Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

98 vs Me

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
March 26, 2003 7:18:40 PM

So I have a full version of 98 (not SE)and some one wants me to repace the Windows Me on an Acer laptop (200Mhz) with I think a 2G HD. They maintain that 98 takes up less space and would run better. Well I feel that they could keep the Me and update it or I could put on 98 and get updates for that. Comments please!

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by pata on 03/26/03 04:19 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : question

March 27, 2003 1:59:10 AM

Don't use ME. Regardless of your situation, don't use it.

<font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=blue>BLESS</font color=blue> <font color=red>AMERICA</font color=red>
March 27, 2003 3:53:53 AM

ME is slow and crashes a lot more than Win98. Trash WinME.

<i><font color=blue>There is no failure when you believe in success.</font color=blue></i>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
March 28, 2003 7:28:22 PM

WinME is the OP/SYS Microshaft shouldn't have released, sometimes you just have to say NO! I'm not going to pay a lot for this muffler! Whew! TV commercial flashback, Sorry about that, too many drugs when I was younger, I guess. Seriously, Go with Win98.

<b><font color=purple>Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.</font color=purple></b>
March 29, 2003 5:51:43 AM

at the fleamarket here they sell 98se for peanuts, the ones supposed to come with new computers only (guess we know where those cd's go when they're missing from the box :lol:  ). I'm using one of those since I got a computer with it a long time ago and working fine with all my computers since (yeah I like changing my setup a lot so it's like having a new computer every time :smile: )

give it a shot, the SE supposed to be better than the regular. no idea, never used the original 98.

<b><font color=blue>Press 1 if you want to be on hold, 2 for disconnect, 3 for a representative who will put you on hold before disconnecting.</font color=blue></b>
March 29, 2003 8:38:14 AM

Only a mad or misinformed user will use Windows ME on ANY
computer. Win98 and SE is much more stable and reliable
than ME, even I dare say, XP (must be tweaked for this).

My friends all changed to ME when it was relased while I
stuck with my 98SE, and guess what, they all changed back
to 98SE after a month of crashes and compatibility issue.

They are all using XP now while I'm still using my 98SE,
I will change to XP when the need arises.
March 30, 2003 1:05:12 AM

This is an old arguemnt!
HeHe!
No ME! No ME! No ME! No ME! No ME! No ME! No ME! No ME!

:smile: Peace comes only after absolute victory :smile:
March 31, 2003 5:06:24 AM

Comparing Win98se to WinME is like comparing a well designed car that has been refined over several previous models, to a radical new design that hasn’t been tested thoroughly and is constantly being recalled by the manufacturer! In Microsoft's case it didn't recall ME just trashed it and put all its efforts into WinXP instead. I'd definitely go with Win98se WinXP is excellent but it needs a fairly powerful PC with a lots of resources.
March 31, 2003 6:08:20 PM

I'm not sure where this came from, but why do people keep saying that winxp needs a " fairly powerful PC with a lots of resources"?

I've run it on a 400Mhz PII with 128MB of PC100. Realistically speaking as long as you have 256MB of memory WinXP is fine. That's pretty much every computer within the last couple of years, plus a whole lot more before that.

In his case he's got an old machine that probably has less than 128MB of memory so Win98se is going to be a better choice.

<font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=blue>BLESS</font color=blue> <font color=red>AMERICA</font color=red>
March 31, 2003 8:09:35 PM

Thank You all for the input.
I'll load Windows 98 on the laptop. BTW, it only has 80MB RAM, so I won't even try XP. But I can tell you that I loaded XP Professional on a pentium 200MMX with 256MB RAM over a year ago and have not had any problems with it!
March 31, 2003 8:20:09 PM

Microsoft states that that a PC should be at least 350mhz to run XP. You are right however in that XP will run on a computer of much less speed. However the performance benefits running Win98 over XP tip in Win98's favour on such machines. I have found that XP will run quite well on a PC with 128meg of RAM but definitely go Win98 if you only have 64meg or less.
April 21, 2003 7:58:32 PM

Haven't used Windows 98 Original? It wasnt out for that long, in fact it was replaced a whole year later with 98 SE. 98 Original was a slightly souped up version of Windows 95 C that was out for a couple of months.

Windows 98 had Internet Explorer 4.0 and Outlook express 4.0. This introduced the concept of Active Desktop where you could view web content on your desktop. As usual the content was designed for USA so English didnt appriciate it that much. The weather maps were for North America and the other content simply didnt work. Windows 98 had a channels bar (nicked from Windows 95 c) which allowed you access some websites which were very U.S. orientated with the exception of Sky and BT. Sadly some misguided novice thought these were TV channels.

This also gave you a screensaver which showed particular channels. As usual this was very buggy, the channels kept crashing and never really worked. The Outloook Express 4.0 was also extremly unreliable and ALWAYS crashed. Also there was a Subscription option in IE4 which let you subscribe to certain websites but this was very annoying.

Windows Meda Player - ask any PC buff at that time except those who obtained a Beta version of IE5 (e.g. Me!!!):-) and they would have said "Duh?" All your media was run through Active Movie Control which was even more basic than 95's original media player and it certainly was butt ugly.

The desktop themes included were really half baked options.
USB Support was really buggy and only as good as Windows 95 B's.

Windows 98 SE was pretty much the same as original. Channels were given the Heave Ho although the Screensaver still nests within Windows. Active Desktop was still there but IE subscription option was gone. IE had been replaced altogether with version 5.0. This also opened up a pathway for modem sharing, better reliability and Windows Media Player 6.1. Albeit basic, it was a big improvment over Active Movie Control and 95's Media Player.

USB support was improved and certainly made more reliable. All the bugs that plagued Windows 98 original were cured but there were still some crashes.

Windows Me is what I unfortunatley have. Whilst it cosmetically is much more modern and certainly not as radical as XP it warrants some compliment. Again bugs from Windows 98 SE were fixed but the new features caused quite a couple of problems although Me has the best compatibility with hardware.

Windows Media Player had evolved from being a basic player to a complete entertainment studio. WMP 7 is also avalible to Windows 98 SE users and it offers features similar to what XP users can get.

Other improvements to WIndows Me incude Internet Explorer 5.5 which is an update to 5.0 - nothing extra except Print Preview. Again this can be obtained for Win 98 SE users but by now you should be plumping for version 6. System Restore is an earlier version to what XP users can get except that it requires you to donwload an update to it otherwise it will not work after September 14th 2001. Movie Maker is also an earlier version to what XP users own and is rather buggy. After a certain amount of revisits to the capture dialogue box it fails to recognise any hardware. MSN Messenger was also introduced here although it was at its little infant stage of version 2.2 which carried a virus. One descreet feature which also appears in Xp is Automatic Updating. If you stay connected to the internet, Windows will download neccessary updates form the Windows Update site in the background without you noticing and a reminder will popup when installation is required. As usual this is improved in XP.

My advice - 98 SE, no excuses as to why you have Me. If your hardware can accept it then plump for XP. If you wish to know where you can obtain the updates then the answer is from the Windows Update feature.

Just cos I am a semi skinhead it does not mean that I am a semi PC Guru. I am 25% PC Guru, 15% Thug and 10% Alcoholic!!!
April 23, 2003 5:57:00 PM

"My advice - 98 SE, no excuses as to why you have Me."

I don't use ME, like I said, I use 98SE and I'm pretty happy with it. Did try XP a couple of times, but it was a waste of time and money, back to 98SE and it does everything I need (I don't even use patches or updates).

<b><font color=blue>Press 1 if you want to be on hold, 2 for disconnect, 3 for a representative who will put you on hold before disconnecting.</font color=blue></b>
April 25, 2003 5:41:37 PM

Well Done. Smart decision - XP is a fantastic operating system but you need a real monster of a PC and you can be prepared to kiss goodbye to all of your hardware that XP doesnt want. 98 SE will run very happily on a low spec system although it lacks the goodies and frills of XP and is not quite as stable it still has most compatibility and less conflicts.

Just cos I am a semi skinhead it does not mean that I am a semi PC Guru. I am 25% PC Guru, 15% Thug and 10% Alcoholic!!!
April 29, 2003 5:04:55 AM

""Only a mad or misinformed user will use Windows ME on ANY computer""

Thank you for compliment, but I don't like to have my cude self to be called "mad", and I am (my kid) using ME since it came out, and very much happy with it.

I was little lazy to reboot into my 2k partition, so I am typing this on 5 months old ME (yes it is 5 months after install and almost full with his games - 5 gigs), burning 3d CD, browsing here, doing some Word stuff, etc and all this without single crush since it was booted this afternoon. So, pardon my French, but I think all you called yerselvz "guru" and trushing stuff that you can't get working need a little home work to do.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
April 29, 2003 4:55:32 PM

Windows ME is the bane of any technician's existance... not because 'we don't know what we're doing' (smartass)... but because we have to continually deal with problems caused by ME and inexperienced users.

ME is junk. Face it. Your evangalism of it won't change that fact. Yes, I've used it and had very little problem with it myself at home... but I was much happier with 2000 or 98SE. There's a reason many techs refer to it as 'Mistake Edition'.

I also like how you said 'since it was booted this afternoon'. Heh. I booted my XP machine 15 days ago and it's still running without a single problem... even had it connected to the internet all that time. Talk to me when ME can run for more than a couple days without a crash.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
April 29, 2003 11:13:22 PM

""I also like how you said 'since it was booted this afternoon'.""

Yeah, that is true, when kid comes home, he usually reboots into his "gaming" system from 2k which I use when I am not on the road, and when I am gone, that thing goes for days, coz he "forgets" to switch it off, and I am not around to remind him.

""Heh. I booted my XP machine 15 days ago and it's still running without a single problem...""

Heh. Why in the world I would need my home PC run for 15 days in the row? If you can give me a single reason, I might try.

""Talk to me when ME can run for more than a couple days without a crash.""

Well, I had it few times on for 2 days (was paranoid with playing UT on line), so what? But as I have said, there is no reason to burn 300 Watt of power when every body in the house is aleep.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
April 29, 2003 11:25:02 PM

""but because we have to continually deal with problems caused by ME and inexperienced users.""

Heh. So, you say, if "inexperienced users" don't know what to do with OS, then that makes OS garbage? That is a very unusual conclusion, and if I follow yer steps, I could make same conclusion about any OS (XP especially).

By the way, even MS guys were telling me that 98 was a mistake, so 98 is not better than ME in any way, it is just that you got used to it for 3+ years of using it. Try to use ME for 3+ years, you'll say the same about it as well.

Regards.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
April 30, 2003 3:11:09 AM

I can't believe you're still going off on how great ME is.

Would you honestly recommend ME to someone? I'd be pretty ticked off if someone recommended that crap to me.

<font color=green>Everyone should be like the Dutch. They're perfect.</font color=green>
April 30, 2003 6:08:05 AM

hehe, I am not "going off on how great ME is", and I am not "honestly" recommending it to any body out there, I am just pointing out that it is not as bad ("that crap") as some folks out here are saying it is. I know lots of people that bought new PC with it and very happy with what they have. That’s all. I am "honestly" recommending w2k to everyone, nothing else.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
April 30, 2003 10:45:26 PM

From my experience if you have a low end PC like a P3, P2 or old Celeron (AMD and ME don't mix!) and do little more than surfing the net (with ME's auto update turned off) and word processing you may get a reasonable run out of ME. But the OS is well known to have many serious flaws in it. One example is its disk defrag program which usually refuses to work.
May 1, 2003 5:52:02 AM

me is too suck for lamol machines!

ur computer suck off my computer
May 1, 2003 9:43:53 AM

""(AMD and ME don't mix!)""

I had me on P3-800 for a year (I sold it to a friend and it still runs ME), on Athlon 900 and KT133A for more than a year (sold it to a brother in law and it still runs ME), now it runs on Athlon 1700+ and NForce2 for 5 months.

And you say ""(AMD and ME don't mix!)"".

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
May 2, 2003 7:05:48 AM

XP lags on 128MB, I tried it. In fact, the more memory you have, the happier XP gets! I tried it with 128MB and was getting constant file swapping and slow performance. With 256MB it used 140MB to load and the system behaved normally, albiet still a bit slow. With 1024MB installed, XP is using around 256MB! So I'd say ideally 512MB for XP and at least 256MB.

There are these machines at the school with XP loaded on 64MB with a PIII 450. Ugh. They run slower than a Pentium 133 with 24MB and Win95. Yes, slower.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
May 6, 2003 9:48:02 AM

I respect the fact that in your experiences ME has proven a relatively reliable OS. In mine I found the only machines it worked with any integrity on were lower end p2 & p3s or Celerons all these machines were under 1GHz mark.

The AMD machines that it failed miserably on were Athlons and Durons over the 1GHz mark. Win98se, win2000 and Winxp all worked brilliantly on these machines.

So maybe I should rephrase the remark to (ME and PCs over 1GHz clock speed don't mix) I haven't tried ME on any Intel systems over 1GHz so I can’t back this statement up at the moment but if anyone could help me here their input would be appreciated.

As far as the brother in law goes I'd be very interested how ME has held out on the XP 1700+ system. I doubt that it's been trouble free through the period he's had it.
May 8, 2003 1:02:40 AM

""As far as the brother in law goes...1700+ ""

that would be me, brother in law has my 900 older Athlon.
I don't know the reason it is running fine, but would guess that it is 256MB of mem on NForce2, IBM GXP60, MX300 sound, and GForce vid, but not sure.

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