ME

Discuss Windows 95, 98 and ME.
RentedMule
Donator
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:26 pm

ME

Post by RentedMule »

Call windows ME pointlesss, but I run it along side 95 and 98SE and it is faster and mor stable, hands down.

dirtwarrior
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:09 am
Location: Glendale KY USA

Post by dirtwarrior »

mellinnium is a good os
to me your post is asking people to argue with you

this is not a place to start arguements

___
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1915
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by ___ »

i can't say i have ever used it. but i know one person that uses it and dislikes it

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

Post by empireum »

I have used Beta 1, Beta 2, Beta 3 and the Final build of Windows ME, and while beta 1 and 2 crashed more than Windows 98SE (on my systems, that is), I can't say beta 3 and the final crashed more than Windows 98SE. But I honestly disliked the lack of a possibility to start up in DOS mode (which was added later by using a patch) and to shut down in DOS mode, which has never been possible with ME. And the "System Restore" feature could cause some trouble, especially if a virus had made it into the folders where the restore points were stored. Only possibility to remove was to delete these (or even all) restore points. I ended up disabling System Restore completely.

I agree to the others: This post is not meant to start an argument, it's just an opinion about the OS.

ewan275
FTP Access
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: UK, Home of RISCOS

Post by ewan275 »

I did like windows ME, but it arrived to close to the release date of windows xp to make an impact to the market. I found it did more that windows 98SE and I am even gona dual boot it on an old laptop with XP. The new Help and System restore were good ideas, but they very rarely worked

I installed the version of ME from the server into VPC (I am very paranoid about isos of the internet) and I found that MS made Windows ME setup look more like the OS Very good looking, with its ME colour scheme. I have uploaded the screen grabs onto the Build Screenshots page. I am gonna have a fiddle and bang it on my old laptop when I get some more CD-R'sv .

HMMMM that MSDN release kills the minging boaring bootscreen
Image

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

Post by empireum »

I did like windows ME, but it arrived to close to the release date of windows xp to make an impact to the market.
Yes, I agree. When ME was released in September 2000 (was it September?), it was already known a new version of Windows, bringing the NT kernel to the home desktop, would be coming.
I found it did more that windows 98SE and I am even gona dual boot it on an old laptop with XP. The new Help and System restore were good ideas, but they very rarely worked
I liked the idea of System Restore, but (1) it's never worked for me correctly and (2) I once had a virus which infected these files as well and as ME locked the access to the folder where System Restore stored its files, and I could only get rid of it by deleting the folder, thus losing all restore points.

As for the setup – it only looks that way when run under another Windows version and/or your graphics card is recognized by the OS... If you run it from DOS, and/or it doesn't recognize your graphics card (which has always been the case on my machines or in VMware) it defaults to 16 colours, effectively looking like the Windows 98 setup.

One thing I really like about ME is it boots faster than Windows 98(SE).

dirtwarrior
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:09 am
Location: Glendale KY USA

Post by dirtwarrior »

Just wondering is there a way to install ME on an NT partition?

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

Post by empireum »

Do you mean installing on a partition that's formatted with NTFS? That's impossible as ME can't "understand" NTFS. But if you want to install on a FAT(32) partition that has Windows NT, 2000, or XP already installed, you should be fine as ME is supposed to recognize the boot loader and add an entry. I'd rather not install two Windows OSes in the same language on the same partition, though...

Jeff
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:06 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jeff »

I used ME a couple times, didn't really like it though.

However, I never remembering comparing it to 98SE...
-Jeff

ewan275
FTP Access
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: UK, Home of RISCOS

Post by ewan275 »

No I I have a 30 GB HD which 20 GB is used for NTFS, I have a 10GB FAT32 partition which is empty which I am intending to install it on, I also read Microsoft Site, which says that if ME is installed after Windows 2000 (which it was released after) it will automaticily place itself in Win2Ks bootloader, and I believe windows XP has the same loader as 2000 so it should work, if me overrides the boot sector Ill just reinstall it via the recovery console, no problems.

Besides the point, I also came up with this very very interest Mod for ME it allows you to boot to MSDOS 9.00 by pressing F8 and then Ctrl+ F5 when the menu restarts, I have uploaded a screen shot onto the build screenshouts. You can get this patch from: http://www.geocities.com/mfd4life_2000/ It ran shuttle on virtual PC so when I get that CDR Ill try it properly, as the VPC is configured for Windows ME, and as it came with Dos disabled it is clocking far too fast, it is imposible to imput commands i.e dir becomes ddddiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrr

Thats why I took up MS free VPC offer as it emulates an ATI S3 which is inculded on every windows version since Windows NT 3.1
Image

rasco

Post by rasco »

Jeff wrote:I used ME a couple times, didn't really like it though.
same thing here

Frozenport
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm
Location: The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"
Contact:

Post by Frozenport »

Windows ME has never ran faster then 98SE in my experiences, you may fail to forget an very important thing that effects performace - hardware drivers
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart

ewan275
FTP Access
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: UK, Home of RISCOS

Post by ewan275 »

Well It boots in 6 seconds from the bios password to the desktop much faster the 98SE on the same PC, and I perfer the shell, I hated the huge explorer navigation icons that were in 98.
Image

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

Post by empireum »

6 seconds??? Are you sure??? I can't quite believe that. And IIRC the size of the Explorer navigation icons can be adjusted. Or do you mean something different?

___
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1915
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by ___ »

6 seconds is damn fast

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

Post by empireum »

Yeah, I think I'll attempt to achieve that.

Jeff
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:06 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jeff »

6 seconds is like 4x faster than xp fast... WOW!!!
-Jeff

___
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1915
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by ___ »

24 seconds isn't really that long, even thought people would complain about that.....

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

Post by empireum »

Yeah, but Windows 2000 takes a lot more time to start up, at least on native hardware. In a VM on my Intel Mac it boots and runs blazingly fast. It doesn't take more than ~15 seconds to start up. Never thought I'd see that with my own eyes

dirtwarrior
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:09 am
Location: Glendale KY USA

Post by dirtwarrior »

What is the hardware difference in an intel/mac?

ewan275
FTP Access
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: UK, Home of RISCOS

Post by ewan275 »

I achieved that by placing windows me on a seperate partiotion, another for data and a seperate one for the swap. Also I was using a 3.0 gig p4 with 512 MB of ram which is right at the ram limit for ME.
Image

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

Post by empireum »

@dirtwarrior
Well, I was booting and running Win2k in a VM, which enabled it to run that fast. Reasons for that are:

* The Intel Core Duo processors support the virtualization technology.
* The dual cores are used simultaneously by the virtualization software.
* DMA access to the (emulated) hardware is available right when booting the VM and the emulated OS.

In general, running VMs on the new Intel-based Macs is really fast, but it should be equally fast on a similarly equipped PC in a VM.

Antz
FTP Access
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:52 pm
Location: Austria

Post by Antz »

I don't like ME and ME don't like me too

themodernizer

Post by themodernizer »

ewan275 wrote:Besides the point, I also came up with this very very interest Mod for ME it allows you to boot to MSDOS 9.00
Windows ME is built on MS-DOS 8.0, the final version of MS-DOS.

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

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

As we're talking about Windows ME here anyway, this seems like a good place for a question about ME: is it safe to delete the folder C:\Windows\Options\Install, which appears to be a copy of the Winme directory of the ME CD? What would be the consequences of getting rid of this? Just I've only got 1.4 GB of hard drive space in this old laptop that I've just put ME on, and I could really do with the ~150 MB space that this seemingly useless folder is occupying.
Image

Locked