Fond memories of Win ME?

[QwUo173Hy]

I'm installing PCFluxboxOS on my parents computer as it's even too low on memory for Xubuntu. While I was looking around for low footprint OSes, I remembered when I got my first laptop with WinME on it.

The OS received a lot of criticism in the press at the time but it ran like a breeze for me and never gave trouble. I only removed it when I went to college as Visual Studio didn't work well on it (I think) so I upgraded to Win2K.

I think it started up in under 20 seconds on a system with 128MB of ram and a 800Mhz processor. Not bad at all. Anyone else remember this blip on the OS radar?

[MikeTheC]

I had gotten a copy at some point, but I really never used it much.

However, I did have to support Sony desktops and notebooks with it for quite a while.

[andlinux21]

NO fond memories to report I just remember many blue screens of death with WinMe.

[chucky chuckaluck]

i loved it. i used it for six years.

[MikeTheC]

i loved it. i used it for six years.

You do know they have medication for that, right?

[QwUo173Hy]

i loved it. i used it for six years.

Excellent. I'm thinking of installing it if the fluxbox install is too alien to her.

MikeTheC, if you supported it for a while then you were probably dealing with only the complaints. People don't generally ring up tech support to tell them how well their software is running!

[Vince4Amy]

For all the slamming it gets everywhere I can't say it was ever bad on my system, it had the following advantages when I used it:


Faster Than 98SE
More Stable Than 98SE
It Booted So Quick


I've never ever had another OS which boots faster than ME it's amazing on how quick it boots.

[SunnyRabbiera]

While I agree ME had great bootup speeds it came at a price.
I got a million bluescreens under ME, move the mouse you get a bluescreen, click a key you get a bluescreen, look at the4 bluescreen and you get a bluescreen.
It was a nightmare.

[jespdj]

... I remembered when I got my first laptop with WinME on it.

The OS received a lot of criticism in the press at the time but it ran like a breeze for me and never gave trouble.
You must be one of the few lucky ones for which Windows ME worked reasonably well. In my experience, Windows ME was the most unstable and buggy version of Windows ever!

Of the Windows 95-line of Windows versions, Windows 98 SE was the best one for me. And ME was definitely the worst one.

[rolnics]

Fond memories of ME?! I didn't think anyone who used it had such things ..........!!!!

I certainly didn't, I soon sprinted back to Win98!! lol

[cmay]

i had windows me onmy first computer and i think it was great. i never liked windows xp at all. and when support on winME stopped and it was more or less forced upon me to upgrade then i started using linux instead.

[Skripka]

////////////////////////shudder///////////////////////////////


No.

[mobilediesel]

My fondest memory of Windows ME was when I wiped the partition and put Windows 98se back on it. and then I put the WinME cd in the microwave. *crackle*

awesome.

[racerraul]

I had a gaming rig running ME for a while... ah the memories of SLI Voodoos cards, Q2, Unreal & HL mods...

No bluescreens here, unless I had HW going bad or had to use bad drivers (Ala ATI)... Went to quite a few lan parties with it where it ran like a champ for 12+ hrs of straight gaming. And if you ever owned VooDoo cards then you'd know that is saying something, cause them mofos could overheat and lock up your system after hrs of gaming.

[cmat]

I guess it depends on maintenance. I don't know it was horrible with me and a few of my friends. When the PC booted we had lots of those "Preformed in illegal operation" boxes come up then after all that was over things still broke. I stuck with Windows 98SE until the better part of 2003. After that we went Xp when it was deemed stable enough.

[Sand & Mercury]

ME was a nightmare whenever I used it. 98SE was a much better system.

[forrestcupp]

I still have a Windows Me full install disk. It wasn't nearly as bad as everyone claimed. I liked it better than Win98 because if I installed 98, I had to install a lot more updates than I did when I installed Me.

And how about the ActiveX desktop? Everyone loved that one, right?

[chucky chuckaluck]

nm.

[craigeo]

You are the first ones I've ever heard of that actually thought Windows ME was even an OS let alone a great one.
That was the biggest P.O.S. OS I've ever used.
Couldn't keep a computer running with it to save my life.
Glad that pig is gone.

[chucky chuckaluck]

it was fast and easily tweaked (for windows). i once had it running so long, without a reboot, a dying power supply was the only reason i had to shut it off. i edited out this statement before, but i found ME to be a lot more stable than kde4 has ever been for me (and a lot faster, even on the old machine i had it on).

[stopie]

Memories are only of bruises and tears

[swoll1980]

"Mistake Edition"

[mips]

I actually like ME and used it for years. Prefered it to 98SE and it did not really give me any hassles.

[kidux]

Yes, I do, actually. It was so frigging buggy and unstable it pissed my wife off so much that she basically gave me an ultimatum to find a new OS, so it got us into Linux and we haven't looked back. :D

[kyroha]

Excellent. I'm thinking of installing it if the fluxbox install is too alien to her.

this is a bad idea, it is no longer supported by MS which means no more security updates which means you are setting her up for failure. Unless you don't plan on connecting to the internet there is no way I would install that for her.

[Whorehay]

Unless you don't plan on connecting to the internet there is no way I would install that for her.

I wouldn't install that for anyone, period.


@jarlath:
If you need something lightweight, I would suggest antiX (http://antix.mepis.org/index.php/Main_Page#About_antiX), Puppy Linux (http://puppylinux.org/wiki/hardware/general/minreq), or Damn Small Linux (http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/wiki/index.php/Minimum_Hardware_Requirements#Recommended_Specs) (in that order). I'm sure others might have different/better suggestions, but those worked fine for me.

[koshatnik]

ME was the most bug-ridden, unsecure piece of garbage I have ever used. Even Microsoft admitted it was crap.

[TravisNewman]

I don't understand how so many people had no problems with it. I had a PC that ran 98, 2000, and even XP just fine, but ME was a pain. Blue screens left and right. A friend of mine actually did an experiment, with 5 different PC's, to try to get the average time to blue screen. These all tested out clean, no hardware problems. The average time to bluescreen was like 5 minutes after install completed, but one PC had to be disqualified because it would blue screen at random times during the install and never fully completed. Again, other OS's worked like a dream.

[Shiva88]

Of the Windows 95-line of Windows versions, Windows 98 SE was the best one for me. And ME was definitely the worst one.

Agreed!

[wannadumpwindows]

The only fond memory that I have of it, is of the day I got rid of it . . .

I had nothing but trouble the entire time I used it also. Blue screen after blue screen. Random freezes, all kinds of fun things to keep me busy.

[Stan_1936]

...WinME...started up in under 20 seconds on a system with 128MB of ram and a 800Mhz processor.....

WOW! Just, WOW!

[scottuss]

I remember ME. I actually didn't have that many problems with it. Sure it was unstable sometimes (and yes I know it was supposedly the worst OS Microsoft ever made) but I have fairly fond memories.

It was a nice upgrade from 98 until I got my hands on XP. I tried 2000 but it was too slow to boot.

[swoll1980]

Wasn't Gates using ME when he got his infamous bsod?

[scottuss]

Wasn't Gates using ME when he got his infamous bsod?

It was Windows 98

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgriTO8UHvs

If that's the BSOD you were referring to?

[swoll1980]

It was Windows 98

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgriTO8UHvs

If that's the BSOD you were referring to?

Yep, that's the one.

[liamnixon]

...128MB of ram and a 800Mhz processor...

Actually, I have a computer with those exact specs and ME runs fine on it. Of course, between friends, family, and everyone in between the performance on it slowed to a crawl, but it was fine when I used it.

[QwUo173Hy]

@jarlath:
If you need something lightweight, I would suggest antiX (http://antix.mepis.org/index.php/Main_Page#About_antiX), Puppy Linux (http://puppylinux.org/wiki/hardware/general/minreq), or Damn Small Linux (http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/wiki/index.php/Minimum_Hardware_Requirements#Recommended_Specs) (in that order). I'm sure others might have different/better suggestions, but those worked fine for me.

Thanks Whorehay, really appreciate the links. I'll try them if flux doesn't cut it.

I'm really surprised at the mixed experiences everybody has had. Mine came with a dell laptop so I assume they did a bit of tweaking before mass production. I think I'm going to have to install it now out of curiosity so see how it responds to this hardware.

[athaki]

My first new computer came with WinME. It had 600mhz processor and 96mb of ram with a 20GB hdd. I don't think I ever had any problems with it at all, but then again I was around 13 so why would I be doing much of anything on it but playing Roller Coaster Tycoon :D

[perlluver]

I got a brand new HP, at the time 633MHz, 64MB ram, and Win ME pre-installed, it was awful, had blue screens left and right, upgraded the Memory and put 2000 on it, and didn't look back at ME ever. It was downright awful, I couldn't believe it. I was waiting to see something spectacular, but it was an epic failure. Got that old HP in my basement running as a Linux server with Ubuntu Server 8.10 on it, and it is doing pretty good.

[MikeTheC]

Excellent. I'm thinking of installing it if the fluxbox install is too alien to her.

MikeTheC, if you supported it for a while then you were probably dealing with only the complaints. People don't generally ring up tech support to tell them how well their software is running!

Hmm... Don't'cha think, just maybe there's a chance, that if I was having to support it, then maybe I was getting to see its failings and shortcomings in aggregate?

I don't question the statements here by others that it booted super-fast by the standards of the day. However, to the extent I used it, even *I* was getting error messages with it. IIRC, I had gotten it around the same time I'd gotten Win2K, and I basically left ME for 2K. (Of course, that was just on my PC. Anything I was "seriously" interested in was Mac-related.)

[bakedbeans4life]

Whatever!

[bakedbeans4life]

Whatever!

Posts 7, interesting.

I have made more posts than this but 7 it seems is that magic number.

Confirmed and noted.

[rage-against-windows]

My fond memory was having Windows ME along with something called WinLinux, and they both were crappy. I will say Linux has come a hell of a long way since then, and Windows is still Windows...Bring back 3.1 for god sakes!

[chucky chuckaluck]

meh. nm.

[chucky chuckaluck]

Hmm... Don't'cha think, just maybe there's a chance, that if I was having to support it, then maybe I was getting to see its failings and shortcomings in aggregate?

not really. people don't usually direct their compliments to the wage slaves at the help desk. one could add up all the problems that people have had with various linux distros, by the same logic, and say "see? it sucks!" popularity is not a good measure of quality, either. it only measures the low end of consensus reality (think mcdonalds and its success).

[avaralom]

Posts 7, interesting.

I have made more posts than this but 7 it seems is that magic number.

Confirmed and noted.

Posts in the Community forums don't count, I think only the support areas go towards your post count. <_<

Anyway I used ME as a kid and I do remember getting more blue screens than I ever did on XP/Vista, but overall.. it worked and that was good enough for a 13 year old. XD

[QwUo173Hy]

not really. people don't usually direct their compliments to the wage slaves at the help desk. one could add up all the problems that people have had with various linux distros, by the same logic, and say "see? it sucks!" popularity is not a good measure of quality, either. it only measures the low end of consensus reality (think mcdonalds and its success).
"And you took the words right out of my mouth.. oh it must have been when you were-a ...."

[HermanAB]

WinME worked well when it worked. Unfortunately it never lasted longer than a few weeks without heavy maintenance. It really was the Volkswagen Beetle of computer systems - you had to work on it every week-end and you were never quite sure whether you would reach your destination without a breakdown.

Cheers,

Herman

[cariboo]

I just setup Firefox and Clamav on a computer running WinMe for a guy last week, I figure in another week it won't be running very well. He already had he browser hijacked, by the end of next week he should have brought it to it's knees. :)

Jim

[LiamWilson]

My fond memory was having Windows ME along with something called WinLinux, and they both were crappy. I will say Linux has come a hell of a long way since then, and Windows is still Windows...Bring back 3.1 for god sakes!

I agree. Although I had to re-install 3.1 every time I wanted to use it, I was quite fond of it's different interface compared to the one that has become so used.

As for Windows ME, I think I only got a couple of BSOD's in all the 4 years I used it. then when I accidentaly wiped the hard drive and Put 98 back on it, I realised just how good 98 really was. It booted on 192mb or ram in under 5 seconds with a Pentium II MMX!

[QwUo173Hy]

WinME just gave me a BSOD on a virtual machine so I think I'll assume I was just very fortunate the last time. I've installed AntiX as a previous user suggested. It's okay for the amount of memory at present but I'm still sort of surprised I can't have a fast running net machine for my mother considering windows 3.1 would have all the features I need!

Maybe instead of downloading the latest slim-line distros, I should be looking at old releases like pre redhat 9 or something.

[kidux]

WinME just gave me a BSOD on a virtual machine so I think I'll assume I was just very fortunate the last time. I've installed AntiX as a previous user suggested. It's okay for the amount of memory at present but I'm still sort of surprised I can't have a fast running net machine for my mother considering windows 3.1 would have all the features I need!

Maybe instead of downloading the latest slim-line distros, I should be looking at old releases like pre redhat 9 or something.
I'd have to advise against going old school as they are no longer supported and would have no current security updates, or updated software in general.

Why not try Arch, DSL or LFS? Sure, they take some time to setup, but they allow for a blazing fast machine.

[QwUo173Hy]

True, I've nothing to loose. The system can be wiped so I'll try one of those guys. All she needs is an Internet, Email and a notepad/wordprocessor. I'll look into those now. Thanks kidux.