the3dfxdude wrote on 2021-06-25, 20:45:

Shreddoc wrote on 2021-06-21, 00:17:

ME's problem (standard intergenerational teething issues aside) is that it was an incremental, gap-filling release whose improvements were easily dismissed by contrast to the NT-based next gen that everybody knew was coming*. A quick wax, polish and tuning [ME] before swapping out the entire engine [XP].

Well, and even the WinME team at Microsoft seemed to hate it and wanted to move to NT5.1+ projects because that kernel was technically superior. It's actually a bit of a miracle ME wasn't cancelled given the tight schedule -- it pretty much did not make sense. It probably only happened because NT5 kept slipping and some boss wanted a product launch of windows for home users in 2000. I mean, look at XP on launch in 2001, still wasn't actually ready... so what home version could they really ship in 2000?

Hm. Maybe the MS people simply wanted to get rid of the whole 9x line altogether, so they could focus on one platform (Win CE excepted)? 😉

Anyway, I think that Me is/was interesting still and that it was a good thing to happen.
I mean, Win Me is/was literally a fusion of Windows 98SE and Windows 2000 - two of the most valued Windowses of the time.
Some people even nicknamed it Windows 98 Third Edition at the time.

That being said, Windows Me didn't have an easy start when it was launched.
It was primarily sold as an upgrade and had higher minimum requirements than 98SE.
Also, its OEM versions sometimes were dongled to a specific BIOS..
I experienced that myself in the early 2000s.
This totally took the fun out of it. Normally, you can swap the HDD or the motherboard and Win 98SE does at least boot up in safe-mode, but in case of Win Me..
Well, it didn't work. It even spit out an error message regarding the BIOS/PC being wrong, I remember.

Let's remember, this was before the days of online activation.
Back then, users were used to be able to install their Windows on any system and
a valid CD key was all that mattered.

That being said, Windows Me in the hands of an advanced user wasn't that bad at all.
Maybe that's why our modern experience with Me is better:
We have become experienced users with patience and wisdom.
By contrast, back then many users installed/uninstalled lots of software on a regular basis and didn't care about the effects this would have to the underlying OS.
Also, 9x drivers were still immature at the turn of the century and not aware of Win Me yet.

Windows 9x drivers consisted of a wild mix of 16-Bit/32-Bit code (DRV/VXD/WDM), often with DOS Real-Mode drivers (SYS/COM/EXE) included.
Unfortunately, Windows Me did delete Autoexec.bat and Config.sys during boot, which also broke the Windows 9x parts of a driver package: DOS utilities that initialized the hardware were never run in first place.

So all in all, the experience was pretty bad for some users. Comparably to Windows XP without Service Pack, maybe.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that the system is/was completely flawed.
Sure, it was quickly thrown together. But with parts from Windows 2000, the best MS OS at the time!
Hm. It's different to judge about Win Me, I think.
Because, it didn't run best in the era it was released.
But on the other hand, it ran kinda well with the hardware that was released afterwards.
See, Windows Me tends to run well with Windows XP (WDM) era hardware.
Pentium IV, Athlon etc. The kind of hardware that troubled Windoes 98SE a bit.
So are these "alternative facts" really fake ? 😉

cyclone3d wrote on 2021-09-01, 01:02:

Shreddoc wrote on 2021-09-01, 00:36:

cyclone3d wrote on 2021-08-31, 23:30:

Did anybody you do Beta testing in Windows ME? back then it was very simple to sign up to have the Beta versions mailed to you from MS. I still have the CD zip folder they sent at one point. They also sent out some sticky-notes and I think a few other small things.

I did the same for 98SE and still have the final CD but it refuses to accept the CD key that was provided with it for some reason. It did work back in the day but when I tried to use it years later it wouldn't work.

Beta key expiration date -related, perhaps?

Maybe,but it still wouldn't work even with the date set way back so not sure.

Hm. Maybe the clock must be set to very narrow time frame?
I've done some experiments with older trial software in the past and some of them need to be run in a very small time frame,
spanning a few months only.
If the date was set too early, the program didn't run, either.

Like any OSs ME performed fine on good suitable hardware. The biggest gripe wrt ME was you could not boot directly to the Dos prompt. Some found it was a good idea to disable the back up featcher as the backups took up space on the users hdd and hickups also were reported.

The 2004 security rollup cover quite a few versions of MS Windows. I remember picking the CD of from one of the local computer shop counters.

And as always be wary of white vans with little men in them wearing white coats.....

Edit: well wouldn't you know it that CD is in my software pile on the bench:

I'm looking forward to my first proper Windows Me build. I like that it's the last 9x release but contains some later NT features and interface updates. And with some effort it seems like you can change/revert some of the more annoying features like no easy DOS access.

I was given one of those eMachines eTower "NEVER OBSOLETE" boxes. The chassis is heavy, hollow sounding, the fan is loud, and the included hardware is pretty underwhelming. So far that's my only experience of Me on a real box, but the previous owner used it quite a bit. Lots of software installed. I don't have specs or a socket picked out for a future build yet, but I would love to really spend some time getting solid hardware and configuring everything properly. Something that can demonstrate Me doesn't have to live up to its less than stellar reputation, haha.

Cosmic wrote on 2021-09-01, 05:10:

I'm looking forward to my first proper Windows Me build. I like that it's the last 9x release but contains some later NT features and interface updates. And with some effort it seems like you can change/revert some of the more annoying features like no easy DOS access.

I was given one of those eMachines eTower "NEVER OBSOLETE" boxes. The chassis is heavy, hollow sounding, the fan is loud, and the included hardware is pretty underwhelming. So far that's my only experience of Me on a real box, but the previous owner used it quite a bit. Lots of software installed. I don't have specs or a socket picked out for a future build yet, but I would love to really spend some time getting solid hardware and configuring everything properly. Something that can demonstrate Me doesn't have to live up to its less than stellar reputation, haha.

Exactly...😉

Welcome to the funny farm Cosmic.

Cosmic wrote on 2021-09-01, 05:10:

The chassis is heavy, hollow sounding, the fan is loud, and the included hardware is pretty underwhelming.

sounds like the start of many a fine adventure 😀

I run Windows Me on my Socket 370 Tualatin PC. I went for it because I wanted the out of box USB functionality and some of the Windows 2000 goodness that got injected by then. The system also had the RAM and processing power to run it smoothly, and backwards compatibility with DOS was not a major issue for that particular build. To my surprise, that PC runs quite smoothly and stable. I don't seem to be running into the millions of issues I ran into with Windows Me (which I immediately abandoned for Windows 2000 as soon as it was released, and I avoided XP for most of its lifetime thanks to that) but that may have to do with using much more mature drivers that were released well into that OS's lifetime. For shits and gigles I want to throw together a Pentium II system with 1998-ish hardware and install drivers from the year 2000 and see how well that goes..

appiah4 wrote on 2021-09-02, 01:46:

I don't seem to be running into the millions of issues I ran into with Windows Me (which I immediately abandoned for Windows 2000 as soon as it was released, and I avoided XP for most of its lifetime thanks to that)

Windows 2000 was released before WinME. In fact, Win2000 coming out before, I remember talking with others then as NT being very usable for anyone, and that using a non-NT OS at that point might mean WinME's release could be very pointless. I think that led to even MS itself kind of trashing on it as "unstable".

I did get to use WinME a bit, and it was definitely stable (as much as any 9x version) once system restore was turned off and then patched with the patches that fixed those issues. But very few cared, so you know the poor release reception killed its reputation.

Well, Win2K was available for purchase as a student copy in my region after Me.

There was a lot going on- Y2k, SCO verses everybody except MickySoft , Red Hat 6.2/7.0s ftp service had a serious flaw etc.....