Do you have a specific, official source for this information? Because if we're just speculating wildly, then I propose that VXD support was just hacked out of ME, much like its real-mode MS-DOS.
Which is false. In fact, VxD support is still there in WinMe.
I used ME back when it was new and never had a major problem with it. There was some bugginess but nothing I couldn't work around. I had moved away from DOS gaming by that time and used mostly Windows programs so I didn't feel I was missing much. With the extremely limited DOS compatibility and the bugginess, I wouldn't even consider it for a retro rig these days. 98SE is the way to go with either 2000 or XP as a dual boot if your rig supports either of them for those times when you don't want to fire up your quad core just to check your email or do a quick Google search about some obscure piece of hardware you just picked out of a bulk lot.
wrote:Yet the lure of running an anachronistic o/s is strangely compelling.
And this is the very reason why Microsoft continues to sell the latest versions of it's crap. Billions of people get sucked in by that very lure. The rest of us use OS X or Linux. 😜
wrote:98SE2ME FTW
Now that looks like it has possibilities. The best features of 98SE and ME without all the crashing or the loss of most of your DOS compatibility.
wrote:With the extremely limited DOS compatibility and the bugginess, I wouldn't even consider it for a retro rig these days.
Well, it depends. If you're not looking for DOS compatibility and know how to tweak then ME is more useful on older rigs (of around 400/500Mhz) then 2k or XP.
Also ME works perfectly fine on a much smaller harddrive.
Of course you could simply put a larger harddrive in such a rig (iirc my K6-3 rig has 10GB or so) but I don't have the money to buy me a stack of 160GB IDE drives anyway.
I've build a Super 7 rig around a GA-5AX, 256MB SDRAM, a K6-3-400 2.2v, 10GB HDD and a Voodoo 2 and put ME on it. (Can't remember what I put in the AGP slot though)
On systems like these XP and 2k tend to be much less responsive then ME.
If I want 2k or XP, I'll just put that on a Thoroughbred or a Barton.
98SE2ME isn't really an option for me because, as I recall, it only works on English language and I usually use Dutch.
yeah ME is fine for a windows-retroPC , assuming you have somewhat "newish" hardware.... it works awesome for my tualatin p3 so far and ME works way better than any 98SE version I tried... it is just a matter of finding what works better with your hardware
wrote:...it works awesome for my tualatin p3 so far and ME works way better than any 98SE version I tried
Same here.
I basically used to use ME over 98SE simply because ME was all I owned (except for 98FE, bsod's left and right), so I started learning more about it and how to tweak it and became more adept with every new build.
Once I finally got a hold of 98SE I tried it, and didn't like it as much.
Those days you rarely read anything positive about ME on the net, but frankly I never really understood what their problems were with ME. Apart from the tweaks you 'should' do it works good enough.
I've installed XP on 2 different Coppermine 1000's and ME on a Celeron 800 (Voodoo 3 rig) and even though the Celeron has much less RAM, well, basically all the hardware is lesser compared to the P3's, it still feels snappier.
I think the problem with ME was that enthusiasts wanted what became XP. There was another NT OS codenamed Neptune that was a precursor to XP but it was canceled.
Win2K kicks the snot out of ME for reliable computing. But ME is at least somewhat of an improvement over 98SE.
I think RAM was too expensive yet in '99 for a NT OS to go into mainstream budget PCs and that's one reason for Neptune not happening. Even in 2001 when XP came along the budget PCs had barely enough RAM to make it usable whereas 98SE or ME ran great. I don't miss working on Celerons with 128MB of RAM running XP.
wrote:I don't miss working on Celerons with 128MB of RAM running XP.
Do the cacheless Celerons run XP? They must be a nightmare.
wrote:wrote:I don't miss working on Celerons with 128MB of RAM running XP.
Do the cacheless Celerons run XP? They must be a nightmare.
I always wonder about this 'slowness' estimations for usage. It's about retro computers and you have the freedom to combine hardware and OS in whatever combination works.
I started already in the DOS era, before Windows got used commonly with about Win 3.x. I never got really in touch with Windows ME on my own machines, it was somehow not required at all.
As for the other OSes it is in most cases more a question of available memory than of speed.
So on low mem 386 to mid range 486 I would use Win 3.x
If there is more memory available I would consider on fast 386 to install Win95a and on 486 Win98SE or NT4. If it is a 500 MHz P3 or Athlon or faster with about 384 MB or more I already consider using Win XP. Since memory is so cheap and most of these boards already take 512 MB or more, there seems to be no real gap for Win2K between NT4 and XP for me.
The speed nightmare on old machines usually starts if you apply todays usage scenarios to these machines. It doesn't work out.
For example if you used Word Perfect within Win 3.x you didn't used any main application at the same time. If you had the equipment, maybe some music player like MOD4WIN with full hardware acceleration. (What's MP3 anyway?) Multitasking overall meant you could use network shares while working and print in background.
To give another example: I can use Firefox quite well on my P166MMX to surf the web but it has to be reconfigured to fit into the hardware setup. You just can not take the default configuration that is made for a GHz, GB RAM machine and then wonder why it is so slow.
XP with a Celeron is probably not much different from XP on a P1 with ~256 MB. XP minimum requirements are a P166MMX with 64 MB RAM (and I can say, that it installs well and can be used at least as network bridge 😉 ).
wrote:I think the problem with ME was that enthusiasts wanted what became XP. There was another NT OS codenamed Neptune that was a precursor to XP but it was canceled.
I actually tried Neptune shortly before I moved but never got further then basically browsing around, looking how it worked, before I moved and eh..kinda misplaced the parts of the original configuration.
Of course it was a beta and not many drivers were available for it.
It's an interesting OS, from a vintage point of view at least. Perhaps later I'll build a rig around it again.
And about 2k, I tend to agree. I don't see any real reason to use 2k over XP on newer systems and ME on slower ones. On slower systems ME is much faster then 2k and XP wouldn't be any slower..so why use 2k?
Perhaps a reason would be because someone prefers to use 2k in particular and knows his/her way around that OS, much like I prefer ME over 98SE or 2k.
I only came in touch with 2k and with 98SE a couple years after I had started using ME and have always preferred XP over 2k on newer rigs (especially since it works with more modern stuff and I know my way around it better).
That still never stopped me from actually giving both 98SE and 2k a try though 😉
2k does have one advantage it shares with XP, it will work with nlite 😉
Though otoh, ME should work with msbatch just like 98SE and before.
I agree about memory being of more importance then CPU when it comes to minimum requirements and memory certainly is much more affordable then it used to be. But still, I'd rather not buy 4x128MB EDO simms for €€€++ only because I want to use XP on a Pentium 1. If I can get 512MB SDRAM for dirt cheap, I'd prefer to spend the cash I save that way cash on something else and will settle for another OS and less ram for the older rig.
Also for instance if building a Super 7 rig with a K6-2, putting more ram in a rig then what it can cache, I prefer to add the max memory the system can cache and select what OS to run on that ram later.
I can understand someone without any prior experience with ME to prefer not to use it (kinda like I prefer not to use 2k or 98SE), partially because of all the bad press it's been getting, but I'd say:"Do a bit of reading and try for yourself!" 😉
wrote:And about 2k, I tend to agree. I don't see any real reason to use 2k over XP on newer systems and ME on slower ones. On slower systems ME is much faster then 2k and XP wouldn't be any slower..so why use 2k?
Even if ME's stability isn't as bad as some people say it is, 2k is more stable than ME.
Does ME not still crash horribly when you unexpectedly run out of user or GDI resources?
wrote:Even if ME's stability isn't as bad as some people say it is, 2k is more stable than ME.
That may be, but it's also a lot slower and not any faster then the newer XP.
I used to use ME because it was all I had at the time (except for 98FE...🙁 ).
Nowdays I use XP mostly and 7 on my quadcore, but generally speaking, if a system's too slow for XP, it'll also be too slow for 2k but ME will run faster then either 2k or XP.
As I don't use ME as my main rig anymore, it only has to not-crash as long as I use it.
So far I've used it only on 2 different rigs recently, both with ME, both with different hardware and both to play through the Unreal campaign from start to finish (mind you, Unreal is veeery long!). Not a single crash...so so far not a sign of this instability it should have. It may be more unstable (heck, it probably is) but that's not the same as 'it is unstable', which it isn't with lighter use.
2k may be more stable then ME, but I think XP is more stable then 2k, and actually seems a bit faster then 2k.
wrote:I always wonder about this 'slowness' estimations for usage. It's about retro computers and you have the freedom to combine hard […]
wrote:wrote:I don't miss working on Celerons with 128MB of RAM running XP.
Do the cacheless Celerons run XP? They must be a nightmare.
I always wonder about this 'slowness' estimations for usage. It's about retro computers and you have the freedom to combine hardware and OS in whatever combination works.
I started already in the DOS era, before Windows got used commonly with about Win 3.x. I never got really in touch with Windows ME on my own machines, it was somehow not required at all.
As for the other OSes it is in most cases more a question of available memory than of speed.So on low mem 386 to mid range 486 I would use Win 3.x
If there is more memory available I would consider on fast 386 to install Win95a and on 486 Win98SE or NT4. If it is a 500 MHz P3 or Athlon or faster with about 384 MB or more I already consider using Win XP. Since memory is so cheap and most of these boards already take 512 MB or more, there seems to be no real gap for Win2K between NT4 and XP for me.The speed nightmare on old machines usually starts if you apply todays usage scenarios to these machines. It doesn't work out.
For example if you used Word Perfect within Win 3.x you didn't used any main application at the same time. If you had the equipment, maybe some music player like MOD4WIN with full hardware acceleration. (What's MP3 anyway?) Multitasking overall meant you could use network shares while working and print in background.
To give another example: I can use Firefox quite well on my P166MMX to surf the web but it has to be reconfigured to fit into the hardware setup. You just can not take the default configuration that is made for a GHz, GB RAM machine and then wonder why it is so slow.XP with a Celeron is probably not much different from XP on a P1 with ~256 MB. XP minimum requirements are a P166MMX with 64 MB RAM (and I can say, that it installs well and can be used at least as network bridge 😉 ).
Pentium 166 for XP? I don't think so. This is what I found for minimum specs with XP
"PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended"
So how do you even get past the installer with a 166mhz CPU when 233mhz is the required minimum?
And for memory
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
So while it might work with 64mb, it's going to be a bare bones installation, it's likely going to be slow even with older software and you're going to be thrashing the hell out of your hard disk because it'll be using virtual memory all the time. No thanks.
Nowdays I think 128MB for XP is a bare minimum, maybe even spartanic 😜
On 128MB ME will be quite fast and ME flies when you go towards the 256 mark.
I think XP should use at least 512MB or so. XP will also work on 384MB if your system won't be on the internet.
Though the minimum for XP...it can "work" on even 8Mhz 😜
wrote:XP with a Celeron is probably not much different from XP on a P1 with ~256 MB. XP minimum requirements are a P166MMX with 64 MB RAM (and I can say, that it installs well and can be used at least as network bridge 😉 ).
It's not the Celeron, it's the 128MB of RAM that was the problem. Those were Coppermine Celerons so the CPU wasn't that bad. But, XP will use up most of that 128MB all for itself and once you start swapping it's a terrible experience. And it was compounded by the slow budget hard drives in those machines.
The same thing happened again with Vista boxes that had 512MB. Uhg.
I am overjoyed today with how even cheap rigs have 2GB or more. You almost can't go wrong as long as you stay away from single core gimpy leftovers.
wrote:And about 2k, I tend to agree. I don't see any real reason to use 2k over XP on newer systems and ME on slower ones.
NT4 and 2K were really the only choices for systems that needed to be reliable. They are also much more powerful for apps with significant memory requirements and for server situations. These are the OSs you wanted for everything other than games. But most people don't have much experience with them because they weren't used on consumer-oriented PCs and they were poor for gaming. 2K got better with time though.
wrote:2k may be more stable then ME, but I think XP is more stable then 2k, and actually seems a bit faster then 2k.
Well, sure. http://home.comcast.net/~supportcd/XPMyths.html says as much.
I'm actually a little unsure about that myself; I run XP on one of my older machines where I used to run 2K, and it seems to take a much longer amount of time for it to become responsive when I start using an application again after leaving it idle for a few hours. I never really got to the bottom as to why that happens.
wrote:wrote:And about 2k, I tend to agree. I don't see any real reason to use 2k over XP on newer systems and ME on slower ones.
NT4 and 2K were really the only choices for systems that needed to be reliable. They are also much more powerful for apps with significant memory requirements and for server situations. These are the OSs you wanted for everything other than games. But most people don't have much experience with them because they weren't used on consumer-oriented PCs and they were poor for gaming. 2K got better with time though.
If it was about Direct3D you are right with NT4, but consider that in the timeframe where NT4 was quite common as 'NT OS', the early 3D games featured more likely Glide and OpenGL, whereas the 2D games just required DirectDraw 3.
Just to name a few: Diablo, Starcraft, Unreal Engine based games, Q3 engine based games, EverQuest...
So the situation for gaming under NT4 is not as bad as stated everywhere. As you already wrote, this might have something to do with most people having not much experience with it.
The difference in performance is difficult to judge, since Win9x has a bit less overhead, but NT4 is much more 32 bit code and has a different memory management. I already consider doing some benches...
If you were really nerdy, you went off with a NT4 dual pentium system...
If installing 2k or XP on an older machine, I prefer to use an nlite'd OS.
And since I use older rigs for basically games and maybe benchmarks + some file swapping (with USB or floppy), gaming is the most important activity a retro rig of mine has to be able to do.
And since I don't multitask on 9x computers for hours on end, the instability it has doesn't bother me as much as it used to do when I used an untweaked ME as my daily rig for hours on end.
The last 2 rigs I used that had ME on it were as stable as could be, with not a single crash. The only problem I had was when I was swapping Voodoo 2 cards and didn't bother to uninstall the drivers. The OS became wonky, but some quick registry editing fixed that 😀
And at any rate, when I was swapping Soundcards on XP, XP became completely inaccessable needing a reinstall. ME was fixed with only a minor registry tweak 😀
So swaaye, how was ME working for you anyway? 😉
Yes, this whole ME vs. XP/2K thing is just off topic. What's next comparing Amiga Workbench with DOS? They are just too different to be compared directly.
