How bad Windows ME was...

Solution
It would be recommended as with a new title to the thread you may get more people interested.

XP is not as hard on the system resources as Windows 7 is(windows 7 also makes use of more system memory to pre cache programs you use often, even slightly defective memory can cause many more crashes on Vista/7/8).

Kai Dowin

Honorable
Jan 16, 2014
157
2
10,715
Some say they filled a room with computers and locked a bunch of monkeys inside. The result was an incredible banana mess and Windows ME!

-

Talking seriously. It was awfully unstable. My system at time would crash and have random DLL errors just by sitting doing nothing! I even hadn't internet at the time.
 

Kai Dowin

Honorable
Jan 16, 2014
157
2
10,715


After a fresh install, it would stay stable for some time. Once the DLL errors started, blimey! They just wouldn't stop until another fresh install.

Pathetic OS.
 
Experiences vary greatly. I have a couple of machines (one a laptop) that have been running ME for close to 10 years now without so much as a hiccup. My experience is that you could count on problems if you upgraded a 9x machine to ME. However, a clean installation, on a freshly wiped drive, was quite stable.
 
You had some replies, what more did you need to know.

It was a rather resource heavy version of Windows 98 with some new features that later made it into other OSes as well(system restore and a more user friendly version of Windows explore are quiet notable).

Simply put the core was less stable than the NT(as was older windows cores. At this point a single program hang could take down the system[freeze or crash] in some cases) core used in Windows 2000(XP and newer). This is not to say some users did not like ME. I had a friend who actually quite liked it at the time.
 
I personally skipped ME, but did quite a bit of repair work on systems so got to see it in all its glory :) Again I did have a friend who loved Windows ME.

And if you do any repair work on systems, you will see that users have a very large effect on systems too.

That said, people compared Vista to ME. I had no problems with Vista it self. Nvidia DID have some of the worst driver support for Vista at the start however(600 dollar video card and over 9 months of crashes that did not happen on a AMD card in the same time period. Most users do not know that at one time Nvidia worked on its newest cards for drivers before the slightly[i am talking just an 8800GTX, it was not even that old yet at the time] older ones).

It also did not help that computer makers started to ship systems with a single core cpu/integrated video(that did not even support aero) and 1 gigabyte of ram with Vista installed. That would be like shipping Windows 98 on a system with a 386/486 and 8 megabytes of memory. It was kind of expected that the newest OS should at least have modern hardware.
 
Yeah. The system supports Aero graphics without hogging the CPU. Talk about a good mp3 player in RG. The sounds aren't even compatible with 3D surround! I have Realtek sound and it preforms AWESOME!!!! Built-in Intel graphics, 2GB RAM, Intel Pentium 4 CPU that doesn't like Windows 7 but likes XP. I am really planning on upgrading the CPU to a Core i7 to try to fix my crazy issue with 7 locking up on me.
 
It would be recommended as with a new title to the thread you may get more people interested.

XP is not as hard on the system resources as Windows 7 is(windows 7 also makes use of more system memory to pre cache programs you use often, even slightly defective memory can cause many more crashes on Vista/7/8).
 
Solution