I was reading the latest(?) issue of PCW, and I came across them saying that WinME was one of the worst OSs (not exact wording). And I was wondering why. Of course, the last time I used WinME was when I was like...8 (the time when I learned the computer shut itself off, I was like NO WAI1!!!!1) :sweatdrop: So I was wondering what was so bad about it. Just curious.
It had a fuckton of security flaws, and was generally all around terrrible really.
I can only recall I haven't had as many problems as many people claimed... but that's just me
I waited a few months after XP SP1 came along and then I went to XP
Instable and unrealiable.
I see. But that was 2000, I'm sure we thought it was super secure back then...why am I redeeming something I don't care about. :doh:
I tried to install Windows ME once, before setup was done, it already started crashing programs. No joke
[QUOTE=The Chef;24174860]I tried to install Windows ME once, before setup was done, it already started crashing programs. No joke[/QUOTE]
I once had Windows 98 BSOD in it's installer.
Windows ME is the old version of windows vista i find.
No, people just bitch at Vista because of UAC. And the fact that any new OS has had driver problems. Poor Vista, I still like you. Not love, but like.
[QUOTE=starpoo90;24176779]No, [b]people just bitch at Vista because of UAC[/b]. And the fact that any new OS has had driver problems. Poor Vista, I still like you. Not love, but like.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? There are A LOT more to Vista that made it shitty than just the UAC.
[QUOTE=The Chef;24174860]I tried to install Windows ME once, before setup was done, it already started crashing programs. No joke[/QUOTE]
I've had a computer BSOD in the Windows 7 beta installer.
Of course, that computer also would hang on the Windows XP installer and get stuck partway through booting Ubuntu.
Windows ME's betas were more stable.
[QUOTE=B1N4RY!;24176791]What are you talking about? There are A LOT more to Vista that made it shitty than just the UAC.[/QUOTE]
Certainly.
I always preffered 98 over ME, ME was pretty terrible when I had it.
I didn't notice anything different really, but then again I was 8 at the time
[editline]11:22AM[/editline]
It was like 98, I didn't find it worse or anything.
Windows 2000 was my fav. Windows version.
Windows XP is still the best IMO :mmmsmug:
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;24185907]Windows XP is still the best IMO :mmmsmug:[/QUOTE]
XP better than Win2k? HA!
Windows 2000 is by far the most stable and secure. It's no wonder banks still use it to this day. (My bank does, anyway. I've seen the teller's LCD)
Windows ME was like, mashing together the worst parts of Windows 98 and Windows 2000 together... it was poorly implemented and executed, and was really unstable.
I remember when my dad replaced ME with XP on my computer, I missed having ME because I couldn't play Lego Creator any more. :v:
My second computer had ME on it.
When my cousin put XP on it due to security flaws, my dad got pissed and never went to him for computer advice because it didn't have his cd burner drivers.
He is still convinced it's a great OS.
[QUOTE=B1N4RY!;24176791]What are you talking about? There are A LOT more to Vista that made it shitty than just the UAC.[/QUOTE]
True, there are times when I go VISTAAAAAAAAA!!!11ONE :argh: but all OSs have SOMETHING that is not the best. Just look at 7, those thumbnails in the taskbar instead of the...normal things. Seriously, I couldn't figure out where the quick launch ended. That is my gripe for 7.
[QUOTE=Onlyonebowman;24191276]My second computer had ME on it.
When my cousin put XP on it due to security flaws, my dad got pissed and never went to him for computer advice because it didn't have his cd burner drivers.
He is still convinced it's a great OS.[/QUOTE]
Uh... CD burners don't need additional drivers... :geno:
[editline]07:06PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=starpoo90;24191295]True, there are times when I go VISTAAAAAAAAA!!!11ONE :argh: but all OSs have SOMETHING that is not the best. Just look at 7, those thumbnails in the taskbar instead of the...normal things. Seriously, I couldn't figure out where the quick launch ended. That is my gripe for 7.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's a bit confusing at first... but I got used to it quickly, after changing them back to normal of course.
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;24199507]Uh... CD burners don't need additional drivers... :geno:
[/QUOTE]
Whoops I meant burning software, my bad.
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;24199507]... after changing them back to normal of course.[/QUOTE]
You can do that? YES! Now I have hope for Win7.
[QUOTE=starpoo90;24200218]You can do that? YES! Now I have hope for Win7.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you just disable grouping, and you have your normal (tabs?) back.
[editline]12:09PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Onlyonebowman;24200081]Whoops I meant burning software, my bad.[/QUOTE]
Nero and AnyDVD are the only burning software I need. Even in Linux, Nero is far superior than any other software I've tried, and I've tried alot. Been using Nero since Nero 5.x.x.x and no problems with it. I love it's customization and all the useful utilities it comes with.
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;24199507]Yeah, it's a bit confusing at first... but I got used to it quickly, after changing them back to normal of course.[/QUOTE]
How the fuck is the Superbar confusing? It has no quick launch, any running program and pinned program is located there, and it operates like a normal taskbar after that. The grouping is there to save space, if you get confused by grouping it's no wonder the most productive thing I've seen you do on Linux is make half baked Gnome themes.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;24216077]How the fuck is the Superbar confusing? It has no quick launch, any running program and pinned program is located there, and it operates like a normal taskbar after that. The grouping is there to save space, if you get confused by grouping it's no wonder the most productive thing I've seen you do on Linux is make half baked Gnome themes.[/QUOTE]
I prefer Linux to Windows for too many reasons to list here. Grouping was only confusing to me because I didn't know how to use it at first. Once I used it, I didn't like it, and disabled it.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;24216077]How the fuck is the Superbar confusing? It has no quick launch, any running program and pinned program is located there, and it operates like a normal taskbar after that. The grouping is there to save space, if you get confused by grouping it's no wonder the most productive thing I've seen you do on Linux is make half baked Gnome themes.[/QUOTE]
The thumbnails are confusing, they went from what they've used for near 15 years now, to something completely new. But I haven't completely used Win7 yet, just other people's computers. I'm sure it takes some getting used to.
[QUOTE=starpoo90;24227732]The thumbnails are confusing, they went from what they've used for near 15 years now, to something completely new. But I haven't completely used Win7 yet, just other people's computers. I'm sure it takes some getting used to.[/QUOTE]
I was able to get used to it when I saw it demonstrated. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
[editline]12:43AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;24216180]I prefer Linux to Windows for too many reasons to list here. Grouping was only confusing to me because I didn't know how to use it at first. Once I used it, I didn't like it, and disabled it.[/QUOTE]
Groups confuse you? How? You see the icon, you found your program.
ME had a HUGE problem with memory management. 2000 was nice because the NT kernel did not fuck with the memory as much but ME and it's 9x/NT kernel hybrid was really pissy and you were left with segments that were not clearing and causing all sorts of issues when it was read back or written to.
It reminds me of the early versions of OS/2 in a way and how they managed to make PC-DOS work properly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
