ME

Discuss Windows 95, 98 and ME.
empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

The only consequence is that Windows will ask for the CD if you're installing new hardware or add/remove Windows components. So, it's perfectly safe to delete the folder, just keep the CD handy if you ever need it.

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

OK, cool, I thought it might be something like that, I just wanted to make sure in case it was needed for something important. ME's working so well at the moment I don't want to trash it!

Seriously, it recognised every single piece of hardware on the laptop and I didn't have to look for any drivers, and I think that's why it's so stable - ME problems come from people upgrading old Windows installs or using old hardware, and using 98 drivers instead of ME ones. 98 drivers are compatible enough to work, but cause these crashes that give ME its bad name. If you've got a bad impression of ME, try it with only ME-specific drivers - you might just be pleasantly surprised
Image

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

OK How's that one:

I installed Windows ME on my older subnotebook, a really thin and light magnesium beauty (that I unfortunately had to sell because the display broke), performing a clean install on the freshly formatted HD and using only drivers written explicitly for ME. All the drivers were WDM-compliant and installed perfectly. The install was just done, no programs were installed yet. I restarted the system and clicked on "My Computer". The hourglass appeared for some seconds, then a blue-screen saying "The system is busy" or something like that appeared. ME had crashed due to opening My Computer!

Windows 98SE, 2000, XP, Server 2003 and various Linux distros never had any problems on this notebook. The 98SE install was fast and stable, although I used either WDM drivers actually written for ME or drivers by the actual chip manufacturers.

What did that tell me? On my systems, 98(SE) is much more stable than ME. And this was not the only computer stuff like this happened on. I experienced another strange things when dual-booting ME and Whistler/XP, whereas dual-booting 98SE and Whistler/XP was painless, as was the coexistence of 98SE or ME with Windows 2000.

So, I prefer Windows 98SE still, mainly because I still have the ability to shut down in Real DOS , because there's no System Restore and no Movie Maker stuff and because it's lighter.

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

empireum wrote:I installed Windows ME on my older subnotebook, a really thin and light magnesium beauty (that I unfortunately had to sell because the display broke)
REALLY annoying when that happens - I've got an old IBM ThinkPad 570 that someone gave me because it has a dead screen backlight (they sell for up to £100 on eBay if working, despite being only a PII, which shows how much people like them) - ultralightweight ThinkPad, really nice laptop - it's infuriating because it so nearly works (you can just about see it all booting up and everything, but can't actually use it because the screen's too dim without the backlight).
empireum wrote:The install was just done, no programs were installed yet. I restarted the system and clicked on "My Computer". The hourglass appeared for some seconds, then a blue-screen saying "The system is busy" or something like that appeared. ME had crashed due to opening My Computer!
Yeah, I guess these things do happen I think the 98 v ME debate is actually a really interesting one, as I'm find it really intriguing why ME might be less stable than 98 and whether it is the driver issue or whether there's more to it. One criticism often made of ME is that it offers very little over 98, so if it's essentially the same as 98 what could it be that makes it less reliable?
empireum wrote:So, I prefer Windows 98SE still, mainly because I still have the ability to shut down in Real DOS , because there's no System Restore and no Movie Maker stuff and because it's lighter.
I disabled System Restore straight away - don't want that sucking up my (rather limited!) system resources and disk space!


One more thing...I'm going to be getting some extra RAM for the laptop so it'll hopefully have 48 MB total. Would Windows 2000 with all the services turned off work well on a P133/48 MB RAM, or would I be better off sticking with ME? Microsoft actually say a P133 is the minimum for 2000 (which is weird as they say more than that for ME, and 9x is typically more lightweight than NT), and 64 MB Ram - what do you reckon? If I can beg a screwdriver off someone I could actually take the hard drive from the dead ThinkPad (it's only got some passworded install of XP on it that was on there when I got it) and use it to try a 2000 install on the other laptop without getting rid of ME in case I need to go back to it, I guess. FLP wouldn't be good on a P133, no?
Image

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12628
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Andy »

2000 will work with 32mb ram. Ive run it on a 166mhz laptop I have but I couldnt get the drivers for it so I went to 98se.

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

Andy wrote:2000 will work with 32mb ram. Ive run it on a 166mhz laptop I have but I couldnt get the drivers for it so I went to 98se.
How fast was it? I'll stick with ME if 2000 will be horribly slow, as the reason I'm getting the Ram is that it's a bit slow at the moment. Is driver support in 2000 as good as ME? - ME installed everything for me.

Does 2000 use significantly less memory than FLP? I just loaded up FLP in VMware and with all the services turned off that I wouldn't need it still used 60 MB Ram, which is too much when you only have 48! (the swapping is what's making it a bit slow at the moment)
Image

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
empireum wrote:I installed Windows ME on my older subnotebook, a really thin and light magnesium beauty (that I unfortunately had to sell because the display broke)
REALLY annoying when that happens - I've got an old IBM ThinkPad 570 that someone gave me because it has a dead screen backlight (they sell for up to £100 on eBay if working, despite being only a PII, which shows how much people like them) - ultralightweight ThinkPad, really nice laptop - it's infuriating because it so nearly works (you can just about see it all booting up and everything, but can't actually use it because the screen's too dim without the backlight).
Yes, it was really annoying. And I couldn't afford a new screen or a repair because I bought the notebook 2nd when it was some years old. . When it was new (in 2001), it was nearly 3500 Euros, which is approx. ~4200 US-$, is it? So I had to sell it on eBay. Still good a rather good price for it, though.

empireum wrote:The install was just done, no programs were installed yet. I restarted the system and clicked on "My Computer". The hourglass appeared for some seconds, then a blue-screen saying "The system is busy" or something like that appeared. ME had crashed due to opening My Computer!
Yeah, I guess these things do happen I think the 98 v ME debate is actually a really interesting one, as I'm find it really intriguing why ME might be less stable than 98 and whether it is the driver issue or whether there's more to it. One criticism often made of ME is that it offers very little over 98, so if it's essentially the same as 98 what could it be that makes it less reliable?
Don't know, but 98SE was more stable on the very same system of mine that ME was...
empireum wrote:So, I prefer Windows 98SE still, mainly because I still have the ability to shut down in Real DOS , because there's no System Restore and no Movie Maker stuff and because it's lighter.
I disabled System Restore straight away - don't want that sucking up my (rather limited!) system resources and disk space!
Yep, another point of that. I disabled it mainly because I never use(d) it and if a vorus had gotten in there, it was hard to remove. You basically had to turn off System Restore, delete all folders created by it just to be sure, rescan the PC and then turn it back on. Too much of a hassle especially if I actually don't need it.


One more thing...I'm going to be getting some extra RAM for the laptop so it'll hopefully have 48 MB total. Would Windows 2000 with all the services turned off work well on a P133/48 MB RAM, or would I be better off sticking with ME? [/quote]
Well, NT can be a pain in the ... if you've insufficient RAM. I once ran ME with 32MB of RAM and it was bearable, but Win2k (an unoptimised install, though) was not. I doubt it'll be much different with 48MB. I'd not use Win2k with less than 96MB of RAM, honestly. If you install SP3 or SP4, it'll need as much RAM as a fresh XP install does after having booted up. So, I'd say, stick with ME and use 98lite to remove the IE... Maybe even switch to the Win95B shell (98lite offers this, you'll need a Win95 OSR2 CD, though). That will really speed up things on that machine!
Microsoft actually say a P133 is the minimum for 2000 (which is weird as they say more than that for ME, and 9x is typically more lightweight than NT), and 64 MB Ram - what do you reckon? If I can beg a screwdriver off someone I could actually take the hard drive from the dead ThinkPad (it's only got some passworded install of XP on it that was on there when I got it) and use it to try a 2000 install on the other laptop without getting rid of ME in case I need to go back to it, I guess. FLP wouldn't be good on a P133, no?
32MB is the minimum for Win2k, but I'd not use it with <96MB (okay, 64MB would be okay if it needs to be and if you really finetune the OS). I think WInFLP requires at least 64MB of RAM to install and I know of no way to disable that requirement. It's possible with XP, though, and I once ran XP on a 166MHz CPU and 32MB of RAM... Don't ask

edit: You were faster. Win2k with SP1/2 occupies 50MB of RAM after starting up (no tuning, no programs running) and 70MB of RAM with SP3/4...

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

Why does Windows 2000 use more Ram after SP3/4 have been installed?

Hopefully I'll be able to borrow the right screwdriver from the IT office here or somewhere like that to use this other hard drive to test various things out with - it's got some small screws attaching it to the caddy that I just can't get out.
Image

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

Why does Windows 2000 use more Ram after SP3/4 have been installed?
No clue, I realized it when I was doing some testing. But IIRC, the RAM usage increased remarkably after installing SP3/4. I can retest that if you wish, but if you have less than at least 64MB of RAM, it'd really be better if you sticked to 9x/ME rather than agonizing the system with 2000 or even XP.

As I already have said, I highly recommend using 98lite and replacing the shell with the Windows 95 OSR2 one. This will be a nice speed boost.

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

empireum wrote:I can retest that if you wish, but if you have less than at least 64MB of RAM, it'd really be better if you sticked to 9x/ME rather than agonizing the system with 2000 or even XP.
I believe you, I just wondered why it happened, as I wasn't aware of any new features being added by the service packs. XP...hmmm...I wasn't really considering it seeing as Microsoft recommend at least a P233 (although why it's only a 133 for 2000 I don't know, seeing as the two are quite similar - their system requirements are rather odd!). I'm thinking ME might be quite nice on 48 MB Ram, so maybe I'll stick with that. I do prefer the ME shell to the 95 one, although I suppose using the 95 one might be worth a try if it's still too slow...


Oooh, by the way, I’ve managed to get a lead on some free MSDN CDs…quite old apparently (NT3, 95, NT4 kind of vintage), but we’ll see how that goes They're apparently not going to be ready for me to go and get until sometime late next week though...
Image

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

I believe you, I just wondered why it happened, as I wasn't aware of any new features being added by the service packs. XP...hmmm...I wasn't really considering it seeing as Microsoft recommend at least a P233 (although why it's only a 133 for 2000 I don't know, seeing as the two are quite similar - their system requirements are rather odd!). I'm thinking ME might be quite nice on 48 MB Ram, so maybe I'll stick with that. I do prefer the ME shell to the 95 one, although I suppose using the 95 one might be worth a try if it's still too slow...
Yes, but I'm almost sure XP would run with less than 233MHz and even install under these circumstances. And the 64MB RAM limit can be disabled.


Oooh, by the way, I’ve managed to get a lead on some free MSDN CDs…quite old apparently (NT3, 95, NT4 kind of vintage), but we’ll see how that goes Very Happy They're apparently not going to be ready for me to go and get until sometime late next week though...
I also got MSDN packages from 1996/97, they contain that kind of stuff as well, but as I'm a collector, everything is welcome. I love stuff like a Japanese and Checked build of NT4

Grisa
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:14 pm
Location: Westbalkanian Computing Industry Wastelands

Post by Grisa »

Well, if we talking about WinMe, here is my experience:

- on the first machine I tested on (233mmx/32mb edo/tomato mobo w. via chipset) it didn't complete the install (restarted in the middle of PnP searching)
- next was an AMD400/64mbSD/epox mobo w. via chipset: significantly slower than Win98 (I could measure it in games mostly), and explorer.exe tended to crash more often
- but on an AMD Athlon w. 192MB sd it ran a way more better and crashed less (but then XP arrived, so I switched to it)

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

empireum wrote:I also got MSDN packages from 1996/97, they contain that kind of stuff as well, but as I'm a collector, everything is welcome. I love stuff like a Japanese and Checked build of NT4
I love that kind of stuff too - that's why I'm excited about getting these He said there might even be betas in there - have to wait and see! I was even thinking about buying this "Microsoft Year 2000 Resource CD" thing that someone's got on eBay at the moment - I just thought it must be quite rare now and would be a cool thing to have but it's £2.75 including postage so I'm thinking it's a little expensive for what it is
Image

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

I think I do have a (Japanese?) beta of NT 3.51 somewhere in there, but I am not quite sure.

Locked