WinME vs. WinXP
Thursday, January 3, 2002 by gummiebear | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Im sorry, but see'n ppl diss WinME>!!!whats with that??im sorry, but i honestly CANT see the difference between WinME and Win2000!!!!
If u ask me, yes WinXP is kool, well the home version, but its still not AS great as WinME!yea it has new functions, not much more then WinME, yet theres problems, and isnt exactly the most stable software.Whoopie!it has new icons!big deal, look @ the skins they give, the blue one, and the original, if u ask me, some of these BASIC functions SUCK!
GummiebeaR;)
If u ask me, yes WinXP is kool, well the home version, but its still not AS great as WinME!yea it has new functions, not much more then WinME, yet theres problems, and isnt exactly the most stable software.Whoopie!it has new icons!big deal, look @ the skins they give, the blue one, and the original, if u ask me, some of these BASIC functions SUCK!
GummiebeaR;)
JcRabbit
Reply #2 Thursday, January 3, 2002 10:57 PM
Reply #2 Thursday, January 3, 2002 10:57 PM
There really is no comparison, gummiebear.
NT/W2k/XP are rock solid Operating Systems - there are no resource problems and I only need to reboot when installing new stuff.
Windows ME, on the other hand, must have been the worst Win9x version ever made (I know, I tried them all). Full of bugs and inconsistencies... plus, like all the Win9x family, it is inherently unstable and has a very limited pool of resources available.
If you're one of those persons that has your computer running 24/24 hours, you will soon see the difference between both OS versions.
Jorge Coelho
NextSTART 2.80 - A user interface you can actually use!
http://www.winstep.net - Winstep Software Technologies
IRC Chat: #winstep on AustNet
NT/W2k/XP are rock solid Operating Systems - there are no resource problems and I only need to reboot when installing new stuff.
Windows ME, on the other hand, must have been the worst Win9x version ever made (I know, I tried them all). Full of bugs and inconsistencies... plus, like all the Win9x family, it is inherently unstable and has a very limited pool of resources available.
If you're one of those persons that has your computer running 24/24 hours, you will soon see the difference between both OS versions.
Jorge Coelho
NextSTART 2.80 - A user interface you can actually use!
http://www.winstep.net - Winstep Software Technologies
IRC Chat: #winstep on AustNet
LancerKMT
Reply #3 Thursday, January 3, 2002 11:04 PM
Reply #3 Thursday, January 3, 2002 11:04 PM
2k is the best one... XP and ME are the same... XP is more showy, but that doent make it better
davad70
Reply #4 Thursday, January 3, 2002 11:28 PM
Reply #4 Thursday, January 3, 2002 11:28 PM
It goes way beyond being "showy" lancer. It's virtually a completely new OS internally. There are many, many reasons Xp is better....mainly stability, also the fact that it is "showier" is another point in my book.
JcRabbit
Reply #6 Friday, January 4, 2002 4:37 AM
Reply #6 Friday, January 4, 2002 4:37 AM
Lancer, XP is built on the same platform as W2k. I would go as far as saying that if you are already running W2k then there really is no need to upgrade to XP.
As for OSX, well, read the following article in The Register (it even mentions Winstep and DesktopX):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23531.html
Jorge Coelho
NextSTART 2.80 - A user interface you can actually use!
http://www.winstep.net - Winstep Software Technologies
IRC Chat: #winstep on AustNet
As for OSX, well, read the following article in The Register (it even mentions Winstep and DesktopX):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23531.html
Jorge Coelho
NextSTART 2.80 - A user interface you can actually use!
http://www.winstep.net - Winstep Software Technologies
IRC Chat: #winstep on AustNet
jtfolden
Reply #7 Friday, January 4, 2002 4:59 AM
Reply #7 Friday, January 4, 2002 4:59 AM
Actually, if one really wants to compare W2k, XP and OS X I think cnet has done a good job...
W2k vs OS X 10.0:
http://www.cnet.com/software/0-429669-8-6112332-1.html
WXP vs OS X 10.1:
http://www.cnet.com/software/0-429669-8-7618644-1.html
W2k vs OS X 10.0:
http://www.cnet.com/software/0-429669-8-6112332-1.html
WXP vs OS X 10.1:
http://www.cnet.com/software/0-429669-8-7618644-1.html
paxx
Reply #8 Friday, January 4, 2002 6:23 AM
Reply #8 Friday, January 4, 2002 6:23 AM
XP has the same kernel as Win2k.
Windows 2000 was Windows NT 5, and XP is Windows NT 5.1.
Windows 2000 was Windows NT 5, and XP is Windows NT 5.1.
JavaBrain
Reply #9 Friday, January 4, 2002 9:50 AM
Reply #9 Friday, January 4, 2002 9:50 AM
I can't sit back and allow anyone to even consider ME as of the same standard of 2000/XP. I test on 2 ME boxes (one was 2000 at one time...boy do I miss those days!!!) I reboot at least two times a day (on each machine). I hardly ever rebooted on 2000. My laptop running 2000 hasn't been rebooted in a month (and that was a shut down)! ME crashes all the time. It is the biggest piece -o - junk that MS has come out with! ME is a downgrade from 98SE!
Ut oh! I must now discontinue my bashing of ME to reboot......
Ut oh! I must now discontinue my bashing of ME to reboot......
feline
Reply #10 Friday, January 4, 2002 12:06 PM
Reply #10 Friday, January 4, 2002 12:06 PM
feline *giggle*
if ME is anything like 98 then it is true
there is nothing quite like that feeling when all your windows loose their borders and title bars, and alt-tab only displays an empty grey box as you switch between your programs.
dont you just love running out of resorces all the time???
if ME is anything like 98 then it is true
there is nothing quite like that feeling when all your windows loose their borders and title bars, and alt-tab only displays an empty grey box as you switch between your programs.
dont you just love running out of resorces all the time???
Brian McDaniel
Reply #11 Friday, January 4, 2002 6:39 PM
Reply #11 Friday, January 4, 2002 6:39 PM
WELL 98 IS GOOD FOR A OS HELLO
ITS BASED ON DOS ITS SUCKY SO I NEVER HAVE PROBLEMS PLUS IT COST TO MUCH TO UPGRADE MY HOUSE TO XP $800.00 OR $300.00 FOR REG
ITS BASED ON DOS ITS SUCKY SO I NEVER HAVE PROBLEMS PLUS IT COST TO MUCH TO UPGRADE MY HOUSE TO XP $800.00 OR $300.00 FOR REG
Brian McDaniel
Reply #12 Friday, January 4, 2002 6:41 PM
Reply #12 Friday, January 4, 2002 6:41 PM
OH FORGOT THIS ON 98 I DONT REBOOT FOR UP TO 2 WEEKS I SAY ITS GOOD
AJCrowley
Reply #14 Friday, January 4, 2002 6:52 PM
Reply #14 Friday, January 4, 2002 6:52 PM
Wow, let the trolls surface. I think that this thread does not require a comment from me other than mentioning the fact that since first switching to Windows 2000, even touching a 9xAJCrowley OS makes my skin crawl.
Jafo
Reply #15 Friday, January 4, 2002 9:43 PM
Reply #15 Friday, January 4, 2002 9:43 PM
Deciding that ME is a superior OS version/system than the NT/2K/XP family can ONLY be a personal 'impression'. It is totally unsubstantiated by fact and testing. I am certain that various Microsoft people would even be willing to surreptitiously admit that ME was a failure as an operating system release, only accepting that it 'was' intended as a stop-gap release, contemporary with 2K as the 'business' OS, and ME being for the 'Home user/gamer', until XP could be released, finally uniting the two Win Vers....NT, and 9x.
It can be all very subjective, but in my case, the ONLY OS that I have ever installed that has NOT fallen over at one time or another [even without my input] is XP. 2K almost made it, but I have a log of Memory Dumps somewhere to prove it wasn't stable for me.
The only proggy that has consistently given a 'Proggy must close' warning in XP is WinAMP, which has prompted me to just go with WMP8 anyway...
What really got me with the ME install was its quaint inability to recognise my MICROSOFT EXPLORER OPTICAL MOUSE...
[I put it in caps, hoping that ME might see it...lol ]
Funny, that. The mouse is the best thing Microsoft ever really made, and ME is probably close to the worst....
It can be all very subjective, but in my case, the ONLY OS that I have ever installed that has NOT fallen over at one time or another [even without my input] is XP. 2K almost made it, but I have a log of Memory Dumps somewhere to prove it wasn't stable for me.
The only proggy that has consistently given a 'Proggy must close' warning in XP is WinAMP, which has prompted me to just go with WMP8 anyway...
What really got me with the ME install was its quaint inability to recognise my MICROSOFT EXPLORER OPTICAL MOUSE...
[I put it in caps, hoping that ME might see it...lol ]
Funny, that. The mouse is the best thing Microsoft ever really made, and ME is probably close to the worst....
Aeonsfx
Reply #16 Monday, January 7, 2002 5:51 PM
Reply #16 Monday, January 7, 2002 5:51 PM
ME IS NOT WORSE Than Windows 98 - That is complete nonsense, since the only reason why it would be slower is System Restore, which I turned off on my old machine. Saying that 98/98se is better is completely stupid. ME is inferior to 2000 in performance, but not compatability, which is why I used it before I bought XP. Windows 2000 is great, but nevertheless is inferior to Windows XP unless you aren't a gamer or don't care about lots of new features - and no, the XP gui doesn't cause a significant slowdown, and causes NOTHING if you use Windows Classic. Windowblinds is VERY fast under Windows XP because it has been optimised for it. And, as for OSX, its a great OS, but DOESN'T run windows programs, therefore it is not comparable. Duh!!!!
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Thursday, January 3, 2002 9:39 PM