Why does Win-Me suck?

FLaCo · 10-08-2002, 08:18 AM

I was always wondering why people always say Windows "Me" sucks. I never worked with it so i wouldn't know.

Does its suck...and why?

PrairieDawg · 10-08-2002, 09:05 AM

Not really sure why ME sucks but it does. I have used windows 3.1, 95, 98, 98se, M.E., and now XP. M.E. was by far the most buggy and annoying OS out of them all. During the year that I used M.E. I got used to seeing the "blue screen of death" on a regular basis ... sometimes several times a day. ME seems to require frequent restarts in order to function properly. Not sure but I think its'biggest problem is in the way that it manages memory.

ReSpAwN DeMoN · 10-08-2002, 09:14 AM

Well alot of it is opinion. It really isn't as bad as people make it. But out of most operating systems (except for win1.0 2.0 3.x 95) It is definitly the slowest most buggy and unstable operating system ever released. Basically its a mix between win2k and win98. Its windows 98 with the look of win2k. ALot of the neive people think that it is 2k. And that is a very bad mistake. I once found some benchmarks on the microsoft website comparing overal productivity of Win98SE vs WinME vs Win2k. And ME was the slowest one by FAR. As for drivers ME has horrible driver support. The blue screens of death are all true. ME when it first came out I thought that it was just a simple little celebration for the turn of the millenium. Then I found out that it was there new OS. Because of this leads me to my next opinion that microsoft didn't put alot of work into it becuase they thought it would only last a few weeks. The fact that it was so sucessful was why that buggy POS OS lasted for over 2 years. Until it was replaced by the infamous Windows XP. Which is built on win2k. One of the best OSes ever released by Microsoft. :thumb:

JemyM · 10-08-2002, 09:54 AM

Memory protection.

The magic word that assures stability, is something Windows ME does not have.
It share this with the rest of its family, Windows 95 and Windows 98.

Windows NT was the first windows that really used Memory Protection. Windows 2000 continued this, also including full game support with DirectX, and then came Windows XP to complete the circle.

So whats memory protection? Lets start from the other side. To save memory in earlier operating systems (like WinME), a program sucked up a bunch of memory, and then expanded itself if it needed more. It didnt bother WHERE it took its memory, it could spread itself all over the memory, shuffling itself with other runned programs, and the more programs you run, the greater is the chance they will collide, and crash.
When the program crashed, it was very difficult to know where the programs fragments where, so sooner or later you would have memory so filled with fragments that it was time to reboot to regain memory/speed/stability.

Then we go to Memory Protection, coming from Unix/Linux. Easily explained, when a program is loaded, it "locks up" a block of memory that it can live inside until the program is quitted. No other program is allowed to enter this locked memory, and thus, the program wont crash unless it did a mistake itself. And if it did, the system can simply whipe the programs "block", and that memory can freely be used by the next program that is started. This does not leave any fragments, so the system can theoretically run for years without clogging up / loose stability.

Systems with Memory Protection: Unix, Linux, Windows NT, Windows 2k, Windows XP, MacOs X
Systems without Memory Protection: AmigaOS, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, MacOs 9 or earlier.

The only reason to run a non memory protected OS is lack of memory. Memory protection easily doubles the amount of required memory. Considering how cheap memory is today, and how much better a OS is with Memory Protection, sticking with Windows ME is a really bad thing to do.

Best Regards
JemyM

Wiggo · 10-08-2002, 09:59 AM

Goin' to MEss for me from 98SE was like taking one big step backwards. :(

Several programs plus a couple of critical devices just wouldn't work with it, so much for better hardware/software support (yet all of the hardware works with XP).

System Restore was a good idea for some but for me they got rid of some good system tools just to stick that in. All up my experiences with MEss have never been memorable plus for a latter os MEss has more critical updates and patches than 98 does. :thumbs do

10-08-2002, 11:21 AM

i actually purchased an upgrade copy of ME, soon after it was released... I installed it twice, each time I had erased it within a couple hours. It just didn't work. 98SE was a MUCH better OS, even if it wasn't as fancy looking, or as fast, etc... at least it worked.

alxgen · 10-08-2002, 12:01 PM

:shoot3:

yeah! it's true that Win98SE is much better than WinME!!! I didn't use WinME since it was marketed in our town. WinME suck me a lot!!!

:shoot2:

killakane · 10-09-2002, 02:31 AM

yeah me is buggy but so is xp

JemyM · 10-09-2002, 02:44 AM

Its interesting to hear people comparing WinME/98se... Its same buggy ancient os to me.

Best Regards
JemyM

Wiggo's-sister · 10-09-2002, 02:46 AM

For the past 23 months I used ME without many problems at all, but since the reformat I keep getting the blue screen of death. :rolleyes2