Is using 98Lite to strip everything that makes Windows Me...
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Thlump [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:53 am ]
Post subject:  Is using 98Lite to strip everything that makes Windows Me...

Topic title was too long so it had to be shortened.

Anyway, I was wondering if it was possible if it was possible to use 98Lite to strip everything that makes Windows Me unstable without taking anything big from the OS? Or is there not going to be much difference so that Windows Me will still manage to live up of its true name as the Worst MS OS ever?

Author:  Frozenport [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:06 am ]
Post subject: 

Windows ME is unstable because of its poorly written kernel... Therefore, you will get little help using 98Lite...

Author:  RentedMule [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

I bring this up everytime I hear a conversation like this... and it isn't a troll, just a bit of insight on my behlaf.

Most of the instability of Win9x came from the mashing of the DOS and Windows mode applications in an unsegregated system. Even in a virtual machine, you will notice that bringing up a DOS window increases your chances 100x that you will get a blue screen.

With that, a little story. I currently have a Windows 9x development machine, needed a lot for driver development of custom hardware. Anyway, so I have a Pentium III 800 with 512MB of ram, with Windows 95 C, Windows 98SE, and Windows ME installed (using bootmagic). Let me give you a bit of insight. Windows ME runs faster and NEVER crashes. That is right. I am not pulling your leg.

I think the problem was, at the time of Windows ME release, that the machines they were installed on were the lowest of the low end machines. The hardware quality really made the OS look bad. Even I hated it. But now using a machine that is quality hardware, Windows ME never crashes. And like I said, it really is faster that its predecessors. A simple example is, the menu system. In Windows 98, I click a menu and there is a noticeable "lag" (for lack of a better word) for the menu to pop open (this is with the delay set to 1 ms). On Windows ME, it is instant. There are HUNDREDS of these little things that apparently no one ever noticed. Maybe only I notice because I am constantly booting between all of the versions AND they are running on the exact same hardware.

Ultimately, my advice is this. If you are having trouble getting Windows ME to run stable, try different hardware. It really CAN be a good OS.

Author:  Tootles [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

RentedMule: Aggreed. I rather like Windows me, even though I hated 98. 95 was good, but seemed to me when I first used it (and that was the original 950 build) to be little more than the shell update I have since found out it was.

Got to be done: Windows me with the 3.1 shell and style. I am NOT talking about WindowBlinds, but changing it completely back to the 3.1 format.

Author:  Mr. Bird Poo [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'm pretty sure with 95/98 progman.exe was included, can't remember with ME as that's when they started to change things.

Author:  Vista Ultimate R2 [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

Progman and Fileman were still in Me, Progman was also shipped with XP but replaced with SP2 with a dummy file that didn't run as the new focus on security with SP2 meant they wanted to remove anything that had not been updated for a long time and was likely to contain security flaws (you can still run it if you copy over the file from an older SP version though).

Author:  Bender [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

I've also run Windows ME for quite a long time, and its incredibly stable. Only crashed once on the laptop, and that was due to an old version of VLC..

Author:  betaluva [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

why dont you do the reverse, add the windows me gui to to windows 98 se, install win98se and then run this app to install windows me explorer,icons and sytem colours : ...

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group