Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
XP vs ME vs 98
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
Pete wrote:
> Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
Search using Google!
http://www.google.com/
(How-to: http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/basics.html )
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Pete wrote:
> Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
Search using Google!
http://www.google.com/
(How-to: http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/basics.html )
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
Pete
ME and 9x are discontinued and as such, no longer have a market share.. they
are still used by the diehards and those whose computers can't handle XP..
For more, Shenan's advice is good..
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
<Pete@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Qy7Qe.6296$L77.6002@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
>
>
Pete
ME and 9x are discontinued and as such, no longer have a market share.. they
are still used by the diehards and those whose computers can't handle XP..
For more, Shenan's advice is good..
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
<Pete@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Qy7Qe.6296$L77.6002@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
>
>
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
<Pete@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Qy7Qe.6296$L77.6002@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
Based on two of my websites with three quarters of a million hits between
them since last September:
Windows XP 76.9% and 81.98%
Windows 2000 10.14% and 7.69%
Windows 98 5.07% and 4.26%
Windows ME 1.95% and 1.66%
--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
http://www.windowsresource.net/
http://www.xbox360degrees.com/
*Remove 'nospam.' to reply by e-mail*
<Pete@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Qy7Qe.6296$L77.6002@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
Based on two of my websites with three quarters of a million hits between
them since last September:
Windows XP 76.9% and 81.98%
Windows 2000 10.14% and 7.69%
Windows 98 5.07% and 4.26%
Windows ME 1.95% and 1.66%
--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
http://www.windowsresource.net/
http://www.xbox360degrees.com/
*Remove 'nospam.' to reply by e-mail*
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
"Paul Smith" <Paul@nospam.windowsresource.net> wrote in message
news:OAZQLFKrFHA.464@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> <Pete@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Qy7Qe.6296$L77.6002@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
>
> Based on two of my websites with three quarters of a million hits between
> them since last September:
>
> Windows XP 76.9% and 81.98%
> Windows 2000 10.14% and 7.69%
> Windows 98 5.07% and 4.26%
> Windows ME 1.95% and 1.66%
>
> --
> Paul Smith,
> Yeovil, UK.
> http://www.windowsresource.net/
> http://www.xbox360degrees.com/
>
> *Remove 'nospam.' to reply by e-mail*
>
This is the kind of hard facts I was looking for. THANKS.
I am shocked how little of a following ME has.
At the risk of exposing my ignorance, isn't Win2000 basically a server OS?
-Pete
"Paul Smith" <Paul@nospam.windowsresource.net> wrote in message
news:OAZQLFKrFHA.464@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> <Pete@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Qy7Qe.6296$L77.6002@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
>
> Based on two of my websites with three quarters of a million hits between
> them since last September:
>
> Windows XP 76.9% and 81.98%
> Windows 2000 10.14% and 7.69%
> Windows 98 5.07% and 4.26%
> Windows ME 1.95% and 1.66%
>
> --
> Paul Smith,
> Yeovil, UK.
> http://www.windowsresource.net/
> http://www.xbox360degrees.com/
>
> *Remove 'nospam.' to reply by e-mail*
>
This is the kind of hard facts I was looking for. THANKS.
I am shocked how little of a following ME has.
At the risk of exposing my ignorance, isn't Win2000 basically a server OS?
-Pete
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
Pete
Not just server software.. Win 2000 Pro was a workstation OS..
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnanchor/html/anch_win2000.asp
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Pete" <Pete@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BeKdnYj-yo11io7eRVn-jQ@speakeasy.net...
>
> "Paul Smith" <Paul@nospam.windowsresource.net> wrote in message
> news:OAZQLFKrFHA.464@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> <Pete@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Qy7Qe.6296$L77.6002@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
>>
>> Based on two of my websites with three quarters of a million hits between
>> them since last September:
>>
>> Windows XP 76.9% and 81.98%
>> Windows 2000 10.14% and 7.69%
>> Windows 98 5.07% and 4.26%
>> Windows ME 1.95% and 1.66%
>>
>> --
>> Paul Smith,
>> Yeovil, UK.
>> http://www.windowsresource.net/
>> http://www.xbox360degrees.com/
>>
>> *Remove 'nospam.' to reply by e-mail*
>>
> This is the kind of hard facts I was looking for. THANKS.
> I am shocked how little of a following ME has.
> At the risk of exposing my ignorance, isn't Win2000 basically a server OS?
> -Pete
>
>
Pete
Not just server software.. Win 2000 Pro was a workstation OS..
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnanchor/html/anch_win2000.asp
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Pete" <Pete@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BeKdnYj-yo11io7eRVn-jQ@speakeasy.net...
>
> "Paul Smith" <Paul@nospam.windowsresource.net> wrote in message
> news:OAZQLFKrFHA.464@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> <Pete@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Qy7Qe.6296$L77.6002@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
>>
>> Based on two of my websites with three quarters of a million hits between
>> them since last September:
>>
>> Windows XP 76.9% and 81.98%
>> Windows 2000 10.14% and 7.69%
>> Windows 98 5.07% and 4.26%
>> Windows ME 1.95% and 1.66%
>>
>> --
>> Paul Smith,
>> Yeovil, UK.
>> http://www.windowsresource.net/
>> http://www.xbox360degrees.com/
>>
>> *Remove 'nospam.' to reply by e-mail*
>>
> This is the kind of hard facts I was looking for. THANKS.
> I am shocked how little of a following ME has.
> At the risk of exposing my ignorance, isn't Win2000 basically a server OS?
> -Pete
>
>
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
Pete wrote
> Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
Paul Smith wrote:
> Based on two of my websites with three quarters of a million hits
> between them since last September:
>
> Windows XP 76.9% and 81.98%
> Windows 2000 10.14% and 7.69%
> Windows 98 5.07% and 4.26%
> Windows ME 1.95% and 1.66%
Pete wrote:
> This is the kind of hard facts I was looking for. THANKS.
> I am shocked how little of a following ME has.
> At the risk of exposing my ignorance, isn't Win2000 basically a
> server OS? -Pete
Windows 2000 Workstation is a WORKSTATION operating system.
It's very popular in corporate environments (should say "was", since XP was
the next step - and it is finally getting to actually be "was".)
Windows ME is not worth it. It was (in my opinion) released as a pacifier -
while waiting on Windows XP. It was a horrible OS and when XP was released,
all the Microsoft "release events" had the presenters comparing Windows XP
to Windows 95 and Windows 98 for home users and Windows 2000 for corporate
users - if Windows ME was mentioned - it was in passing.. I think even they
thought Windows ME was a fluke.
It is my suggestion that anyone with Windows ME consider getting Windows
XP - I'll even go so far as to suggest using Windows 98 instead. *grin*
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Pete wrote
> Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
Paul Smith wrote:
> Based on two of my websites with three quarters of a million hits
> between them since last September:
>
> Windows XP 76.9% and 81.98%
> Windows 2000 10.14% and 7.69%
> Windows 98 5.07% and 4.26%
> Windows ME 1.95% and 1.66%
Pete wrote:
> This is the kind of hard facts I was looking for. THANKS.
> I am shocked how little of a following ME has.
> At the risk of exposing my ignorance, isn't Win2000 basically a
> server OS? -Pete
Windows 2000 Workstation is a WORKSTATION operating system.
It's very popular in corporate environments (should say "was", since XP was
the next step - and it is finally getting to actually be "was".)
Windows ME is not worth it. It was (in my opinion) released as a pacifier -
while waiting on Windows XP. It was a horrible OS and when XP was released,
all the Microsoft "release events" had the presenters comparing Windows XP
to Windows 95 and Windows 98 for home users and Windows 2000 for corporate
users - if Windows ME was mentioned - it was in passing.. I think even they
thought Windows ME was a fluke.
It is my suggestion that anyone with Windows ME consider getting Windows
XP - I'll even go so far as to suggest using Windows 98 instead. *grin*
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
.... and yet some really loved it, claiming that it held up well..
personally, I have never seen evidence of this, just hearsay is all..
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u07dLMLrFHA.332@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Pete wrote
>> Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
>
> Paul Smith wrote:
>> Based on two of my websites with three quarters of a million hits
>> between them since last September:
>>
>> Windows XP 76.9% and 81.98%
>> Windows 2000 10.14% and 7.69%
>> Windows 98 5.07% and 4.26%
>> Windows ME 1.95% and 1.66%
>
> Pete wrote:
>> This is the kind of hard facts I was looking for. THANKS.
>> I am shocked how little of a following ME has.
>> At the risk of exposing my ignorance, isn't Win2000 basically a
>> server OS? -Pete
>
> Windows 2000 Workstation is a WORKSTATION operating system.
> It's very popular in corporate environments (should say "was", since XP
> was the next step - and it is finally getting to actually be "was".)
>
> Windows ME is not worth it. It was (in my opinion) released as a
> pacifier - while waiting on Windows XP. It was a horrible OS and when XP
> was released, all the Microsoft "release events" had the presenters
> comparing Windows XP to Windows 95 and Windows 98 for home users and
> Windows 2000 for corporate users - if Windows ME was mentioned - it was in
> passing.. I think even they thought Windows ME was a fluke.
>
> It is my suggestion that anyone with Windows ME consider getting Windows
> XP - I'll even go so far as to suggest using Windows 98 instead. *grin*
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
> --
> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
.... and yet some really loved it, claiming that it held up well..
personally, I have never seen evidence of this, just hearsay is all..
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u07dLMLrFHA.332@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Pete wrote
>> Just what is the market share for these three operating systems?
>
> Paul Smith wrote:
>> Based on two of my websites with three quarters of a million hits
>> between them since last September:
>>
>> Windows XP 76.9% and 81.98%
>> Windows 2000 10.14% and 7.69%
>> Windows 98 5.07% and 4.26%
>> Windows ME 1.95% and 1.66%
>
> Pete wrote:
>> This is the kind of hard facts I was looking for. THANKS.
>> I am shocked how little of a following ME has.
>> At the risk of exposing my ignorance, isn't Win2000 basically a
>> server OS? -Pete
>
> Windows 2000 Workstation is a WORKSTATION operating system.
> It's very popular in corporate environments (should say "was", since XP
> was the next step - and it is finally getting to actually be "was".)
>
> Windows ME is not worth it. It was (in my opinion) released as a
> pacifier - while waiting on Windows XP. It was a horrible OS and when XP
> was released, all the Microsoft "release events" had the presenters
> comparing Windows XP to Windows 95 and Windows 98 for home users and
> Windows 2000 for corporate users - if Windows ME was mentioned - it was in
> passing.. I think even they thought Windows ME was a fluke.
>
> It is my suggestion that anyone with Windows ME consider getting Windows
> XP - I'll even go so far as to suggest using Windows 98 instead. *grin*
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
> --
> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
I never had any problems with it when I ran it, and it is still going
strong now I have passed the machine to my daughter and it's part of my
network <g>
Joan
Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
> ... and yet some really loved it, claiming that it held up well..
> personally, I have never seen evidence of this, just hearsay is all..
>
>
I never had any problems with it when I ran it, and it is still going
strong now I have passed the machine to my daughter and it's part of my
network <g>
Joan
Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
> ... and yet some really loved it, claiming that it held up well..
> personally, I have never seen evidence of this, just hearsay is all..
>
>
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
Joan
The machine should be frozen in time, and then placed in the Smithsonian as
the only stable installation of ME ever known on the planet..
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Joan Archer" <archer_joan@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:emzvytNrFHA.908@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I never had any problems with it when I ran it, and it is still going
>strong now I have passed the machine to my daughter and it's part of my
>network <g>
> Joan
>
>
>
> Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
>> ... and yet some really loved it, claiming that it held up well..
>> personally, I have never seen evidence of this, just hearsay is all..
>>
>>
>
>
Joan
The machine should be frozen in time, and then placed in the Smithsonian as
the only stable installation of ME ever known on the planet..
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Joan Archer" <archer_joan@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:emzvytNrFHA.908@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I never had any problems with it when I ran it, and it is still going
>strong now I have passed the machine to my daughter and it's part of my
>network <g>
> Joan
>
>
>
> Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
>> ... and yet some really loved it, claiming that it held up well..
>> personally, I have never seen evidence of this, just hearsay is all..
>>
>>
>
>
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
<lol> Especially since it's an OEM install, Packard Bell.
When I had it I used it to dual boot with my XPHome OS but got fed up with
the daughter wanting to write CD's and my machine was the only one with a
writer, she had the old 98.
Got myself a new box with XP screwed up with the OEM install (Compaq) <g>
so I took XP of the ME machine installed it clean on mine and been happy
ever since <g> she can burn her own CD's now and not bother me <g>
Joan
Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
> Joan
>
> The machine should be frozen in time, and then placed in the
> Smithsonian as the only stable installation of ME ever known on the
> planet..
>
<lol> Especially since it's an OEM install, Packard Bell.
When I had it I used it to dual boot with my XPHome OS but got fed up with
the daughter wanting to write CD's and my machine was the only one with a
writer, she had the old 98.
Got myself a new box with XP screwed up with the OEM install (Compaq) <g>
so I took XP of the ME machine installed it clean on mine and been happy
ever since <g> she can burn her own CD's now and not bother me <g>
Joan
Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
> Joan
>
> The machine should be frozen in time, and then placed in the
> Smithsonian as the only stable installation of ME ever known on the
> planet..
>
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
Joan
Who would have ever thought that ME would or could be a life saver?.. lol..
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Joan Archer" <archer_joan@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:edxDK1UrFHA.904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> <lol> Especially since it's an OEM install, Packard Bell.
> When I had it I used it to dual boot with my XPHome OS but got fed up with
> the daughter wanting to write CD's and my machine was the only one with a
> writer, she had the old 98.
> Got myself a new box with XP screwed up with the OEM install (Compaq) <g>
> so I took XP of the ME machine installed it clean on mine and been happy
> ever since <g> she can burn her own CD's now and not bother me <g>
> Joan
>
>
>
>
> Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
>> Joan
>>
>> The machine should be frozen in time, and then placed in the
>> Smithsonian as the only stable installation of ME ever known on the
>> planet..
>>
>
>
Joan
Who would have ever thought that ME would or could be a life saver?.. lol..
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
"Joan Archer" <archer_joan@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:edxDK1UrFHA.904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> <lol> Especially since it's an OEM install, Packard Bell.
> When I had it I used it to dual boot with my XPHome OS but got fed up with
> the daughter wanting to write CD's and my machine was the only one with a
> writer, she had the old 98.
> Got myself a new box with XP screwed up with the OEM install (Compaq) <g>
> so I took XP of the ME machine installed it clean on mine and been happy
> ever since <g> she can burn her own CD's now and not bother me <g>
> Joan
>
>
>
>
> Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
>> Joan
>>
>> The machine should be frozen in time, and then placed in the
>> Smithsonian as the only stable installation of ME ever known on the
>> planet..
>>
>
>
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:08:59 -0400, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
<mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Joan
>
>Who would have ever thought that ME would or could be a life saver?.. lol..
I read windows ME works better on compaq and Emachines than with xp
installed.
Greg R
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:08:59 -0400, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
<mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Joan
>
>Who would have ever thought that ME would or could be a life saver?.. lol..
I read windows ME works better on compaq and Emachines than with xp
installed.
Greg R
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
Greg
ME runs more easily on machines that do not have the specification that XP
requires, but that is not to say that ME is better..
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
"GregRo" <webworm11@lycosy.com> wrote in message
news:3nj5ilF1onruU3@individual.net...
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:08:59 -0400, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
> <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Joan
>>
>>Who would have ever thought that ME would or could be a life saver?..
>>lol..
>
>
> I read windows ME works better on compaq and Emachines than with xp
> installed.
>
> Greg R
Greg
ME runs more easily on machines that do not have the specification that XP
requires, but that is not to say that ME is better..
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
"GregRo" <webworm11@lycosy.com> wrote in message
news:3nj5ilF1onruU3@individual.net...
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:08:59 -0400, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
> <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Joan
>>
>>Who would have ever thought that ME would or could be a life saver?..
>>lol..
>
>
> I read windows ME works better on compaq and Emachines than with xp
> installed.
>
> Greg R
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:00:37 -0400, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
<mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Greg
>
>ME runs more easily on machines that do not have the specification that XP
>requires, but that is not to say that ME is better..
>
>--
I noticed on my emachine (I'm not using at the moment) that windows xp
sp2 runs slower than using windows me on the same machine. I have an
amd athlon xp2000+
Greg Ro
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:00:37 -0400, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
<mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Greg
>
>ME runs more easily on machines that do not have the specification that XP
>requires, but that is not to say that ME is better..
>
>--
I noticed on my emachine (I'm not using at the moment) that windows xp
sp2 runs slower than using windows me on the same machine. I have an
amd athlon xp2000+
Greg Ro
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
Greg
Power to weight ratio is the factor here, where power is the available
resource and weight is the operating system..
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
"GregRo" <webworm11@lycosy.com> wrote in message
news:3nja9rF1qfk8U1@individual.net...
>
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:00:37 -0400, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
> <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Greg
>>
>>ME runs more easily on machines that do not have the specification that XP
>>requires, but that is not to say that ME is better..
>>
>>--
>
> I noticed on my emachine (I'm not using at the moment) that windows xp
> sp2 runs slower than using windows me on the same machine. I have an
> amd athlon xp2000+
>
> Greg Ro
>
Greg
Power to weight ratio is the factor here, where power is the available
resource and weight is the operating system..
--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
"GregRo" <webworm11@lycosy.com> wrote in message
news:3nja9rF1qfk8U1@individual.net...
>
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:00:37 -0400, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
> <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Greg
>>
>>ME runs more easily on machines that do not have the specification that XP
>>requires, but that is not to say that ME is better..
>>
>>--
>
> I noticed on my emachine (I'm not using at the moment) that windows xp
> sp2 runs slower than using windows me on the same machine. I have an
> amd athlon xp2000+
>
> Greg Ro
>
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
"GregRo" <webworm11@lycosy.com> wrote in message
news:3nja9rF1qfk8U1@individual.net...
>
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:00:37 -0400, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
> <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Greg
>>
>>ME runs more easily on machines that do not have the specification that XP
>>requires, but that is not to say that ME is better..
>>
>>--
>
> I noticed on my emachine (I'm not using at the moment) that windows xp
> sp2 runs slower than using windows me on the same machine. I have an
> amd athlon xp2000+
>
> Greg Ro
Your Athlon is just fine to run XP. RAM is an important factor, anything
less than 512 MB is going to cause a system to run slow.
"GregRo" <webworm11@lycosy.com> wrote in message
news:3nja9rF1qfk8U1@individual.net...
>
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:00:37 -0400, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
> <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Greg
>>
>>ME runs more easily on machines that do not have the specification that XP
>>requires, but that is not to say that ME is better..
>>
>>--
>
> I noticed on my emachine (I'm not using at the moment) that windows xp
> sp2 runs slower than using windows me on the same machine. I have an
> amd athlon xp2000+
>
> Greg Ro
Your Athlon is just fine to run XP. RAM is an important factor, anything
less than 512 MB is going to cause a system to run slow.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
In news:Qy7Qe.6296$L77.6002@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com,
Pete@nospam.com <Pete@nospam.com> typed:
> Just what is the market share for these three operating
> systems?
Today?
XP - 100%
Me - 0%
98 - 0%
Me and 98 are no longer being marketed.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
In news:Qy7Qe.6296$L77.6002@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com,
Pete@nospam.com <Pete@nospam.com> typed:
> Just what is the market share for these three operating
> systems?
Today?
XP - 100%
Me - 0%
98 - 0%
Me and 98 are no longer being marketed.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
<lol> Lifes a lot easier when I'm left alone with my machine and no one
bothers me <g>
Joan
Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
> Joan
>
> Who would have ever thought that ME would or could be a life saver?..
> lol..
<lol> Lifes a lot easier when I'm left alone with my machine and no one
bothers me <g>
Joan
Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
> Joan
>
> Who would have ever thought that ME would or could be a life saver?..
> lol..
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
That WinME machine of mine was a Packard Bell 800mHz (is that how it's
written) with Intel and has 256MB RAM
Johns is aXPHomeSP2 eMachine 1.20GHz Intel Celeron with 256MB RAM and mine
is a Compaq Presario XPHomeSP2 1.80 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP with 256MB RAM
Joan
GregRo wrote:
>
>
> I read windows ME works better on compaq and Emachines than with xp
> installed.
>
> Greg R
That WinME machine of mine was a Packard Bell 800mHz (is that how it's
written) with Intel and has 256MB RAM
Johns is aXPHomeSP2 eMachine 1.20GHz Intel Celeron with 256MB RAM and mine
is a Compaq Presario XPHomeSP2 1.80 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP with 256MB RAM
Joan
GregRo wrote:
>
>
> I read windows ME works better on compaq and Emachines than with xp
> installed.
>
> Greg R
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:OyItAKbrFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> In news:Qy7Qe.6296$L77.6002@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com,
> Pete@nospam.com <Pete@nospam.com> typed:
>
> > Just what is the market share for these three operating
> > systems?
>
>
> Today?
>
> XP - 100%
> Me - 0%
> 98 - 0%
>
> Me and 98 are no longer being marketed.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
OK. So I mean user base.
-Pete
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:OyItAKbrFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> In news:Qy7Qe.6296$L77.6002@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com,
> Pete@nospam.com <Pete@nospam.com> typed:
>
> > Just what is the market share for these three operating
> > systems?
>
>
> Today?
>
> XP - 100%
> Me - 0%
> 98 - 0%
>
> Me and 98 are no longer being marketed.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
OK. So I mean user base.
-Pete
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
"Joan Archer" <archer_joan@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:emzvytNrFHA.908@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I never had any problems with it when I ran it, and it is still going
> strong now I have passed the machine to my daughter and it's part of my
> network <g>
It's the only OS that has consistently run for me.
XP is poor in that the many DOS apps don't run fully.
And has failed.
Can't run many apps with the updates installed, either.
Thinking of upgrading to ME again (grin, but with some seriousness)
george, who remembers why I use I,J,K,L,M and N for counters
"Joan Archer" <archer_joan@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:emzvytNrFHA.908@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I never had any problems with it when I ran it, and it is still going
> strong now I have passed the machine to my daughter and it's part of my
> network <g>
It's the only OS that has consistently run for me.
XP is poor in that the many DOS apps don't run fully.
And has failed.
Can't run many apps with the updates installed, either.
Thinking of upgrading to ME again (grin, but with some seriousness)
george, who remembers why I use I,J,K,L,M and N for counters
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
"George" <georgefour@btinternet.com> wrote in news:df54d2$1gl$1
@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
> who remembers why I use I,J,K,L,M and N for counters
Fortran...these letters default to type integer!
"George" <georgefour@btinternet.com> wrote in news:df54d2$1gl$1
@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
> who remembers why I use I,J,K,L,M and N for counters
Fortran...these letters default to type integer!
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Microsoft updates Windows 11 24H2 requirements, CPU must support SSE4.2 or the OS will not boot- Started by Admin
- Replies: 14
-
-
-
Question New Build GPU help- ASRock Steel Legend OC Radeon RX 7900 GRE - Keeps turning off
- Started by bp240
- Replies: 6
-
Question How can I make my AMD GPU scale *all* resolutions to 1080p, even resolutions that are "supported" by my TV?
- Started by Sol33t303
- Replies: 7
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram