PDA

View Full Version : 95, 98, 98SE, ME, or XP?



09-03-2002, 10:17 AM
I've been happily reading posts over the last few months, and I regularly see posts saying things like

'Ditch ME and get 98SE because ME is full of bugs and is totally unstable' etc. etc.

I've also seen posts telling people to stay away from XP.

The thing that bothers me is that nobody has actually backed it up with anything. Personally I have had absolutely no problems running ME in the past - I had numerous problems running 98 and 98SE. Where's the proof that say's ME is 'the worst OS Microsoft has released'? Or do people say it because that's what everybody else says? I think we should stick to helping people overcome their problems, but I don't think replacing the OS is always the way to do this (sometimes maybe it could be, but not usually). Just because one person has a problem with an OS doesn't mean everyone will, and there is a chance that some people will actually go out and buy a different OS just because somebody here said that the one they've got (usually ME) is useless, and that they should get a better one, when really they don't need another one.

It seems ME has become the scapegoat. I see posts by people saying they've got problems on their ME system, and replies are saying that it's ME that's the problem, when more than likely its just some small easy-to-solve setting. Why can't we just help solve the problems, rather than using a cure-all (that isn't really)?

And to finish, what's so wrong with XP that people are told to stay away? Is it just because it's from Microsoft? If so, well GET OVER IT! They make a lot of good software, and are very successful, and I say Good on them for doing it.

There, that's all I'm gonna say right now, else I'll say something I regret :)

Mike.

09-03-2002, 10:51 AM
Hi Mike, You make a lot of valid points in your comments on various Microsoft systems.
I was given XP pro as a xmas present and had the same feelings as you about the bad things said about it. So posted an invitation on this Press1 for help, from someone with experience with it and not what they had read. On receiving several replies which were positive on XP I went ahead with it and have never looked back, it is the best one yet.
To many people listen to gossip and not to the people who have experienced it.
Regards..Ron.

09-03-2002, 11:12 AM
I would have to agree with you Mike, ME has become a scrapegoat for every problem out there. The person asking the ? is using ME and they happy with it and it works for them, then let it be and instead solve the problem at hand. As with you, I had heaps of problems with 98/98se but with ME...trouble free. Yet others seem to have better luck with 98, 95 or some thing else, so be it. I posted a ? long time back, little niggling problem, you know the sort, the answer is staring you straight in the face and the first reply said, dump ME, thats the problem, reality was it was a setting in a unrelated program. I was having fun setting up a network, so called friend and computer know it all insisted that I could only network using 98se, ME could not be used for it coupled with the fact that ME did not much support for DSL, strange that it is working like a charm now.

09-03-2002, 11:22 AM
good old human nature stikes again ;-) each persons veiws are shaped by the bad exsperiences they or their mates have.

as far as XP goes i've got mates who have add very little probs and some where XP wouldn't run at all. i think its a case of haveing good stable drivers and compatable apps.

remember when ME came out. there was heaps of problems mainly due to lack of drivers. once manafactures got around to makeing and testing new drivers and MS as fixed the usual bugs any new os has then ME has been nice and stable(well for a dos based os ;-). as per usual the early uses of new os's suffer a bit. XP hasn't been to bad due to useing w2k drivers.

personally i'll keep useing good old 98se untill i can afford XP (and all the other apps i have to upgrade due to them not being compatable) and MS has SP1 out.

acctualy a lot of people think any win9x/me os is crash happy, but mine very rarely crashes. proberly due to the good hardware and drivers. if you use buggy chipsets, cheap tempermental hardware no wonder the os crashes.

09-03-2002, 11:23 AM
Hey there Mike,

I would tend to agree with you on this one.

I think it has to do with how well you set it up. I have been using Xp and it does have some major problems when it comes to gaming. Proof of this is reading the VIA Arena forums.

But now that I have the right combo of hardware and drivers its rock solid (now I say that whats the bet it crashes).

A lot of people tend to blame their own inadequacies on Windows. The fact is public demand for an 'easier to use OS' has contributed to the current state of Windows.

Look at Linux, the more features it includes in the core OS the more prone to failure it gets. Why?? Because public demand for a version of linux that is easier to use requires the inclusion of more core features. More core features equals more things that can go wrong.

How many people can honestly say they follow all the instructions when installing software eg: shutting down all running applications, anti virus etc?? or how many people refrain from using tweaking utilities that they don't really understand??

Before going to XP I ran Win Me without any major problems, I admit it had a few idiosyncracies but nothing fatal. It was just a case of finding a combination that worked and setting it up properly.

A lot of people seem to think Windows should be able to run anything they throw at it....that is simply wrong. Some applications are simply poorly written and cause faults in the core OS.

The same can apply to any OS, the majority of problems tend to start of with the explanation [I was trying to {insert something silly here} and {insert OS here} crashed] followed by bitter reprises against the particular OS.

The sad fact of computers is too many people can access to many things they shouldn't. Have a look at the Mac OS, how many system critical items can the average user access easily?? It was originally designed for ease of use.

There is a fine line between providing access for those who know what they are doing, and restricting access for those who are just dangerous.

At Massey we have to use Mac's in some of our papers; by the time a large number of students have had a bash at them they are crash city.

OS's like Linux have tended to be the refuge of more technically savvy users who are less prone to doing things they shouldn't. Give it a little time and when Linux hit's the mainstream and wait for the cries of despair.

Look at NT, 2000 it is reputed as being the most stable. Why?? access rights, you can keep people from doing things that cause crashes. Simple!!

I set a box up here using Linux so I could see how it works, while I was learning I sure as hell made it crash, simply because at the start I didn't know what I was doing.

For Linux to establish a dominant foothold in the market it will have to appeal to the masses. To do that it will have to be built for ease of use. Ease of use is a compromise on stability.

09-03-2002, 11:32 AM
tweak`e raised a valid point about drivers.....do you realise M$ contact all major suppliers of hardware and invite them to submit drivers for testing and inclusion in an OS when it is being developed.

A large percentage never actually get around to submitting them. Some companies that have drivers included in Windows is because M$ developed the drivers after the companies failed to submit anything. But M$ took into account that a large majority of end users were using the items in question.

09-03-2002, 12:40 PM
I am waiting for Erin Salmon to respond here though, cause I do note he is one who says that ME should be stayed away from. (Erin, I'm not picking on you, I just read one of your posts recently and you said this - I just want to know why).

I would also like to hear from anyone else who agrees with Erin.

09-03-2002, 05:32 PM
Everyone seems to be making very valid points, remember however you are all experts!

Computers are being promoted for everyone, and most people dont even buy a 'how to use it' book. Its a bit like promoting how to be a brain surgeon in 2 easy lessons, or learn to be an airline pilot in your spare time.

Very many of the postings on this site could be answered by the questioners themselves if they took the next step of doing a simple search.

Win98SE as far as Im concerned is perfectly OK. Sure it has some bugs and foibles, but this setup I have has been through 3 hard drives and 2 motherboards without any re-installing, just copying over from drive to drive, removing all devices between hardware upgrades, re-detecting etc, new drivers, regular cleaning, but still the same install as when I first had SE, 2 or 3 something ? years ago, anyway from when it was first available.

Just cant understand all this re-formatting and re-installing every few months, most of it is probably unecessary.

No first hand experience of ME, but my eldest who really knows what he's about, bought a new Dell with ME about a year ago, had repeated lockup problems, scanner and camera usb problems, ditched ME and bought Win2000. He's had no significant problems since on his 4 networked PCs.

09-03-2002, 07:33 PM
I use 98SE and find it excellent. Howeever this never used to be the case, used to have a Cyrix 333 with a PC Chips mobo and it was so crash happy that I found it difficult to read a full thread at PressF1. After an upgrade (mobo, cpu, case/psu) it is stable as and I have it run 24hrs a day.

I think that of the Win9x series ME has the most problems, because they tried to get rid of DOS from a DOS from a DOS based OS.

Win2000 would seem to be the most stable in my limited experience of 2000 it seemed good. But why do less people have problems with Win2000? Because the people that use it generally tend to be more advanced users and will be able to fix things themselves.

I think that in the long run it will appear as if XP Home is worse than XP Pro because of the same reasons.

JM

09-03-2002, 07:50 PM
I have Windows ME. Lately whenever I post a question the first reply tends to be ditch ME - not very helpful as I have no intention on spending more money for another OS.

The reason why there are so many postings from ME and XP users is because most newly purchased sytems will have the latest OS. A lot of these buyers, like myself, have never owned a computer before but computers are now more financially attainable. We tend to do silly things whilst learning and dare I say it, investigating, our new toys and a lot of the problems are from inexperience - hence more posts to a newbie friendly forum!

I bet that if you look back to 1995 and 1998 there would of been many problem postings (if there was a forum) as people tried out the new operating systems. People with those OS's now are probably pretty familiar with their systems and possible cope better with error messages etc.

Anyway - that is my 2 cents worth :-)

Jen

09-03-2002, 08:40 PM
Well said Mike, I'm back by the way, I think half the problems that appear with the 'new' operating systems is because they are new and people haven't come to grips with them fully. I've noticed that people who espouse their system have been using it for a long period of time and have had 'no' problems etc etc. Closer examination would probably prove that they had experienced similair teething problems with the OS when first starting out as well. I am using ME and had no end of trouble to start till I learnt to stop trying out all the nifty little programs that looked flash and to stop playing with the damn thing till I knew what I was doing!! Hey presto my ME works great and even tho I have been offered other systems I have stuck with what I now know. One bad experience does not equal a bad system.

10-03-2002, 10:04 AM
Leaving Dos 6 was a bad move.

95 is too unaware of things like USB.

98SE is better than 98.

ME was a temporary glitch, and a nuisance.

Win2K was too long in coming and NT4 still does a good job.

XP is a little bit new for many, and might be worth a crack sooner or later.

They all have their merits. The older they get, the more stable they are (excepting 95).

Problem is firewire, usb, etc, forces you up the path.

Also depends on what you want to do. Off 97 on 98 works for a lot of people and doesn't need a grunt machine to do it.

robo.

11-03-2002, 07:05 PM
hey, ive had win 3.1 95 98, me, 2k and Xp and ill tell ya, 2k is far the best, 95 is obviously out as like 3.1, XP has masses of compatability probs..so thats out, 98 98se 98+, and 98special edition r all ok, but 2k (2000) uses less system resources, built on NT technology, stable, and easy to use, its also an upgrade of nt kinda..so it is an improvement of that to, so i would always pick 2k, the a version of 98 :):)