Avenger_NX09 Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 I would like to know why Windows ME is unstable other than the fact that its not NT kernel. Don't want any flaming or anything, just intelligent answers. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 because it was never completed fully, they rushed it so it wouldnt be too close to XP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P!P Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Yeah, I do know it was very rushed. It was bascically Windows 98 Third Edtion. Not enough changes to warrant a new version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaMeDtX Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Its unstable because it runs on the dos kernel, and that is a PEICE OF C*AP... NT is much better... Me is basically Windows 98TE (Third edition) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkrats Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 I've installed and run ME on occasion (running ME right now) and it has never crashed or locked up on me. At the end of the install process, the first thing I do is disable System Restore, which I think is the main culprit behind ME's bad reputation. Also, I go back to Media Player 6.4 or use some 3rd party player. Version 7 of Media Player is pretty crappy. I use TweakUI and a bunch of Registry Patches to disable the bells and whistles, and eye candy. It's a fine Operating System, as far as I can tell, although there's getting to be a lot of apps and games that won't run on it. IE6SP2 and the upcoming IE7 will also not run on it. darkrats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkluminaz34 Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Bascially they tried to take DOS out of a OS based around DOS making it unstable f I'm not mistaken... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹ Posted September 27, 2005 Subscriber¹ Share Posted September 27, 2005 i upgrade to it form 98SE and wthin first 2 days i noticed something was not right. i kept using it for about a week thinking since it is the new windows it is gotta be better, then rolled back to the 98SE. ME crashes and acted wierd all the time (during the same tasks 98 managed fine) basically its bad programming. guess people who had no trouble were just lucky (maybe hardware?) but to say it is fine operating system is wrong. 98SE and XP are fine, ME was rushed and buggy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sachleen Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 I've installed and run ME on occasion (running ME right now) and it has never crashed or locked up on me.At the end of the install process, the first thing I do is disable System Restore, which I think is the main culprit behind ME's bad reputation. Also, I go back to Media Player 6.4 or use some 3rd party player. Version 7 of Media Player is pretty crappy. I use TweakUI and a bunch of Registry Patches to disable the bells and whistles, and eye candy. It's a fine Operating System, as far as I can tell, although there's getting to be a lot of apps and games that won't run on it. IE6SP2 and the upcoming IE7 will also not run on it. darkrats 586584595[/snapback] ME had "bells and whistles, and eye candy"? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 I wish I could tell you how bad ME is, but I never used it from my early days using computers to now. I went from Win95 to Win98 to Win98SE to Win2K to WinXP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phemo Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 I would like to know myself. I don't think we'll ever find out because there is no logical explanation apart from that it was badly written. Yes, the 9x kernel is unstable but Windows 98 SE was still more stable than Windows Me was overall. Windows Me also did still have DOS so it's nothing to do with that - they never removed it because they couldn't - they simply hid all the options to boot into it but it was still there underneath. The weird thing about it is that some people never had any problems with it at all whereas for other people it was completely unusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
905punk Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Try 98SE2ME [ http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46349 ] Its more or less an attempt to take what few enhancements ME made over 98SE and incorperate them into the more stable 98SE Build Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasker Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Try 98SE2ME [ http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46349 ]Its more or less an attempt to take what few enhancements ME made over 98SE and incorperate them into the more stable 98SE Build 586584997[/snapback] interesting tweaks, thanks for the link :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bamsebjørn Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 I've had so many problems with it on my computer, but my uncle used it for over a year and it never crashed on him. My brother got it with his laptop, and also that system never crashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrokat Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 I never had any problems with ME. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ideas Man Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 I never had any problems with it, I used it from when it was released to when XP was released, no problems. I mainly got it for System Restore, that I used 3 times, once it didn't work, and twice it was very helpful, but it's got nothing on the one in XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windows95isg8 Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Windows ME was finished, it was just that it was like 98 but looked a little better. Windows ME is not unstable for all, as you can see from the posts. I had it runing vary well on a system for a long time. I mean I would not put it on my system today, but the OS is fine to me. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlogank Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 yep. never had a problem with it here either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yvo Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Thankfully I only used ME for months, if not shorter due to Windows 2000 being in testing and at the time I was one the lucky ones that had 100% complete hardware support for the NT5.0/2000 betas. However like many have said, Microsoft basically tried to do something to the 9x core that just couldn't be done anymore, too much old legacy code holding it down really. Thankfully there was another team already working on getting the consumers over to the NT core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soldier1st Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 basicaly Me was indeed rushed but because of some nt based stuff that was added to a dos based product as an experiment,also windows me is very picky with hardware(it does not like cheap hardware and does not prefer isa devices)i have it running on an old comp and it runs fine(the pc is 10 years old)but on a few of the systems i have, me would not work well,dos based products tend to die afterawhile wheras nt based oses tend to last along time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkie Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 why is windows ME crappy? same reason as all the other DOS based windows's (9x). the DOS itself is good, only the idea of using a non-multiprogrammed kernel in a multirogrammed environment is false. MS never should have released any of the 9x/ME series. smart people were using NT from day 1, and are still using it today, only it is now called 2000 and XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
os2fan2 Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Accounts that NT v 1.3 had such a thing as a "dos coffin" instead of a dos box. Sad but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samoa Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 MS made it that way. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matrix XII Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 haha I remember windows ME.. It crashed almost every day :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nour E Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 ME was the worst OS i've ever come acrosss. It would crash, lock up and freeze on a daily baisis. I would recieve the BSOD on a regular baisis and i had the worst of luck with it. Maybe it was my computer, but i would never go back to using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windows95isg8 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 A lot of bad stuff was said about Windows ME, yet I was like. I dont rember having any problems with it. So for a larth, I went on the net, got a copy of Windows ME (was hard to find) then wiped my hard drive, and put Windows ME on lol. Well it loads ****ing fast lol, faster then Vista lol, I have installed the drivers for my system. No problems, and the big thing. No crashes, what so ever. Im not saying go back to Windows ME, when Vista comes out lol. No times have chaged and computer software is for XP and on now. Well there is stuff for Widows 9x, but XP and now Vista is what people are going to be working with. As for windows start up music, I always like windows ME music. :yes: I think I will duel boot with XP though. The old style of windows is, well old lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts