windows 98 vs windows me

I am running windows 98 first edition and I don't have enough ram to upgrade to xp. My question to anyone is? Is windows ME more stable than windows 98. I like the restore function me has.

I have a DSS sat. system I want to trade for a computer. I want to tinker with a computer, but not my orinigal one.
I live in the El Cajon area of San Diego, California.

 

To answer your question....NO. ME is not more stable than 98. They are basically the same operating system, except for the few additions that ME was blessed/cursed with. The additions actually cause ME to run slower than 98 because of the extra things running in the background. Do not install ME just to get the restore feature. I tried it, and it slows the computer even more! Also if you get a virus, ME will copy the virus into the restore folder, where your virus software cannot touch it! You have to disable the restore, and then enable it again in order to remove the virus. How do I know this? It all happened to me, so I leave the RESTORE turned off.

After 2 years of tweaking ME, I finally got it to run decent on this computer. My other computer is running XP and I'll upgrade this one to XP as soon as I get all my files backed up.

You stated that you don't have enough RAM to run XP. If your computer has the capacity for more RAM, prices are low enough for new memory, that it shouldn't prevent you from installing XP.

Nashcat

 

RAM is an inexpensive upgrade and you need a processor that is 233 MHz or better plus 100 Megs of RAM (or more) for Windows XP to run.

But, everything said about Windows 98 and ME are true. My new Dell 8200 (1.8 Gig processor, 512 megs of RAM) came with ME and I hated it. First upgrade was a purchase of XP from Wal-Mart. Now the computer is well behaved.


Smokey

 

My best friend got her computer with ME on it and hated it. Took her forever to get it to behave better, and now that we've added more RAM, her next step is up to XP. I'm going to stick with 98 since I just now have gotten where I can figure it out. The last time I owned a computer (6 years ago) I ran DOS 5.

behind the times, as usual *lol*
-Kay

 

I ran ME from day one as a beta tester and to this day say that ME Pro Corporate was one of the finer MS screwups to come out. I ran it for two years hard without having to format from a failure in that time. When I did format it was to go to 2000 and a new computer build. I have friends that are still running 95, say it’s unstoppable. Another buddy threw XP in the trash can. What I am getting at is we all have our choices but I still recommend running ME over any of the 98.x versions. Why? Because I found it easy to tweak and keep running with just regular maintenance. You wont believe how hard it was to get used to 2000 and not having to defrag/scandisk etc. I still keep my temp, internet, cookies cleaned off. If you do the maintenance on 98 thru ME it “Should” run fine. I will tell you this, I sat here for a year with 2000 on the CD and never installed it, heard it was flaky etc. I absolutely LOVE 2000. NTFS format is the cats meow. So where’s this rant going? I don’t know but whatever you choose to run, keep it cleaned up, don’t use 2ond party programs to do what Gates engineers spent millions to design. Of course this is just my opinion and is most likely wrong…

 

Upgrade the memory - RAM is very cheap today. I ordered 256mb for half of what just 128 cost me 2 years ago.

Forget ME. IMHO its the worst OS produced. Its on my daughter's laptop and I'm convinced her problems with the laptop are mostly due to the OS. I don't know anyone that was happy with ME.

XP - I work with computers every day - its my career. The word I get from our PC gurus is that XP HOME is OK, but you really want XP PRO. Yes, its worth the extra $100. IT is supposed to be much more stable.

98 - Its on our old (3-1/2 years old) computer. I've only had to reload the OS 3 times!!! I've heard that 98SE is much more stable. Next time I need to reload 98, I'll upgrade to 98SE.

XP PRO and W 2000 are based on NT which in turn is derived from UNIX (NO, its not UNIX, YES its DOS). It provides a much more stable environment.

 

Well to each his own and Bob I too work with computers everyday and IMHO the people that say ME is no good are not computer operators they are appliance operators and don’t know how to use Windows. How do you explain running ME on two desktops and a laptop for over two years without a single hitch? True my new system is running 2000 but the living room desktop an AMD 266 overclocked to 300 w/64 megs of “SIMM” memory and ME Pro that has had this build for three years now and it has not hiccupped one single time? The 300 laptop is the same way and I use it extensively mobile with a webcam on it for pictures. ME takes a little hand to keep it clean, most people don’t scandisk or defrag but about once a year, they don’t clean up IE cache and if they are running Outlook they leave deleted mail to the tune of 10 or 20 megs and that gives ME fits as well as most of the 98.x OS’s. I will pit ME up against ANY OS that is DOS based for ANY type of trial you want and will kiss your dog on the nose if my system fails! ME is stable and well thought out. Much better than XP which one of the leading computer/network techs in our city absolutely refuses to run it and will almost pay a customer not to use it (At this time). In my experience the problems ME has had is from customers trying to save a buck and using the cheapest sound, video, HD, CD etc they can get by with and it winds up screwing up. Not ME’s fault just cheap components. Everything in my desktops is name brand, ATI, Creative etc and I never have trouble with it unless I download something that the programmer didn’t write correctly. Anyway not trying to pick a fight which I seem to do so well, but when someone comes right out and says that an OS I just recommended and use doesnt work just lights my fire…

 

BigMike,

After reading your post I believe that I have become used to having to deal with 98SE. I have had to reload my OS many times, and now that I know how, I'm afraid of having to learn a new one. If it would help keep that from happening to me, I may just go ahead and give it a try.

I talked with my friend that had it, and now that she understands the differences in them, she hasn't had a problem with ME again (which was something she had done to it, not the prog) and wouldn't trade it.

Guess I'm just an 'old dog' afraid of new tricks.

-Kay

 

Forget Me!
I am about to ditch it, if not destroy the disk dell gave me.
I have had problems since the machine was about 3 months old.
I am now convinced I have a great Dell dimension 4100, just a disease manifesting itself (Milenium edition).
2000 or XP Pro will be the replacement within the next several weeks. Main reason? malfunctions, non-functions, and evil-functions. Home networking was an emphasis, hah! No such luck. All other guest machines I have had at my house work fine as long as they have the correct settings/protocols. Not this machine (Me).
Stay away from Millenium.
98SE, 2000, and XP pro are the best three choices.

gj

 

Even though ME is based on 95 kernel coding ME is more stable than 9xes. Essentially real mode dos was removed from ME. And that alone removes one aspect of "Windows" instability. "OS stability" is not a direct synonym for either crash proof or crash resistant, and it never has been.

8, 16, 32, and 64 bit programming are stable under a given set of conditions [firmware, hardware, software. yada, yada]. Mixing them creates instability. One reason is each uses memory differently and has definite range limits. [With one eye look at a distant point. Look at a near point with the other. Remember what you see with both eyes; then correlate both views].

From Win95 up to and including WinME Win OSes have been carefully planned and staged transitionings to NT. Had the original NT not fell on its face, the former plug n' play OSes probably would not have been created. Since NTs inception MS has choreographed the transition, incrementally in the wake of resistance, in a controlled and paid for experiment. You are the guinea pig. You have always been the guinea pig, and you will always be the guinea pig. The experiment started long before Windows was conceived, and it will continue for some time to come, but not necessarily uneventfully or without being plagued with peril.

Review:
More stable, because one aspect of instability was removed. [How much more so, depends on the significance placed on the word more].

Backing up and compressing system files on the fly requires processor time, [even when time slices occur during periods of lessor activity], and more disk space.

NT is UNIX porting among other things. Still, UNIX is an OS, and Windows has become an integrated suite [a conceptualization of perfect modular programming run amuck]. {Just couldn't shake DOS heritage could you, Billy Boy].

Matching optimal or near optimal hardware to the OS makes every difference.[Listen to Bigmike. If this doesn't sink in, it will be the source of many of your computer problems].

Your machine may have been designed for use with 9xes or even up to ME. Forcing 2000 or XP to run on ill suited hardware in the belief that your taking advantage of recent OS or file system is a fools game. Software to implement NTFS on DOS or Windows 9xes is available, so the argument of NTFS over fat16 or fat32 is dead. I want the current goodies is honest statement; not a question.

Microsoft maintains a hardware compatibility list. Non pat answers may be bothersome, but the alternative is relinquish to minimum standards and accept associated problems.

This thread is reminiscent of the DOS wars. How times have changed... now the argument is isolated to which version of Windows. As if you had or have a real choice. Very funny! It's only a matter of time before NT is invoked or Windows is abandon. Like it or not, on the current course, someday you will suck n' swallow.

June $.05

 

My friend, who runs ME, didn't get a copy of any back up utilities installed or on the installation disk. Is that normal?

Kay