98se VS. ME ?!

[Guest]

Running a system with a gig of ram and a faily fast (1300+) processor, is there any disadvantage or advantage between 98 and ME?

 

[Arrow]

ME: no ISA device support, though 98 supports them
- boots faster, but tests have shown that it's slower when running most applications
I myself prefer ME of the two however.

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048</A></b>

 

[btvillarin]

I go for 98. Some stuff added in ME can be done in 98, just by doing it manually. If you need the system restore and stuff, I can tell you how to do it. Anyways, seeing how you have 1GB RAM, is there any way you can get Win2K or XP? It'd be so much better for you...

Don't pay any attention to my chickenscratch.

 

[blah]

>> no ISA device support = <b>False</b>
>> boots faster = <b>True</b>
>> but tests have shown that it's slower when running most applications = <b>False</b>
>> I myself prefer ME of the two however. = <b>True</b>

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...

 

[jasen]

If you have a gig of RAM I wouldn't run either of them. If it installs and runs correctly at all, it won't be able to access all of your ram. I just had a new Compaq P4 in here with a gig of ram and ME wouldn't even boot on the machine. Had to either take it down to 768MB or less or Install Win2K instead.

Of the other 2, I really noticed no speed difference personally. ME had better driver support maybe. I ran it for 9 months with no problems. Less problems than I'm having with win2k actually, but those are all driver related.

 

[Guest]

Thanks guys. So I guess the general concensus here is that I should go with 2000 since it can handle the ram. That's what I looking for.

Now I just hope the games I play the most will work.

 

[btvillarin]

Cool! If you have it right now, then perhaps you might wanna install it with SP2 integrated, instead of waiting afterwards. Do you have a CD burner? Perhaps check out <A HREF="http://www.bink.nu/Bootcd" target="_new">this page</A>... (If someone already brought it up, I'm not taking credit for finding it, just putting the idea out there. )

Don't pay any attention to my chickenscratch.

 

[Arrow]

It's true that there is no "real" speed difference that you would notice in real life. But notice I said that <i>tests</i> have shown speed differences. Mostly by a mark or few.

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048</A></b>

 

[blah]

Kaman man, I woz jasta having fun with you ) But since I am at it, the tests showed that if you take the "Restore" fitur out, there is no difference (that thing always bogging the system with "search and backup" thing), so there you have it (I might be wrong and I am not worrying about, since I am running ME without that thing ON for the rest of my PC's "life")

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...

 

[Arrow]

Think about how much space it's taking up!! A few hundred megs of my precious HDD space is gone just because of it.

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048</A></b>

 

[blah]

i usually delete that folder from Win2k boot, so it does not waste HDD space (just a hint

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...

 

[Bardic]

A few hundred megs? I was fixing a computer that not only had virus's in the restore folder that couldn't be deleted (and re-infected the machine when they restored something) but it was taking up 3 gigs. 45% of the used space was restore folder. And there I was fixing the computer for 65/hour, and the son didn't want me to turn it off because he thinks he needs it.

What is wrong with these people?

Later,
Bardic