Jorpho wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Jorpho wrote:

I have never read anything to suggest that the NTVDM of XP is less of a DOS emulation than the NTVDM of 2K.

Neither have I. Why bring this up?

You seemed to imply that XP was superior in that respect and did not use DOS emulation. Perhaps I misunderstood.

You didn't misunderstand, you're trying to look for an argument 😜
What I typed never implied that I implied that! 😜

Jorpho wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

and as I said, what programs do you know that work in 2k but not in XP?

I did not address this because I was confused as to where exactly I implied there were any such things.

You didn't. I asked you before if you knew programs that work in 2k but not in XP, and you ignored it. I simply asked my own question to you for the second time. Seems I'll need to do it for a 3rd time...

Jorpho wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

All you mentioned is a firewall issue, it didn't work in 2k and worked in XP? But why bother with a 3rd party firewall if XP comes standard with a firewall already?

Either someone forgot to tell that to Norton, Comodo, Zone Labs, Online Armor, and so on, or clearly the XP firewall is something that can be improved upon.

Dude! Those companies want to sell their products and make money! They don't care if you don't even know XP already has a firewall! They only care about your money!
Sorry dude, but if you wander on some website of some software company which offers to sell you their new-and-improved-Windows-7-Super-File-Explorer, does that mean that you think the standard Windows 7 Explorer is no good??
And on top of that, if companies sell a firewall that doesn't work in 2k and isn't even needed in XP, why the heck would you buy it?

Jorpho wrote:

Whatever this difference is, it did not have much effect on my computing needs as I can hardly recall any other occasion when I came across something that would only run under XP and not 2k. You say there are many such programs, which surprises me.

Surprises you? You mentioned yourself STEAM won't work with 2k anymore? And neither will IE7, modern drivers and security updates. If THATS not enough reasons for you, then maybe you should start doing some of your own reading before throwing in arguments about 2k in a topic that's about ME 😜

Jorpho wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

However, since I'm already on XP, what good reasons can you give me to use 2k instead of XP in certain situations?
In other words, what can 2k do that XP can't? And I put it in bold explicitly since you seem to be evading this question the whole time now.

Will you please re-read the last paragraph of my previous post!? Heck, take a look at my last post on page 4!

heres your last paragraph of your previous post:

Jorpho wrote:

Let me be clear that I am not particularly arguing in favor of 2k over XP; you are quite welcome to use XP for gaming and I will in no way disparage your choice. I just want to know more about this assertion of yours, as it differs considerably from my experience. If my experience differs substantially from that of others, then it might be interesting to know why.

disparage my choice? Dude, I can choose whatever the hell I want lmao! And btw. you didn't answer my question, you simply threw it back at me!
So Jorpho, what reason would I have to use 2k instead of XP? You never answered my question, you're only evading it.
So far you've mentioned hardly anything in that regard.
And heres your end of page 4:

Jorpho wrote:

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.

Bit premature to be making sweeping statements like that, no? Maybe your XP installation just didn't like the way you "pimped" it.
I sorry, but I'm generally quite skeptical when someone says "I did this thing to my computer and then it worked better"
Do you have a specific, official source for this information?

Jorpho wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Then you come along and mention 2k is more decent then I give credit for.

Yes, that is

Wait wait wait, you're pulling things out of contect here!
We were having a discussion about ME, then YOU come along and bring 2k in the picture with the "2k is more stable" stuff!
What I then tried to tell you is that if you use ME and XP, theres simply no room for 2k anymore.
I never said 2k is a bad OS, only that there are better alternatives for it 😉
Please let THAT sink in. ME + XP = exit 2k.

Jorpho wrote:

I am not saying it is inherently superior to XP in some way. I want to know why you think 2k is so drastically inferior. And don't tell me about all the added features of XP; I know about those already. Tell me about these mysterious programs that will run under XP but will not run under 2k "without vast investment in time and efford".

I have given you my 'proof' as to why I think 2k isn't worth it, compared to XP.

And the major thrust of your argument is that "everyone else says so" ? And that it "seems" to work better with nLite? (We can deal with that in the other thread.)

Do you have a specific, official quote of mine where I say it "seems" to work better with nLite? Even better, what was I referring to?
And the major thrust being that everyone told me so? Nope, but maybe I'll just need to keep repeating the same thing to you over and over again till you get it, 🤣 😜
I'll do this from the top of my head, without looking for any official well documented and tripple signed sources yay!

XP vs 2k:
If I need to install an OS on a 'new' computer (mind you, this can also be some 10 year old rig I picked off the street) I can either pick 2k or XP, the standard install is all the same, both of them.
However, XP is receiving security updates, 2k isn't
XP seems to be easier to nLite then 2k, thus making XP easier to install then 2k.
Theres an advantage already, even if 2k and XP had the same functionality, I'd pick XP right there already!
XP comes standard with compatibility mode, in 2k I'd need to tweak it, manually
Actually, I'd need to tweak a LOT more in a fresh 2k install then a fresh XP install.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned a couple more, feel free to go look them up yourself 😜

So there you have it Jorpho. If XP and 2k act the same but 1 is harder to install, tweak and use, I'm obviously gonna pick the other as this is a logical choice. And actually, since you haven't been successful at bringing forth an argument what 2k can do better then XP, I'll just suppose that you just don't know any 😜
There, that's it! Now you can either start giving some reasons for choosing 2k over XP, or maybe you should just stop bothering 😜

Time for 2k to get it's own topic!
Link: Windows 2000, what can it be used for?

Tetrium wrote:

What I typed never implied that I implied that! 😜

Sure, fine, whatever. 😜

You didn't. I asked you before if you knew programs that work in 2k but not in XP, and you ignored it. I simply asked my own question to you for the second time. Seems I'll need to do it for a 3rd time...

Oh lordy. I apologize if I am being too subtle.

I HAVE NOT ENCOUNTERED ANY SPECIFIC SOFTWARE THAT RUNS UNDER WINDOWS 2000 BUT NOT UNDER WINDOWS XP.

THERE IS IN GENERAL NO PARTICULAR REASON TO RUN WINDOWS 2000 INSTEAD OF WINDOWS XP.

Happy now?

Jorpho wrote:

Dude! Those companies want to sell their products and make money! They don't care if you don't even know XP already has a firewall! They only care about your money!

If the XP firewall is adequate for you, great. But third party firewalls can offer considerably more flexibility, especially since they can offer protection for outbound connections. If you want to bring this up in another thread, you are welcome to.

Jorpho wrote:

You mentioned yourself STEAM won't work with 2k anymore?

That's a relatively recent development, though. Heck, I can even name another one, come to think of it - Google Chrome will run under XP but not 2k. But you say there are many other programs.

And neither will IE7, modern drivers and security updates. If THATS not enough reasons for you, then maybe you should start doing some of your own reading before throwing in arguments about 2k in a topic that's about ME 😜

Yes, I agree! That is a very good reason! I never denied that wasn't an excellent reason! It is a thoroughly compelling argument! But that is not what this is about!!!

Jorpho wrote:

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.

Yes, this is a specific statement about my individual experience and I certainly did not mean to imply that it should apply universally. Clearly I should take greater pains to emphasize this in the future when speaking of my specific experiences. I do not even deny that with further investigation I may very well arrive at a configuration in which XP runs faster than 2k on that particular computer.

Do you have a specific, official quote of mine where I say it "seems" to work better with nLite? Even better, what was I referring to?

Well, yes, you said "XP seems to be much more compatible with nLite then 2k."

XP comes standard with compatibility mode, in 2k I'd need to tweak it, manually

There is no "tweaking". You register a DLL. The End. (In fact, you can even use the Display control panel to drop down to 640x480x256 and run everything at that resolution if you're so inclined, whereas in XP you have to "manually" tweak those options yourself.)

I say again THERE IS IN GENERAL NO PARTICULAR REASON TO RUN WINDOWS 2000 INSTEAD OF WINDOWS XP. I just want to know why you were talking about programs that will run under XP but will not run under 2k without vast investment in time and effort, because I encountered very, very few programs that would run under XP and not 2k and I am very curious as to what software you are referring to - especially since those programs I encountered wouldn't run under 2k no matter how much time and effort anyone invested. That is the only thing in your post I was curious about and would never have thought of sullying this "Windows ME" thread with my query otherwise! That's all! Please?

Jorpho wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

What I typed never implied that I implied that! 😜

Sure, fine, whatever. 😜

Maybe you should start reading other people's posts more carefully before making bold statements?

Jorpho wrote:

Oh lordy. I apologize if I am being too subtle. […]
Show full quote

Tetrium wrote:

You didn't. I asked you before if you knew programs that work in 2k but not in XP, and you ignored it. I simply asked my own question to you for the second time. Seems I'll need to do it for a 3rd time...

Oh lordy. I apologize if I am being too subtle.

I HAVE NOT ENCOUNTERED ANY SPECIFIC SOFTWARE THAT RUNS UNDER WINDOWS 2000 BUT NOT UNDER WINDOWS XP.

THERE IS IN GENERAL NO PARTICULAR REASON TO RUN WINDOWS 2000 INSTEAD OF WINDOWS XP.

Happy now?

You could've just said so dude, no need for the ALL CAPS 😜

Jorpho wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Dude! Those companies want to sell their products and make money! They don't care if you don't even know XP already has a firewall! They only care about your money!

If the XP firewall is adequate for you, great. But third party firewalls can offer considerably more flexibility, especially since they can offer protection for outbound connections. If you want to bring this up in another thread, you are welcome to.

Bring this up? I never even bothered with replacing XP's standard firewall, and the friend I know that did had nothing but trouble with them.
I'll just continue to use XP firewall since it seems to work and no point in trying to fix something that isn't broken in the first place.

Jorpho wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

You mentioned yourself STEAM won't work with 2k anymore?

That's a relatively recent development, though. Heck, I can even name another one, come to think of it - Google Chrome will run under XP but not 2k. But you say there are many other programs.

No, I said there are many programs.

Jorpho wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

And neither will IE7, modern drivers and security updates. If THATS not enough reasons for you, then maybe you should start doing some of your own reading before throwing in arguments about 2k in a topic that's about ME 😜

Yes, I agree! That is a very good reason! I never denied that wasn't an excellent reason! It is a thoroughly compelling argument! But that is not what this is about!!!.

Then what is this about???.

Jorpho wrote:

Jorpho wrote:

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.

Yes, this is a specific statement about my individual experience and I certainly did not mean to imply that it should apply universally. Clearly I should take greater pains to emphasize this in the future when speaking of my specific experiences. I do not even deny that with further investigation I may very well arrive at a configuration in which XP runs faster than 2k on that particular computer.

Then what was your point exactly?

Jorpho wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Do you have a specific, official quote of mine where I say it "seems" to work better with nLite? Even better, what was I referring to?

Well, yes, you said "XP seems to be much more compatible with nLite then 2k."

I'm not sure why this is even a question for you. Read this:
nLite, slimming down 2000 and XP.
it's very clear about nLite and 2k. Heck, you even replied to this yourself which means you've already read it, 🤣

Jorpho wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

XP comes standard with compatibility mode, in 2k I'd need to tweak it, manually

There is no "tweaking". You register a DLL. The End. (In fact, you can even use the Display control panel to drop down to 640x480x256 and run everything at that resolution if you're so inclined, whereas in XP you have to "manually" tweak those options yourself.)

Needing to register a dll for 2k when in XP it isn't even needed is exactly what a tweak is dude.
If you install 2k you'll be running a much older OS out of the box then installing XP out of the box. My XP runs out of the box with SP2 so out of the box I need to apply much fewer updates, tweaks and programs in order to make my OS work the way I want it 😉

Jorpho wrote:

I say again THERE IS IN GENERAL NO PARTICULAR REASON TO RUN WINDOWS 2000 INSTEAD OF WINDOWS XP. I just want to know why you were talking about programs that will run under XP but will not run under 2k without vast investment in time and effort, because I encountered very, very few programs that would run under XP and not 2k and I am very curious as to what software you are referring to - especially since those programs I encountered wouldn't run under 2k no matter how much time and effort anyone invested. That's all! Please?

I was talking about this because that's the way it is. Since I'm pretty much sure I gave enough examples already and you seem to be not absorbing what I wrote, it seems you don't even want to know, you just want to nitpick 😜
Since I see no advantage this nitpicking has in light of the discussion, I see no reason for you to do this other then personal reasons of you, and of course your reasons aren't mine 😜

Oh man..I really love ME *drools*
The funny thing is, from time to time I pull out one of my ME boxes, boot the bugger up and once I hear the startup sound and look at the desktop, it even feels a little as if I've come home!
I don't have this with 95 🤣

Tetrium wrote:

You could've just said so dude, no need for the ALL CAPS 😜

I thought I did! Several times!

Jorpho wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Do you have a specific, official quote of mine where I say it "seems" to work better with nLite? Even better, what was I referring to?

Well, yes, you said "XP seems to be much more compatible with nLite then 2k."

I'm not sure why this is even a question for you.

There was a question?

Tetrium wrote:

Jorpho wrote:

I say again THERE IS IN GENERAL NO PARTICULAR REASON TO RUN WINDOWS 2000 INSTEAD OF WINDOWS XP. I just want to know why you were talking about programs that will run under XP but will not run under 2k without vast investment in time and effort, because I encountered very, very few programs that would run under XP and not 2k and I am very curious as to what software you are referring to - especially since those programs I encountered wouldn't run under 2k no matter how much time and effort anyone invested. That's all! Please?

I was talking about this because that's the way it is. Since I'm pretty much sure I gave enough examples already and you seem to be not absorbing what I wrote, it seems you don't even want to know, you just want to nitpick 😜

You've given examples as to why XP is superior to 2k, but the only one who has given examples of programs that run under XP but not 2k is me, and I can't even think of more than a couple! That is the only thing I wanted to know about!

Since I see no advantage this nitpicking has in light of the discussion, I see no reason for you to do this other then personal reasons of you, and of course your reasons aren't mine 😜

I'll take that to mean you know of no such programs after all. 😜

Jorpho wrote:

I thought I did! Several times! […]
Show full quote

Tetrium wrote:

You could've just said so dude, no need for the ALL CAPS 😜

I thought I did! Several times!

Jorpho wrote:

Well, yes, you said "XP seems to be much more compatible with nLite then 2k."

I'm not sure why this is even a question for you.

There was a question?

Tetrium wrote:

Jorpho wrote:

I say again THERE IS IN GENERAL NO PARTICULAR REASON TO RUN WINDOWS 2000 INSTEAD OF WINDOWS XP. I just want to know why you were talking about programs that will run under XP but will not run under 2k without vast investment in time and effort, because I encountered very, very few programs that would run under XP and not 2k and I am very curious as to what software you are referring to - especially since those programs I encountered wouldn't run under 2k no matter how much time and effort anyone invested. That's all! Please?

I was talking about this because that's the way it is. Since I'm pretty much sure I gave enough examples already and you seem to be not absorbing what I wrote, it seems you don't even want to know, you just want to nitpick 😜

You've given examples as to why XP is superior to 2k, but the only one who has given examples of programs that run under XP but not 2k is me, and I can't even think of more than a couple! That is the only thing I wanted to know about!

Since I see no advantage this nitpicking has in light of the discussion, I see no reason for you to do this other then personal reasons of you, and of course your reasons aren't mine 😜

I'll take that to mean you know of no such programs after all. 😜

Yes I do. If you want a list, have a look here:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/133014-last-v … r-windows-2000/

Seems I do know of such programs after all 😜

And about that question thing:

Jorpho wrote:

And the major thrust of your argument is that "everyone else says so" ? And that it "seems" to work better with nLite?

which is entirely not the case. I never said "because everyone else says so".
The "seems" part was what you stumbled about, but since I've provided 'proof' of why I said it, even mentioned you shouldn't have questioned this in the first place, you're not even trying to read what other people say.
All you do is nitpick, take what other people write, pull it out of their context (just like you did with the "seems" part) and try to persuade people to go into an exchange of what is nothing more then "show of grammer and logic" and has nothing to do with discussing ME.

Keropi mentioned ME running better on his rig then 98SE, but you start questioning him. later you mentioned 2k running better then XP, so I started questioning that.

And it seems you rather disliked me for it, constantly pushing just-that-little-thing you said, yet it seems you don't really care if you do exactly that to others. This is just kinda lame, Jorpho.

If the way other people talk about their experiences isn't in the way you like, then just accept that people are different. On this forum it means people have one thing in common:The love of vintage computing.

But everyone here reacts to it in a different way, do other things with old hardware. Heck, people even like different old hardware then others!

And what people also do differently here is in the way they bring forward their knowledge and experiences.

Jorpho, I'm pretty sure you know quite a lot about retro computing, otherwise you wouldn't even be here, right? 😉
But the way you react to what other people write makes them feel 'put down', and nobody likes that. Not even you 😜

I hope I proved my point 😉

Tetrium wrote:

Yes I do. If you want a list, have a look here:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/133014-last-v … r-windows-2000/

Seems I do know of such programs after all 😜

Thank you! Was that so hard? If you'd posted that a page ago I would have had no problem.

And about that question thing:

If you want to start dealing with some personal beef, we might as well take it to a PM rather than cluttering up the thread further.

Jorpho wrote:

Thank you! Was that so hard? If you'd posted that a page ago I would have had no problem. […]
Show full quote

Tetrium wrote:

Yes I do. If you want a list, have a look here:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/133014-last-v … r-windows-2000/

Seems I do know of such programs after all 😜

Thank you! Was that so hard? If you'd posted that a page ago I would have had no problem.

And about that question thing:

If you want to start dealing with some personal beef, we might as well take it to a PM rather than cluttering up the thread further.

If you actually did a google search you could've found that list yourself 😜
And I'd suggest you be more careful about how you react to other people's posts, it clutters up threads 😉
However, for some reason you just wanted to hear it from me directly. It's not the information you want, it's the reaction of the person you're asking it that you want.

I don't see what use pm's would have here, you know all you need to know already.

Have a nice day!

What the..?

You can have the last word if you want it, sir.

Wooooo I got the last word!!1 TIME TO PAAAARTYYY!!

awesome!!!! I wanna partaaayy too!!! can I?

Jorpho my advice to you is to carefully read what Tetrium told you so far. You always come up with funny excuses like "proof" (you never provided yourself "proof" of anything and you have a REALLY HARD TIME to listen to other's ppl experience which makes me wonder WHY bother on a forum) and stuff like "thread cluttering" where you yourself create it in the first place.
Now excuse me, I wanna partaaaay too.

I made a thread about 2k and about nLite (or maybe more about slipstreaming), any discussion about 2k can be done there.
2k and ME look very similar but are vastly different under the hood. Iirc 2k didn't come with support for USB sticks out of the box which ME did...or does.

There is a service pack for ME (unofficial though, and only in a couple languages, excluding Dutch). I gave it a try on a Dutch ME in VPC. It did seem to work, but half the text of my ME install became English and half remained Dutch. Kinda annoying, but at least you can still have it do some tweaks without turning Dutch ME into some kind of Dutch/English hybrid 😜
But for the English ME this service pack should work fine.
Heres the page:
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#ME1
There's a SP1 and a (seemingly) buggy SP2. I never tried SP2 but SP1 seemed to work just fine.
The good thing is, when it runs, it'll give you a list of what you want the SP to do and what not 😉

The MDGX site is sooo vast, it would take hours just to absorb all the stuff that's on there. And the sites a bit a jungle, at least it is for me 😜

Theres also the Revolutions Pack, but I never tried it, I think.

One of the things I wanted to do with ME is install the latest version of IE6, but it was hard for me to track down a Dutch -full- copy. I only found the 400kb version which you need an internet connection for.
In the end I found a Dutch full copy of IE6 sp1, it was on the Microsoft 2003 (?) security CD.
If you're using a non-English version of ME, it might be worth it to grab this CD quick if it were ever to float past your hands 😉

Another interesting thing may be Revolutions Pack 9.
Link: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/131040-revolutions-pack-97/
And heres another page with a couple interesting apps:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/131700-tihiys-tools/

I'd only like to point out that I'm not sure if these behave well in any non-English ME.

Another thing I did maybe 2 years ago? I set an ME machine on the net and had it download all updates from MS.com. I was surprised it still worked!
I kept all the downloaded files. I think all of them together was some 260MB??
If anyone knows of a way to download all of the old updates from MS in 1 go for any Windows 9x, feel free to post about it here. I'd love to be able to do that, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

With all these new apps for ME I'm actually starting to get tempted to do one or 2 ME installs, especially since I now own an English ME 😁

that ME SP1 is nice, I have it installed too... I avoided the buggy(?) SP2 and the other pack ...
I have no idea if you can still download updates from MS, will try that next week and see what I get for my English ME install 😀

Tetrium wrote:

If anyone knows of a way to download all of the old updates from MS in 1 go for any Windows 9x, feel free to post about it here. I'd love to be able to do that, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

If you mean that you want to download all the updates from the MS server directly, then I wouldn't know.

But if you just want all the updates from MS in their official, original KB packages (and not pre-assembled in some unofficial service pack), then they're included in Autopatcher 98. They're in the "files" subfolder once you run the installer.
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#AP98

I used the autopatcher once. never seen a batch file run for so long, it included numerous reboots! ...and it worked too, really quite amazing.
Too bad autopatcher is made for 98SE and not for ME so I'd rather not try to run it on ME.

I could get another ME online and maybe the MS windows update thingy would still work.
It would be fantastic however if there were a way to download all of them without having to use that OS specifically (like using XP to download all ME or 98SE updates at once, storing them locally for future use)

There was a CD that Microsoft distributed freely if you asked for it (at least that was my case) called Microsoft Windows Security Update CD. It was released between some months and it included all the critical security updates (for XP, ME, 2K, W98SE and W98FE), and other applications up to the date the CD was released. I have the February 2004 one, so it includes all the patches released up to that time, for all those OSs. By that time, shouldn't it already include all the patches ever released for ME ?
And yes, you can still download updates for ME from Microsoft using Windows Update.

unmei220 wrote:

And yes, you can still download updates for ME from Microsoft using Windows Update.

ooo thats great news!
Do you happen to know if Windows Update also works for any of the other 9x OS'es?

As ME is the one I use, I don't know for other OSs. I guess you're referring to OSs prior to that, and the only one updatable prior to ME was 98 I think, and I guess if it still work for ME, it should for 98 too.

unmei220 wrote:

As ME is the one I use, I don't know for other OSs. I guess you're referring to OSs prior to that, and the only one updatable prior to ME was 98 I think, and I guess if it still work for ME, it should for 98 too.

It does indeed still work, but of course you still get the Microsoft EOL messages too 😉

Sorry for reviving a really old thread, but days ago, i found an old Packard Bell iconnect 2860 with Windows ME installed and decided to try out WIndows ME on that PC, despite how was the OS crictizied, Windows ME ran perfectly on that machine and no crashes so far, i didn't see it BSOD'ing ethier. Also Windows ME unlike Windows 98, recorgnized USB drives out of the box. I hope this ME install goes well and not like when it was expected to crash or fail. I was more of a Windows 98 SE guy for really old PCs, but Windows ME did impress me at some point (about running without issues or some features)

The PC specs are:

Intel Pentium III 866 MHz
512 MB RAM (originally 64 MB RAM)
Gigabyte GA-6WMM7 OEM version for Packard Bell
Realtek RTL8139 PCI network card
AMR Modem
Creative CT-7235-VDQ card
Quantumn Fireball lct 20 GB + Seagate 7200.7 120 GB HDD
Windows ME