Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Windows XP Myths

<< < (10/20) > >>

Mastertech:
Remember, folks...this is the same Microsoft that brought you things like WinME...which even they have never had any clue on how to make it stable.  ;D-app103 (October 13, 2006, 06:43 AM)
--- End quote ---
Windows ME was more stable than 98 since that is what it was based on. It simply required ME compatible drivers and Bioses. During the time ME was released, mainboard manufacturing moved over to mainland china, we saw the beginning of the capacitor fiasco and people were trying to install Win9x drivers on ME. There was nothing inherently unstable about ME, no more than 98. It was not Microsoft making ME unstable but the end users and the hardware. Both of which are obsolete and don't hold a cadle to 2000 and XP.
-Mastertech (October 13, 2006, 06:48 AM)
--- End quote ---

Back in the day my school bought 20 new boxes from a big vendor with pre-installed WinME with only WinME drivers... after a month, it contacted Microsoft and got all the WinME licenses swapped for win98. The amount of BSODs simply was too much.-f0dder (October 13, 2006, 06:51 AM)
--- End quote ---
Then you should have contacted the vendor and had them give you working systems with compatible ME drivers and hardware. BSODs are clear sign of a hardware/driver incompatibility. If you think for a minute ME just caused random BSODs then you have no business giving anyone advice. Yes we saw initial compatibility issues with drivers and Bioses but we got them resolved by demanding updates from the hardware vendors who fixed the problems and the clients never saw any problems because of it. I sold thousands of ME systems the year it was out before XP was released and tech support was down 25% because of it.

f0dder:
Whatever.

Done wasting time on you.

Carol Haynes:
Remember, folks...this is the same Microsoft that brought you things like WinME...which even they have never had any clue on how to make it stable.  ;D-app103 (October 13, 2006, 06:43 AM)
--- End quote ---
Windows ME was more stable than 98 since that is what it was based on. It simply required ME compatible drivers and Bioses. During the time ME was released, mainboard manufacturing moved over to mainland china, we saw the beginning of the capacitor fiasco and people were trying to install Win9x drivers on ME. There was nothing inherently unstable about ME, no more than 98. It was not Microsoft making ME unstable but the end users and the hardware. Both of which are obsolete and don't hold a cadle to 2000 and XP.
-Mastertech (October 13, 2006, 06:48 AM)
--- End quote ---

ROFLMAO - you serious! Even MS abandonned ME and recommended users with win98 stay with it. They didn't even run through the usual lifecycle process for a new OS.

Darwin:
I purchased notebooks with each of the o/s's mentioned above (98SE, ME, 2k, XP Pro and XP Home) preinstalled (and desktops with 98 and 98SE), all labelled with the "Designed for Win [version here]" label attached, at least a year after the OS was released. I would rank ME far below the others in terms of stability. Whether these were driver compatibiltiy issues or not is irrelevant. As an end-user (and not a system administrator/techie) ME was a nightmare. All I did was install Office 2k on my ME system (which came with ME preinstalled and all the drivers were ME certified from the OEM - Compaq) and use it for light word processing and e-mail/net surfing, and it blue screened a lot more often than 98. So much so that I was leary of newer windows versions and stuck with the 98SE machine before discovering that 2k was a quantum leap over both in terms of stability. I switched to Win2k  late in 2001 and finally bought my first XP Pro machine in March 2004.  I'd rank 2k slightly ahead of XP Pro/Home for stability and speed, with XP far ahead of 98/98SE and ME dead last with a comfortable gap separating it from 98. I still use the original 98 machine, which has been upgraded to W2k, and it is ROCK solid (remarkable for a notebook that is 6 1/2 years old). The ME machine, too, shines with Win2k installed and is still in service with my sister, who uses it in exactly the capacity I had envisioned for myself when I bought it (light office duty and e-mail/Internet). I've numerous friends that had the same experience with ME preinstalled on notebooks/desktops from major manufacturers. The two XP machines see the most use now and are very solid, though I remain convinced (and it's a gut feeling only) that the Win2k machines (which saw two years service with me before I moved on to XP) were less susceptible to blue screening.

Just my 2 bits - an end-user's perspective.

Mastertech:
ROFLMAO - you serious! Even MS abandonned ME and recommended users with win98 stay with it. They didn't even run through the usual lifecycle process for a new OS.-Carol Haynes (October 13, 2006, 11:59 AM)
--- End quote ---
Where did Microsoft recommend users stay with Win98? Please post your source. Microsoft retired 98 and ME at the same time since XP was already out. Since 98 and ME are so similar (ME is simply a newer version of 98) it makes no sense to keep supporting ME when you drop support for 98. I here alot of this nonsense online as everyone just fabricates things about ME.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page