bsquirle Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Why is ME unstable? guess we'll never know... It was unstable on my computer, I remember the first time I booted it after installation. My mouse didn't move, I was like WTF? no mouse? I go to the hardware screen using the keyboard, BAM bsod... + the nice memory bug very funny... It was on my computer for less than a week and I never used it again after that. Windows 98 was bad (driver issues etc), but Windows 98SE was better and Windows ME was just a waste of money. After ME I went back to 98, then to 2k and finally I switched to XP. I would say calling Windows ME Windows 98 Third Edition is an insult to Windows 98 SE, imho. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586719057 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Veteran Posted October 24, 2005 Veteran Share Posted October 24, 2005 I think Windows ME is fine. I'd install it over Windows 98SE on any of my systems anyday. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586719069 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmericanConservative Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Windows ME its the worst OS ever!!! 586717888[/snapback] Anyone who says differently, well, I know who to never take advice from...seriously. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586719098 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AminoSC Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 I think Windows ME is fine. I'd install it over Windows 98SE on any of my systems anyday. 586719069[/snapback] I dissagree. I would not trust ME as a coaster for my desk. It was horrible. On the other hand I thought that a fully service packed 98SE was an "ok" op system. I just don't understand what MS was thinking with ME. It was just HORRIBLE:x:x Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586719115 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy2k4 Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 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. 586584982[/snapback] :yes: Same here Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586719125 Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 I believe Windows ME was based on Windows 95 code, instead of Windows 98SE code.This made it incredibly weak and ME re-introduced some bugs found in Win95, which were solved in Win98(SE). 586718021[/snapback] Um, no. It's all the same code. Windows ME was based primarily on Windows 98SE code, as ME was technically supposed to be Windows 98TE or Third Edition. However, incorporating new features like System Restore and such just ended up making a bad branch of OS's worse. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586720371 Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoLdFuSi0n Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 :o Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586720383 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Blue01 Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 I like 98SE. It was fast, it was compatible. ME was terrible. It was supposed to be better, 98 with system restore and IE5.5. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586720386 Share on other sites More sharing options...
dotRoot Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 In my opinion the simple fact was that they were overextending their base code...I guess I can't explain it very well. Its like the BF1942 engine. DICE kept just adding code to the same engine and BF:V was released. Kind of buggy. Then BF 2 with the BF1942 engine and even more code added resulting in a very, very buggy game and incomplete with all of its promised features (didn't work or just didn't put it in). New features and such, but with an almost unplayable game at times. So consider BF1942 Windows95, BF:V Windows98 and BF 2 Windows ME and I guess that's the best analogy I can come up off the top of my head that closely fits what I'm trying to explain. Sometimes you just have to start back over from scratch. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586721560 Share on other sites More sharing options...
dotRoot Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Very bad analogy.... BF 2 is a new engine. 586721566[/snapback] Serverside, which is where all the memory leak bugs and such came from...so I figured it was implied...but I guess not. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586721577 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadlydread Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 In my opinion the simple fact was that they were overextending their base code...I guess I can't explain it very well. Its like the BF1942 engine. DICE kept just adding code to the same engine and BF:V was released. Kind of buggy. Then BF 2 with the BF1942 engine and even more code added resulting in a very, very buggy game and incomplete with all of its promised features (didn't work or just didn't put it in). New features and such, but with an almost unplayable game at times. So consider BF1942 Windows95, BF:V Windows98 and BF 2 Windows ME and I guess that's the best analogy I can come up off the top of my head that closely fits what I'm trying to explain. Sometimes you just have to start back over from scratch. 586721560[/snapback] Very bad analogy.... BF 2 is a new engine. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586721566 Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0nic69 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 ME had "bells and whistles, and eye candy"? :laugh: 586584631[/snapback] lmao, i didnt know either! Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586721591 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pajter Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 It's because you touch yourself at night. 586718024[/snapback] That was hands down one of the best replies ever! :laugh: :rofl: LMFAO!!! ONtopic: I've used WinME for YEARS, and I thought it was great, never really crashed on me. At least not that much that it's worth mentioning... :) Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586721614 Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightmarE D Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Someone asked this a while back when I 1st started posting here and I explained how mine worked fine and gave my theory on how maybe Microsoft released a bad batch of Windows ME cd's. Some people thought it was a good theory. Only reason I even think that is because of how some people just have mass problems with it but others don't. A friend of mine tried running it and it didn't work. I went out and bought a copy later on just for the hell of it and it runs fine for me. He bought his right as it came out and I waited a little while. I noticed people who had later copies didn't have any issues with it compared to people who had it right as it came out. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586721632 Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_pizzle Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 That was hands down one of the best replies ever! :laugh: :rofl: LMFAO!!!ONtopic: I've used WinME for YEARS, and I thought it was great, never really crashed on me. At least not that much that it's worth mentioning... :) 586721614[/snapback] I agree. I had absolutely no problems with WinME that I didn't already have with Win98 or 95. But as every computer "has a mind of its own", I can understand how some ppl could. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586721635 Share on other sites More sharing options...
B3AN Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Didnt it have a massive memory problem, where it would not release memory correctly under certain situations. Microsoft said they wont fix because it was a too big of problem. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586727512 Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_demilord Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I believe there are people who has a good experience with windows me, but I do believe MS should nevershould have released it. It all depends on your configurations and software you run on the machine. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586727490 Share on other sites More sharing options...
]SK[ Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Ugh ME just sucked. I still see it on peoples home computers. I tell them to upgrade to at least Windows 3.11 before ill give them any PC advice. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586727524 Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_demilord Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Didnt it have a massive memory problem, where it would not release memory correctly under certain situations. Microsoft said they wont fix because it was a too big of problem. 586727512[/snapback] Correct all the 9X/me OS's had the problem. It's because of the bad memory management of the DOS kernel Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586731323 Share on other sites More sharing options...
RvXtm Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 ...but I do believe MS should nevershould have released it.586727490[/snapback] You're right... :whistle: Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586787310 Share on other sites More sharing options...
vhrc99 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 I believe Windows ME was based on Windows 95 code, instead of Windows 98SE code.This made it incredibly weak and ME re-introduced some bugs found in Win95, which were solved in Win98(SE). 586718021[/snapback] Windows 98 was a 4th release of Win95. Win98 SE was a 5th, and WinMe was the 6th. The best release (in my opinion) was Win95C (4.00.950.C) the 3rd release from Windows 95 commonly known like OSR2.5 I never installed Win 98 in my computer, firstly I had Win95C, later WinMe, now XP. For me WinMe was very stable, but win95 was fastest. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586806827 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AltecXP Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 depending on the machine i ran it on it was a PoS my dell desktop it was terrible my dell laptop it was stable as all get out Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586806843 Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkusDarkus Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Ugh ME just sucked. I still see it on peoples home computers. I tell them to upgrade to at least Windows 3.11 before ill give them any PC advice. 586727524[/snapback] 3.11 ROFLMAO :laugh: Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586806889 Share on other sites More sharing options...
kronosguy Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Actually, NO version of windows was unstable out of the box (for me, anyway).It depends on what you do with it, what you install on it, how you mess around, etc. For me, 9x installs usually screw up in half a year. NT based installs don't screw up on me unless something stupid happens (like the power cutting out during a partitionmagic session) 586665753[/snapback] Totally agree. I had ME for a while and had no problems with it until I started poking around where I shouldn't have been...Same things happened with 95, 98 and 98se too. The half a year timeline sounds about right for me too. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586807158 Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaramonga Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Anyone STUPID enough to put 'WinME' on their system........don't deserve ONE!! :rolleyes: Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/377659-why-is-windows-me-unstable/page/3/#findComment-586807183 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts