are you just scared off by the whole activation deal? I have used most every Microsoft OS around starting with DOS 6.22 and going through Windows 3.11, 95a/c, 98/SE, ME, 2000 and XP, and I can guarantee that ME is not more stable than XP. The fact that I work on machines for a living and have to deal with all sorts of issues just drives home that point (all the problems I've seen with ME over XP). No, XP is not a perfect OS, but it is far better than anything MS has made before. And XP x64 (which I'm running now) improves on that even more. Keep in mind that I don't use Luna (the default GUI of Windows XP), I change the GUI style back to the Windows 2000 look. Interface aside, I much prefer XP to any other version out there.

Having said all that, the reasoning behind dropping support for 98/ME is that the 9x kernel is no longer supported in any way, shape or form by Microsoft. The NT kernel (2000/XP) is far more stable and is the only kernel that MS still supports (unless you count the x64 version as a seperate kernel, but that's another debate for another time). It only makes sense to move on and drop support for the older kernels.

[jhuk]

muffinhoo, Windows ME was a total POS, even MS know this now, you aint doing anyone a favour if you even dare to go on the WWW with that 9x's crapinstead of XP-SP2, the fact you claim its more stable than XP makes me think you dont know much about pc's, the DT staff have stated this OS is dead and wont be supported, get over it and get a semi modern pc (2nd hand if need be if you cant afford) and install XP-SP2.

You hardware is for Win95, so you dont even have usb sockets, gee, what do you need DT for on a old rig like that, your not gonna play many games anyhow.

[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]

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!