Win Me vs Win 2000

[Guest]

I was wondering if windows Me is as stable as windows 2000. I am currently running a home network (internet connection sharing) and have win98se. It crashes all the time. I want to upgrade, but dont want to spend the chunmk of cash on win2000. WinMe is about $100 cheaper, but its still pretty expensive. has anyone heard any good hings about WinMe

 

[FUGGER]

Windows 2000 is more stable, and is more for development and professional systems.

Windows Me is a consumer product to for home users and light applications. you can use ME for the same apps as windows 2k but with a higher overhead of OS legacy support

 

[yoda271828]

WinMe is no more stable than Win98. Win 95/98/Me all use the same kernel, and there is little difference between them. Win2000 uses the WinNT kernel, which is far more stable. WinMe has an internet connection sharing program (so does Win98), but it is not stable. Win2000 is much more stable, but also much more money.

If you are adventurous try Linux (SuSE, Mandrake, or Red Hat). It's more stable than Win2000, has a plethora of networking options and programs, and its FREE. Linux takes a while to learn though. I use a dual boot Win98/Linux. Works great.

 

[Grizely1]

Sure it is. For me anyway. Windows95 absolutely SUCKED (Way back with my 233MHz P2), then Windows98 first edition which was MUCH better than win95, then it was '98 SE, which was the same to me, and now Win ME. (excluding NT and 2000 in al this.) I am now running ME and find it much better than all the others.

 

[Bubba]

I think WinMe is better than Win98SE for stability and hardware support. But WinMe is not as stable as Win2000. But I need ME for gaming purposes.

I ain't seen a beating like that since somebody stuck a banana in my pants and turned a monkey loose

 

[Arrow]

If you need a system that will run without having to reboot due to crashes, then go for Windows 2000. It is built on the NT engine, so it is much more stable. However, for the casual home user, I would recommend Windows ME. The Win9x engine provides better support for games and hardware.

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

 

[kal326]

Depending on what games you play Win2k should work fine. I have switch back and forth win98se and win2k for a while. The main reason i dont run win2k is some of my cdr burner software doenst like win2k to much. That and win2k has a bit more over head that slows down games a bit. Other then that I have only a few games that wont run in win2k. As for Win ME(Win98 third edition), I have never run that, but I've been told its the idiot proof windows and that it does then to be a resourse hog. As for me I can get win2k and win98se at academic prices from my college book store. Got win2k full retail install for $149 and Office 2000 Pro full retail for $199.99. So price wasnt much of a problem for me. Personally I would go with win98se or Win2k, Win2k is by far more stable. However I did have trouble getting it to run on my old classic Athlon 600.

 

[Tempus]

It will be a long time before I decide to upgrade to WinME. True it might be potentially as stable as 98SE, but that's just the thing that keeps me away. I'll go buy ME and then they will come out with something like WinMESE. Right now, ME just crashes to much due to a lack of patches, and until it matures for a while on the market, go for Win2k.

- "I forgot my shirt, but I had body glitter."

 

[Guest]

What about game support? I thinked that would be awesome if linux is going to support all of the upcoming games, but there is no way that we are going to be able to get rid of Micro$oft for quite a while.

 

[blah]

Man, you know, WinME is less stable, but it is cost less, Win2k is more stable, but it cost more as well. So, if you need something that is more stable you gonna spend more money, if you want to spend less money you gonna get less stable system. So if you do not want to have a less stable system and still do not have more money to spend on the more stable system which cost more money because it is more stable, you gonna have to spend less money for the less stable system, because less money cannot buy anything but less stable system, not like more money can buy more stable system, which cost much more money because it is much more stable than the one that cost less that is less stable because it cost less than the one that is more stable from the one that cost less because it is less stable from the one that cost more because it is more stable. Bbrrr, whatever….
So, if you have less money than the more stable system needs to be paid for, you gonna buy less stable system.

I don’t know, if I am confusing you, get WinME. If you have extra 100 bucks, get Win2k (this is only in case if you are going to use it for networking). WinME is much much better than the SE one (system restore is the best tool ever), you will have fun time playing with them if you have all the drivers for hardware. Win2k will give you awesome features for the business use.

That’s it.

By the way, less money will never buy more better product )
That is why it has much more better price )


its not too late yet...

 

[Tempus]

I'd still wait until microsoft refines ME again (it constantly changing) and releases the newest version. And they will, it's only a matter of time.

- "I forgot my shirt, but I had body glitter."

 

[Guest]

Windows 2000 has crashed a few times on me, but that was back when it was in beta. I've never had it crash since the full version came out. WinME (98te) crashes all the time just like every Windows 9x. The best deal I've seen on Win2k is $140 when you buy a harddrive or motherboard at tcwo.com.

As a server there's not comparison between Linux and Windows NT/2K, Linux slaughters Windows. For most end-users though WIndows and Mac are the only options because of ease of use. This fact will keep Windows, and its great application support around for a long time to come.

 

[Grizely1]

How would you <i>know</i> if WinME crashes more on your system than your current OS if you've never tried it? ME is crap for some, great for others (me). Give it a try. At least get a burned version to try .

 

[Tempus]

I have tried it. Many of my friends use it and they have had problems up the kazo. Thats why I stayed with good old 98se. I will eventually have to go to ME, but I'll give it time to mature. Besides, spending $120 on upgrading to find out if I like it, and then end up hating it sounds like a nightmare.

- "I forgot my shirt, but I had body glitter."

 

[Bubba]

I'll say it again, I have no problems with Me, never have.

I ain't seen a beating like that since somebody stuck a banana in my pants and turned a monkey loose

 

[Tempus]

Not sure what to do. Maybe I will go for it and upgrade. My instint tells me I'm going to regret it in a few months when I have to pay another $100 to upgrade to WinMEse.

- "I forgot my shirt, but I had body glitter."

 

[Guest]

I read(on some message board) that if you install the full version instead of the upgrade of ME it is more stable on your system.
Unfortunatly, I bought the upgrade and have had nothing but problems. I pride myself on having every driver up to date and every problem ironed out.(never had a crash on win 98se) Once I upgraded to ME I had crashes over and over(if it wasn't my nic drivers it was my mouse drivers). When one problem was fixed a new problem reared it's evil head. After about two weeks of pure hell, I backed up my files, formated my hdd and reinstalled win 98se for a fresh start.

That recovery option sucks. Talk about a waste of code. People want to recover they back up their files on cd or other. They don't need the OS backing up everything and loading down the hdd all the time. I hope if they come out with MEse they have a way of totally disabling that feature(and stays disabled, unlike the current version).

To all those that have had success with win ME, Congrats you are either more fortunate than I or a hell of a lot smarter.

 

[Guest]

Wrong forum to ask. Wrong site for that matter. Go to some place like cdmediaworld.com. Places like that answer questions about burning software but beware they don't like people that pirate- only people that make backups. Semantics if you ask me but it keeps them out of the courts.

 

[Guest]

Good god man! Decaff is your friend.

 

[lostinms]

what is ME , heh hell what is Windows 98? I have been using Windows 95c for the past 4 years and never saw the need to go to 98 or ME. Almost all software stills say windows 95. So what is the since in upgradeing. Oh and windows 95 is really stable on my puter.

 

[Guest]

Win Me has a much better media player, it carries over the icons from Win2000, and has a error correction feature whereby if you uninstall something that windows needs, it will reinstall it for you, and it has some great wallpaper too, (Not that thats important)

 

[munkey]

as long as you don't try to update from 98 to me you should be fine but in my personal opinion win me is the worst OS you could ever hope to put on a system. my suggestion is that you go with linux or wait for six months for some better revisions of me to be released

 

[Tempus]

I agree. Also I would like to say that system restore may be good, but at a price to your hard drive. How it works is everyonce and a while it takes a snapshot of your computer, saving every setting and program. The previous snapshots are never removed, so as you use your system, soon system restore will use over 1gb of your hd! This is staight from the mouth of Tom...well his articles anyway.

- "I forgot my shirt, but I had body glitter."

 

[TheAntipop]

Bottom line from my experience--> if you have a large hard drive (over 20gig) or over 128mb ram, run Win2k. The overhead will be MINIMAL. I have a 45gig hard drive (one partition ntfs) and 256mb ram running Win2k Pro and my machine runs like a dream. I have encountered NO hardware incompatibilites (in fact, Win2k installs my hardware better than 98) and have only encountered two instances of software incompatabilites: Gamespy and my Plextor burner software. I would recommend Win2k Pro if money isn't an issue, just be sure to install all the update available for it

<font color=blue>Intel Inside</font color=blue> = <font color=red>IDIOT</font color=red> Outside

 

[Atman]

Personally I can't stand Windows Me. I purchased the upgrade version, then did a clean install dual booting with Windows 2000. I love Win 2000, it's great. Win Me seems to be quite the resource hog. Win 2000 seems to run faster for me than Win Me. Me was easy to setup/install and most stuff ran on it ok, if it ran. I ended up taking it off and going back to Win 98SE and Windows 2000. I don't game much but the ones I have don't want to run under 2000. Quake runs, but not Dirt Track Racing or DTRSC.
As far as upgrading just to get rid of problems, I usually don't agree with that theory. If you have problems due to flaky memory, for example, then Windows Me will more than likely just cause more crashes since it is such a memory hog. You might want to spend a bit more time trying to stabalize your 98 install first.
Besides that, as soon as you purchase your new version of either one, Whistler will be here and you will want to upgrade to that.
I don't know...I don't currently use Linux, however, I believe it is going to get more and more popular since microsoft and their new registration techniques are going to require you to purchase a new licence if you change out too many parts on your computer. I don't have the desire to purchase the same operating system and software each time I want to upgrade my machine.
Sorry for rambling so much.

I wonder what hardware manufacturers have to say about microsoft and making things non upgradable.

Have a Good one.
Atman