Bad Experiences!!

[Guest]

Man, I've been doing some tech work at a computer store that I sell computers at, and a lot of customers have been complaining about Win ME being extremely buggy!! I personally think that microsoft should get their heads out of their asses and release a product that actually does what it says!! But, my main question is this... Everyone else has had problems with Win ME compatability right? It's not just my store's warehouse? (the "user friendliness" is driving me crazy too, like that robotic taxi driver in <i>Total Recall</i>!!)

 

[jobe]

THere are some compatibility issue with some hardware and software. WinME as aboslutely no support for the ISA bus, so any device in one of those slots won't work.

I have seen some problems with software programs. But I guess it back the question on the A+ exam: When should you upgrade ( and its not to run the newest stuff


jObE

 

[Bubba]

I guess I am the exception. I have WinMe and all the ISA devices I put in my computer work just fine (modem, sound card, internal cable modem).
Oh well, must be a fluke.
The only major problems I know of are with USB printers and scanners not working. But all that takes is new drivers from the company who made them.
Most problems can be solved by updating software and drivers.

 

[Guest]

I'm don't really know what to think of Win ME. I've had it now for three months, installed it alteady four or five times due to mainboard problems (defective bios), but I still can't figure out if I like it or not. The installation of my Duron650 systeem was always a piece of cake...good PnP! But a Diamond ViperII ran really bad in Win ME, compared to a (normally slower) TNT2 Ultra, even with the newest drivers/bios. I think Win ME has more problems with VIA chipsets than the Intel ones.... Another problem I encounterd is a CONSTANT CPU usage of 25 - 75%!! Even when running 'idle'. And system recovery is already shut off... Anyway, I will not go back to Win98, but I'm not totally satisfied yet with WinME...

 

[Bubba]

basel,

Press ctrl-alt-del to see what programs you have running in the background. I have a Duron 600@850 and I never have more than 2% cpu usage when idle and thats with network ice and norton utilities running. The same goes for when the processor was only at 600.
Constant cpu usage of 25% just isn't right.

 

[Guest]

If more people knew about how stable Windows 2000 is, they would forget about WinME and get the real deal. Sure it costs more, but not having to deal with blue-screen of death and random crashes is worth the cost.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, Bubba, that was the first thing I did (Ctrl+Alt+Del) as soon as I discoverd my 25%-75% idle CPU usage... Guess what? I am and was running only Systray and Explorer and even then it takes 25% out of my dear Duron.... I think it has to do with my Winbond-based PCI networkcard I use for my home network. Maybe the Win ME internet sharing client takes out so much power..... I'll try and take out the network card this weekend to see what will happen.
BTW: My Celeron 374 BX chip Win ME internet sharing server (374?.... yep!Overclocked 300), has an idle CPU usage of 1-2%, even when running some programs in the background.This pc uses a Realtek NIC. Anyone some ideas or similar problems?

 

[Guest]

I wouldn't worry about the reported CPU usage. On my athlon machine it's about 30% when completely idle, but if I give it some minor work like dragging a window around, or playing a mp3 it drops back to 2%

I'll also never use winME. I've got win98se and it only crashes about once every 2 months - thats about 6 times a year. I consider this acceptable so I don't need win2k and won't touch winME.

 

[Guest]

Interesting to read you have the same 'problem', cxg. I checked another Duron 650 system with 3Com NIC and a different mainboard, and it also showed the same CPU utilization of 25-30% when idle. It also dropped as soon as I moved things around or just the mouse... A third Duron 650 system I checked, behaved exactly the same too.
You say it doesn't matter and I agree, as far as performance is concerned... but what about the heat dispensation? A CPU performing 20-30% when running idle never really cools down as it would when dropping to 1-2%... Is this AMD's secret for their CPU's running so much hotter than the Intel ones (apart from AMD's beloved 'higher performance per Mhz')? Mind my overclocked Celeron really runs idle, meaning 1% CPU usage when not used... Does anyone have ideas about this? Should we post a new thread maybe, "Bad Experiences" doesn't really cover the story?

 

[JoeHead]

Stick with 98. Me not compatable with all my devices and they are all less than one year old. W2K not all tha good either. I wonder about the VIA deal too. Hmmmm. Think it's time to rethink next time and go with the Intel. if they run any good then, too many changes too quick, new chipset, new slot, new socket, more new chipsets and more and more and more . ... Can we stick to something and get it right?

<b> Fragg at will!!! </b>