Windows ME running stable as heck, Why didn't people like it?

[supsx]

I have been running Windows ME on an old box for a week now, along with a bunch of other OSes, including some linux distros and 98SE, Vista, Win7.

I would say out of all of them this is the best OS for this computer, runs as good as Windows 98SE and easier installation because it detects everything without having to install drivers. This used to be my old box where I had windows XP running on it for 3-4 years and XP was a nightmare always crashed BSOD for no reason, before XP I had 98SE and ran that for 3 years and it also ran great unlike XP.

Now with the first time running ME on it, I am so disapointed I stuck with XP for so long, I should have gotten ME. The only difference I think from most people installations is I like to tweak a lot of things when I install something and maybe thats why it hasen't crashed at all so far. That or people just like to pretend they used something and follow the norm and say it sucks.

Also like I said I am running Vista and Windows 7 on here, if I had to choose between the 2 I would prefer Windows Vista even on this old clunker after tweaking it runs smooth as silk but slower then ME. Windows 7 I had crash a couple of times and hate the new Taskbar and start menu, can't customize it either. In this case I think I am also a little bias twords Vista because I am running it on my new computer for 4 months now with no problems so ignore this last paragraph.

Other then that back to my original question, why didn't people like ME or are the just following what others have said about it? Maybe its just because I have a background with computers? Also why is Vista being put down like ME?

[board123]

Most people are technologically ********. It's in the genes.

With that said, I've never used ME. I jumped from 98 to XP to Vista.

[RCGA]

ME was the worst POS software I have ever used.

It's the only Windows that I had got a BSOD and always crashed (at least once every two weeks)

Having said that, I never had a problem with 3.1, 95, 98SE, xp, vista or 7

[board123]

Also why is Vista being put down like ME?
Now to answer this question...

People were too used to XP. They used it for years and got used to the OS that nowadays feels like an antiquated piece of crap. Vista was too big and too sudden of a change for them, so they rejected it. If you look up the most common reasons for why people dislike Vista, I'd wager that only a fourth of them are legitimate at best.

Next up: Win 7. People absolutely love Win 7. It's such a big improvement over Vista, when in reality it's Vista with a slightly modified interface and updated kernel. The irony? People argue that Vista is just XP with a different look, which is why it sucks.

[Kasakato]

ME was the worst. It would crash at least once a week.

[Riffer]

Same reason for me; ME crashed a lot. I went back to 98SE and gave it to my Sister.

[mattbonner]

mostly just bsod'd a lot

[Jon Lai]

Now to answer this question...

People were too used to XP. They used it for years and got used to the OS that nowadays feels like an antiquated piece of crap. Vista was too big and too sudden of a change for them, so they rejected it. If you look up the most common reasons for why people dislike Vista, I'd wager that only a fourth of them are legitimate at best.

Next up: Win 7. People absolutely love Win 7. It's such a big improvement over Vista, when in reality it's Vista with a slightly modified interface and updated kernel. The irony? People argue that Vista is just XP with a different look, which is why it sucks.

Most people, myself included, didn't like Vista because it wasn't polished. Win7 is a polished version of Vista, that's it.

ME sucked because it was highly incompatible with hardware and drivers. It always crashed and BSOD'ed because of drive incompatibilities. It was a pain in the neck to find drivers for ME.

[board123]

Most people, myself included, didn't like Vista because it wasn't polished. Win7 is a polished version of Vista, that's it.
I wouldn't say that's the reason for most people, since what seems like an overwhelming portion of Vista bashers have never even used the OS. Add that to the fact that most people are technologically ********, and you'll get end up with a fairly small portion of people who dislike Vista due to legitimate technical reasons.

I think the bottom line was that Vista got a lot of bad press due to all the wrong reasons, and Microsoft did a terrible job of damage control.

[darius_m5]

to OP, April Fools day is on April 1st.

[rabbit]

Wow, ME ... it's been a long time. I didn't use it for that long.
- bloated
- old hardware wasn't supported
- lack of DOS commands

I did like that it had the network tray icon like in Win2000, though. Asides from that, I didn't see any advantage using ME over 98SE.

[ItemFinder]

Hell's pretty unstable.

[Jon Lai]

I wouldn't say that's the reason for most people, since what seems like an overwhelming portion of Vista bashers have never even used the OS. Add that to the fact that most people are technologically ********, and you'll get end up with a fairly small portion of people who dislike Vista due to legitimate technical reasons.

I think the bottom line was that Vista got a lot of bad press due to all the wrong reasons, and Microsoft did a terrible job of damage control.

I was talking about the people who have used it before.

[board123]

I was talking about the people who have used it before.
And of those people, a lot of them used it for a few days and then "formatted and installed XP."

[DJ Dennis]

Vista tanked because Microsoft decided to unleash those "certified for windows vista" stickers on computers that couldn't run it, and people bought into it. Plus having to disable UAC every time I format is pretty annoying.

[board123]

Vista tanked because Microsoft decided to unleash those "certified for windows vista" stickers on computers that couldn't run it, and people bought into it.
I think OEMs had a lot of say in that. You're talking about systems that were "Windows Vista Capable", which they certainly were. They met the minimum requirements and could run Aero. This was before Vista even launched, as OEMs wanted to sell more systems during the back to school season of 2006 in anticipation of the Vista launch.

[flyz]

I think OEMs had a lot of say in that. You're talking about systems that were "Windows Vista Capable", which they certainly were. They met the minimum requirements and could run Aero. This was before Vista even launched, as OEMs wanted to sell more systems during the back to school season of 2006 in anticipation of the Vista launch.

They were, until the bloatware that comes along an OEM system made Vista slow :(.

The only complaint I have on Vista is the large file transfers to XP. I can manage to 'pull' the file from my Vista machine on XP and it'll go through fine but doing the reverse, most transfers usually fail. I've done the usual disable network throttle to disabling remote differential compression to no avail.

[board123]

They were, until the bloatware that comes along an OEM system made Vista slow :(.
Most of those systems shipped with 1 GB of memory. That was the key problem.

[RCGA]

Vista tanked because Microsoft decided to unleash those "certified for windows vista" stickers on computers that couldn't run it, and people bought into it. Plus having to disable UAC every time I format is pretty annoying.

Bingo!

Also, Vista pre SP1 was a piece of ****. I'm running a C2D 2.0ghz @ 4gb ram and pre sp1 vista took FOREVER to load up. SP1 fixed a lot of issues.

[supsx]

Well doing some more research it seems like Windows ME crashes were because of Hardware incompatibility (also some others confirmed in this topic) and I guess since Microsoft dumped it to soon it never got the support it deserved. I guess I am lucky my hardware is fine for it.

To the guy that said Windows ME is bloated? How about XP, a lot more bloat on that and I had to tinker it a lot more and there is no real dos in XP so that shouldn't be a problem just use dosbox or something.

The UAC people complain about in Vista isn't a problem for me, I haven't had a popup in about 2 months and its still enabled. Maybe people surf too much porn sites with viruses or something to get them everyday.

[Kasakato]

Well doing some more research it seems like Windows ME crashes were because of Hardware incompatibility (also some others confirmed in this topic) and I guess since Microsoft dumped it to soon it never got the support it deserved. I guess I am lucky my hardware is fine for it.

To the guy that said Windows ME is bloated? How about XP, a lot more bloat on that and I had to tinker it a lot more and there is no real dos in XP so that shouldn't be a problem just use dosbox or something.

The UAC people complain about in Vista isn't a problem for me, I haven't had a popup in about 2 months and its still enabled. Maybe people surf too much porn sites with viruses or something to get them everyday.
You never copy files into the windows directory? Never transfer across a network? Never uninstall/install programs? Vista is annoying.

[flyz]

SP1 fixed a lot of issues.

Too bad not enough, there's still a few lingering issues but lets hope SP2 fixes all that. I would jump on the RC build but I lose unicode for all the asian languages....

[supsx]

You never copy files into the windows directory? Never transfer across a network? Never uninstall/install programs? Vista is annoying.

No I don't copy things to the windows directory, why would I want to copy things there, its not what its for and I am a home user and don't have a network.

As for uninstalling installing things thats all taken care of when I first setup my computer. Removed things that I didn't want and installed another 50 things I use daily, including small things I use once in a while.

I made a list of everything I used on my old computer then installed on new computer, took about 2 weeks to configure and tweak everything like I like it then I made an image with Acronis true image 12 so I don't have to waste another 2 weeks if my hard drive crashes.

[pitz]

What I really didn't like about Windows 98 and ME, was the fact that Windows NT 4.0 was, by far, a superior product (true pre-emptitive multitasking, multiprocessor support, security, stability), and the existence of 98 and ME forced developers to support multiple products, usually to the detriment to the much most stable (albeit slightly more expensive to acquire) NT 4.0.

Further, the existence of 98 and ME meant that resources within Microsoft that could have been used to implement all the latest/greatest technology and API's on NT 4.0, was being used to implement those API's on 98/ME for the mass 'consumer' market.

98 and ME set Microsoft's technology platform and roadmap back a couple years at least. NT 4.0 was such a revolutionary product, ran well in 64mb of RAM, that there really was no excuse to pursue the 98/ME platforms.

[Jon Lai]

No I don't copy things to the windows directory, why would I want to copy things there, its not what its for and I am a home user and don't have a network.

As for uninstalling installing things thats all taken care of when I first setup my computer. Removed things that I didn't want and installed another 50 things I use daily, including small things I use once in a while.

Some times you might want to copy into the Windows directory:
1) Installing new fonts
2) Installing new drivers
etc...

And I like to install things as I find use for them. Why bloat up your system from day 1?

And come on, everyone has a network these days... unless you live alone, but even then, you should have a computer, and a file server :lol: Home user does NOT mean you shouldn't have a network. I'm a "home" user and I have 7 components across my network. It's all about networking nowadays, living in solitude is scary.

I can't understand how anyone can live with UAC enabled. It also pops up everyday when the virus scanning program updates itself. That's gotta be annoying.

[ji2o0k]

never really used ME......I got some weird hacked version of it and it installed properly but would crash when I was playing around with it. Not sure if it was because of the hacked version or the actual OS. Never played around with it long enough to find out.

Win98SE was awesome, I loved it even though it would crash from time to time. I grew up playing many PC games on Win98SE (like Quake2, Need For Speed, Duke and even CS!).....

[Digital_Domain]

You never copy files into the windows directory? Never transfer across a network? Never uninstall/install programs? Vista is annoying.
+1

I installed my WAMP server within Program Files and UAC would block everything. On top of that, it never threw a warning that nothing was being saved! I go to edit a php file, save my changes, retest the file and get the same error and check the file again and my changes are gone. I normally install to C:\dev but for some reason I thought Program Files would be a better choice this time.

I can't understand how anyone can live with UAC enabled. It also pops up everyday when the virus scanning program updates itself. That's gotta be annoying.
It shows up EVERY time I start Winamp. It's trying to block Winamp from checking for version updates, so I just disabled version checking and now I'm like 5 versions behind, lol.

ME just crashed a lot on my friends and I was always helping them out so I just stuck with 98SE. If you want stable and classic, go for Win2k.

[AudiDude]

Most of those systems shipped with 1 GB of memory. That was the key problem.

+1
People buy computers without enough memory now. I added memory until the computer stopped feeling more snappy and found that you better put as much RAM as the thing will hold (with XP/Win2K). The minimum I would run XP on is 2GB while I see people running 512 MB. Window 98SE drove me nuts by never shutting down and hanging on the "Windows is shutting down" screen forever. I never had any problems with ME. I never had BSOD problems.

People don't like new operating systems at all, they never have. They don't like anything different and they call everything bloatware because they are running new software that is trying to exploit the powerful RAM/CPU/Video card they don't have because they are using an old computer that never had enough juice even with the old OS. This is where you can learn from the majority of Mac owners who just run the same config until the computer needs replacing (ok , I mean until when they will finally admit it needs replacing which will take at least 10 years before reality sinks in).

My C2D 8600 with 8 gigs of RAM and a Velociraptor 300 with a 260 GTX OC runs Vista 64 Ultimate smooth as butter with all the eye candy turned on.

I don't run any antivirus because when the message pops up that says "Click here for free ______", I just say no. I have a Win2K server with 4gigs of RAM and an AMD 4800x2 using a Velociraptor 150 and can tell you the OS doesn't really run any faster than when I was using a AMD 64 3500+ and a 36 gig Raptor. There is a limit.

[hades]

No I don't copy things to the windows directory, why would I want to copy things there, its not what its for and I am a home user and don't have a network.

ex:
- Bad drivers that were installed, need to wipe them out and put new ones in.
- Fonts

Rare, but it does happen.

Regarding the networking. Vista was a pain, both speed issues, and it took me at least an hour to figure out how to let XP see my Vista files. This same process takes 1 minute in XP or Win7.

Alright, I might not be your typical 'home' user, but for a family of 2 adults + 1 baby, we have 7 computers, and 5 other networked devices. Networking is critical. Vista failed here. And yes, I used it exclusively for 3 months.

WinME, BSOD'd a LOT, it was horrible. The improvements (like XP->Vista) were not worth it. Just did not make sense to upgrade.

hades

[flyz]

ex:
- Bad drivers that were installed, need to wipe them out and put new ones in.
- Fonts

Rare, but it does happen.

Regarding the networking. Vista was a pain, both speed issues, and it took me at least an hour to figure out how to let XP see my Vista files. This same process takes 1 minute in XP or Win7.

Alright, I might not be your typical 'home' user, but for a family of 2 adults + 1 baby, we have 7 computers, and 5 other networked devices. Networking is critical. Vista failed here. And yes, I used it exclusively for 3 months.

WinME, BSOD'd a LOT, it was horrible. The improvements (like XP->Vista) were not worth it. Just did not make sense to upgrade.

hades

I just do the \\computername\sharename and it works every time connecting to a Vista machine from XP.

[ppl4golf]

I had Window Me and also Window XP Professional years ago. I tested an older computer with both OS.

For some strange reason, the CPU temperature was like >45°C when on Me but <40°C when running XP. Needless to say, that was the last time I used Window Me. BSOD becomes rare issue except for hardware issues like certain RAM on Asus mobos.

[board123]

For some strange reason, the CPU temperature was like >45°C when on Me but <40°C when running XP. Needless to say, that was the last time I used Window Me.
This makes no sense. Wouldn't you actually try to figure out what's causing the discrepancy?

[M-e-X-x]

Ran Vista for a while, then couldn't stand the speed (or lack thereof) and annoyances. Dropped back down to XP and vroom, much faster.

Shuttle XPC, AMD athlon64 XP 3200, 2GB ram, 200GB Maxtor HDD (now 500GB Hitachi HDD)

[ppl4golf]

This makes no sense. Wouldn't you actually try to figure out what's causing the discrepancy?

I had no idea. The install was fairly clean for both.

The computer was an Athlon Thunderbird 1GHz, 256MB SDRAM...so anything in the background running is going to heat up the CPU a little bit.

[board123]

I had no idea. The install was fairly clean for both.

The computer was an Athlon Thunderbird 1GHz, 256MB SDRAM...so anything in the background running is going to heat up the CPU a little bit.
To heat up the CPU that much, it would need to be a ~20% load all the time. Wouldn't that be easily detectable? Or it could have been that whatever you were using to monitor temperatures had an issue with one of the operating systems. Maybe the XP system was displaying 5 degrees lower than what it's supposed to be?

It just doesn't make any sense to me that you would assume one of the operating systems to be "right" and toss away the other one without any investigation.

[Riflem@n]

Ran Vista for a while, then couldn't stand the speed (or lack thereof) and annoyances. Dropped back down to XP and vroom, much faster.

Shuttle XPC, AMD athlon64 XP 3200, 2GB ram, 200GB Maxtor HDD (now 500GB Hitachi HDD)

Well maybe it's because you have a Athlon64 "XP" 3200

[AudiDude]

Well maybe it's because you have a Athlon64 "XP" 3200

+1
Get that CPU some crutches!

[flyz]

Well maybe it's because you have a Athlon64 "XP" 3200

But I expect a previous generation hardware config to run a current OS! How dare they....

[board123]

Even with XP, I highly doubt it was "vroom" fast. I had an Athlon 64 3200+ (clocked to 2.5 GHz) for nearly two years and XP was okay, but definitely not that fast and snappy.

People exaggerate way too much.

[pitz]

XP ran (and still runs) very nice on a dual CPU P3-450 machine here. The key is the dual CPU's.

After you've used a computer with multiple processors...its nearly impossible to go back to that single CPU junk.

Can't even fathom trying to run Vista on a single CPU. Ick!

[flyz]

Even with XP, I highly doubt it was "vroom" fast. I had an Athlon 64 3200+ (clocked to 2.5 GHz) for nearly two years and XP was okay, but definitely not that fast and snappy.

People exaggerate way too much.

Well XP is vroom fast if you went to Vista with that.

[board123]

Well XP is vroom fast if you went to Vista with that.
I ran Vista with my Athlon 64 for a while, but then went back to XP for some reason. I don't remember what it was, but it had nothing to do with performance. I think it might have been the lack of driver support.


XP ran (and still runs) very nice on a dual CPU P3-450 machine here. The key is the dual CPU's.

After you've used a computer with multiple processors...its nearly impossible to go back to that single CPU junk.

Can't even fathom trying to run Vista on a single CPU. Ick!
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[Digital_Domain]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I've got a Dell P3-450 sitting right here on my desk with XP loaded on a CF card - it's not vroom fast (I'm sure the CF doesn't help), but it's not bad. Only has 384MB of RAM, but I'm running my custom strip down of XP so I'm only ~110MB used.

[board123]

I've got a Dell P3-450 sitting right here on my desk with XP loaded on a CF card - it's not vroom fast (I'm sure the CF doesn't help), but it's not bad. Only has 384MB of RAM, but I'm running my custom strip down of XP so I'm only ~110MB used.
I'm not talking about it being "vroom fast." I was referring to his comments about multi-processor systems.

[pitz]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Lol... Oh really?? :twisted:


I was referring to his comments about multi-processor systems.

Yeah the extra processors, even at low clock speeds, make systems far more usable, even if stuff's not threaded. My dual p3-450 is still very tolerable to use on a day-to-day basis. I have a P3-900 that's theoretically just as fast (2 x 450 = 900), but clearly the P3-450 kicks the P3-900's a**, because of the seperate CPU's, and the responsiveness under load, especially when my spreadsheets are recalculating.

[airjordan604]

shudders at the memory of ME... thankfully there was Windows 2000 at that time..

[rabbit]

> To the guy that said Windows ME is bloated? How about XP, a lot more bloat on that and I had to tinker it a lot more and there is no real dos in XP so that shouldn't be a problem just use dosbox or something.

How about you compare ME to 98, and compare XP to either 2000 or Vista?

[DJ Dennis]

On another note, any care to share how much memory Vista uses after boot up, and how fast it takes boot up?

Mine uses about 30% of 3GB Ram, and takes around 40 seconds to boot up, 20-30 seconds to shut down.

[Riffer]

I had XP running on a PIII 800 with 512MB of PC133 earlier in the year with no problem. I was using the rig as a testbed and for erasing harddrives etc. Of course, it was a clean install with very little extra garbage added.

[board123]

Lol... Oh really?? :twisted:



Yeah the extra processors, even at low clock speeds, make systems far more usable, even if stuff's not threaded. My dual p3-450 is still very tolerable to use on a day-to-day basis. I have a P3-900 that's theoretically just as fast (2 x 450 = 900), but clearly the P3-450 kicks the P3-900's a**, because of the seperate CPU's, and the responsiveness under load, especially when my spreadsheets are recalculating.
Which is why dual-core, quad-core and multi-core processors are better than single-core. There's no mystery here. Applications don't need to be threaded to take advantage of more processing cores if the OS can spread the load across multiple cores. Multi-processor workstation systems have existed for a long time; there would be no point if they provide no benefits. One of the main motivations for multi-processor systems is the ability to control more RAM, since one northbridge/memory controller can only access so much.

The P3-900 is not theoretically just as fast. You clearly don't know how multi-processor and multi-core scaling works.

[Sprite_TM]

i didnt have much trouble with ME except for times when it didnt boot up properly and i get stuck in the Windows ME screen.

[Sprite_TM]

On another note, any care to share how much memory Vista uses after boot up, and how fast it takes boot up?

Mine uses about 30% of 3GB Ram, and takes around 40 seconds to boot up, 20-30 seconds to shut down.

mine uses around 1.50GB after boot up. i have 6 GB of ram but as you do more stuff, it can easily gobble up to 5GB and then require a restart.

[Jon Lai]

What happened to supsx? I want to hear his responses for how UAC didn't keep popping up when his antivirus program updated everyday, or when certain programs automatically check for new product updates :lol:

That, and how he doesn't need to change anything in the Windows directory to install drivers and fonts, and how he doesn't use networking.

Heck, everything is networked nowadays. Consoles - PS3, XBOX, Wii; Phones - blackberries, iPhone; and file and print servers... even if you only one personal computer.

[zod]

My main gripe about ME was that it perpetually kept using up more memory the longer you left it on. I've always put enough memory in my computers that I could disable the swap/paging file (which for me really speeds up the computer). So if I run an OS that bleeds memory I get issues once its using all the memory.

[BlueMax]

Two words:

MEMORY. LEAK.

The longer it ran, the less RAM you had available, the slower and more unstable it became. Reboots required = Often.

[supsx]

What happened to supsx? I want to hear his responses for how UAC didn't keep popping up when his antivirus program updated everyday, or when certain programs automatically check for new product updates :lol:

That, and how he doesn't need to change anything in the Windows directory to install drivers and fonts, and how he doesn't use networking.

Heck, everything is networked nowadays. Consoles - PS3, XBOX, Wii; Phones - blackberries, iPhone; and file and print servers... even if you only one personal computer.

AVG - NO Popups what so ever. Maybe you have an old AntiVirus. Also pretty much everything else that needs to update no problems either, including windows (last update about a month ago I do them manually). I am using Vista SP1 if that makes a difference and like I said before I installed everything I needed when I got the computer, so no driver modifications or font changes needed for me.

My network setup consists of computer connected to modem with disabled wireless because I am paranoid of people using wireless even with encryption and other household members don't know how to use a computer, so I don't have multiple computers, nor do I have wiring to network because house is old.

I have none of the new consoles yet and if I do get them they won't be connecting to the computer but straight to the modem. No need for a print server because of one computer, I have a 25ft USB cable running to it. As for cell phone I use a cheap Nokia phone from 7-Eleven from the deal I got from it on special from RFD, basic phone with nothing much you can do with it.

[Jon Lai]

AVG - NO Popups what so ever. Maybe you have an old AntiVirus. Also pretty much everything else that needs to update no problems either, including windows (last update about a month ago I do them manually). I am using Vista SP1 if that makes a difference and like I said before I installed everything I needed when I got the computer, so no driver modifications or font changes needed for me.

My network setup consists of computer connected to modem with disabled wireless because I am paranoid of people using wireless even with encryption and other household members don't know how to use a computer, so I don't have multiple computers, nor do I have wiring to network because house is old.

I have none of the new consoles yet and if I do get them they won't be connecting to the computer but straight to the modem. No need for a print server because of one computer, I have a 25ft USB cable running to it. As for cell phone I use a cheap Nokia phone from 7-Eleven from the deal I got from it on special from RFD, basic phone with nothing much you can do with it.

But you fail to realize that situation is not the situation for the "majority" of the people, who also didn't like Vista.

Connect straight to modem? You mean router right? That's all fine and dandy, nobody connects their networked periperhals directly to a computer... but when you try accessing it, BOOM! UAC comes up. IE, if you were to connect your PS3 to your router, and want to transfer files between your computer and the PS3 thru the network, guess what? UAC pops up.

UAC is undoubtly annoying. I can't see anyone arguing against it.

[pitz]

Which is why dual-core, quad-core and multi-core processors are better than single-core. There's no mystery here. Applications don't need to be threaded to take advantage of more processing cores if the OS can spread the load across multiple cores. Multi-processor workstation systems have existed for a long time; there would be no point if they provide no benefits. One of the main motivations for multi-processor systems is the ability to control more RAM, since one northbridge/memory controller can only access so much.

The P3-900 is not theoretically just as fast. You clearly don't know how multi-processor and multi-core scaling works.

I know exactly how it works, which is why I bought my first multiple CPU machine in 1998, and haven't used anything other than dual cores (processors) since. The point I made initially, and will make again, is that multiple processors in my 10-year-old P3-450 has made it very usable (along with 1gb RAM), whereby newer, and ostensibly 'faster' (ie: higher clock rate) machines are now in the junk pile because the simply arent responsive enough...

Personally I'm amazed that a) CPU manufacturers didn't go to multi-core sooner on the same die, and b) that Microsoft wasted so much of its development effort on 98/ME, when the future was quite clearly in the NT/2k/XP kernel lineage.

[pitz]

On another note, any care to share how much memory Vista uses after boot up, and how fast it takes boot up?


I get my laptop up and running in ~20 seconds in Vista. Initial RAM use is ~1gb, with 4gb physically installed, 3.5gb usable. Vista32 :( (only because I'm too lazy to wipe and go with Vista64)



Mine uses about 30% of 3GB Ram, and takes around 40 seconds to boot up, 20-30 seconds to shut down.

Yeah slightly faster here... Intel T7500 CPU, Hitachi 120gb 7200rpm HDD, etc. And of course, I'm talking about a cold boot, not a fast boot due to the laptop's resume feature.

[board123]

I know exactly how it works, which is why I bought my first multiple CPU machine in 1998, and haven't used anything other than dual cores (processors) since. The point I made initially, and will make again, is that multiple processors in my 10-year-old P3-450 has made it very usable (along with 1gb RAM), whereby newer, and ostensibly 'faster' (ie: higher clock rate) machines are now in the junk pile because the simply arent responsive enough...
You still need to be more precise on what you mean by "newer" machines. How much newer does a processor have to be before it kicks the crap out of your dual P3? The Athlon 64's and Northwood P4's were incomparably faster than your dual P3.

If you're talking about the early P4's, then it's a valid statement.

[pitz]

You still need to be more precise on what you mean by "newer" machines. How much newer does a processor have to be before it kicks the crap out of your dual P3? The Athlon 64's and Northwood P4's were incomparably faster than your dual P3.


Well, 'faster' and 'usable' are two seperate things. I still find the dual P3's to be more 'usable' than, say, an Athlon 2500XP+. The Athlon 2500XP soundly trounces the P3's in terms of running single programs, but if you want to play back MP3's, and rip a CD at the same time -- I'd still take the P3's hands-down, because the MP3 playback won't skip with the dual processors.

Yes the CD ripping/MP3 encoding will be completed much more quickly on the 2500XP+, but overall the dual processor machine is more 'usable' since the MP3 playback task continues undisrupted.




If you're talking about the early P4's, then it's a valid statement.

I'm not playing the, "my computer is better than your computer" game (and my new machines just smoke the old stuff...). Just making an observation that having dual processors in my old machines has kept them very usable and responsive. In fact, over the past few years, as dual CPU's went mainstream -- the overall performance of my old computers with dual CPU's increased as software was increasingly written to take advantage of threading and other techniques.

[board123]

Well, 'faster' and 'usable' are two seperate things. I still find the dual P3's to be more 'usable' than, say, an Athlon 2500XP+. The Athlon 2500XP soundly trounces the P3's in terms of running single programs, but if you want to play back MP3's, and rip a CD at the same time -- I'd still take the P3's hands-down, because the MP3 playback won't skip with the dual processors.

Yes the CD ripping/MP3 encoding will be completed much more quickly on the 2500XP+, but overall the dual processor machine is more 'usable' since the MP3 playback task continues undisrupted.
This is completely subjective as it would vary from user to user. For me, I'd say that's less "usable", not more. How often are you ripping CDs and listening to MP3s at the same time? It's definitely a minuscule percentage of time compared to when you're just single tasking, in which case the newer CPU is indeed faster in whatever you do. I think a majority of users only focus on one task at a time.



I'm not playing the, "my computer is better than your computer" game (and my new machines just smoke the old stuff...).
Not sure what you're getting at.

[stevethewheel]

WinME was always less stable then 98SE for me. Had 4 computers in the house, and couldn't work with flakey ME.

If yours is working for you, then great. If I recall correctly the basic installed version worked OK, but after patches/upgrades and driver changes it would slip....the version that came with my HP Pavilion always worked fine out of the box or on a reinstall, but then it would have to be updated, and would get wonky.

I moved to XP probably 2 years after it came out, I was verrrry suspicious, but advances in hardware and my home network meant too many plug-ins to 98SE. And I figured after 2 years MS would have been talking up a new OS if XP was really that bad.

Hoping to skip Vista like I basically skipped ME. If Win7 is really Vista redux, fine, that might be what it needs to make me happy.

[luthair]

But you fail to realize that situation is not the situation for the "majority" of the people, who also didn't like Vista.

Connect straight to modem? You mean router right? That's all fine and dandy, nobody connects their networked periperhals directly to a computer... but when you try accessing it, BOOM! UAC comes up. IE, if you were to connect your PS3 to your router, and want to transfer files between your computer and the PS3 thru the network, guess what? UAC pops up.

UAC is undoubtly annoying. I can't see anyone arguing against it.

You're doing something wrong. AV should not be running as the user account, it should run as system and should be able to update without user assistance. In general there should not be any UAC pop-ups from networking and manual installation into Windows directories should be a rarity, particularly drivers.

I've used Vista on a desktop since release, and my only complaint is UAC should provide more details about the action requiring elevated rights. Disabling UAC is no different from using root 24/7 on *nix, it simply isn't a bright idea for everyday usage.

[Jon Lai]

You're doing something wrong. AV should not be running as the user account, it should run as system and should be able to update without user assistance. In general there should not be any UAC pop-ups from networking and manual installation into Windows directories should be a rarity, particularly drivers.

I've used Vista on a desktop since release, and my only complaint is UAC should provide more details about the action requiring elevated rights. Disabling UAC is no different from using root 24/7 on *nix, it simply isn't a bright idea for everyday usage.

It's not a good idea, but there's nothing too much wrong with it. In XP, without UAC and running as administrator is still like running on root in Unix. I run on root on my Linux box most of the time, it's more convenient that way.

[board123]

It's not a good idea only if you don't know all the little intricacies of Windows. Otherwise it's fine. People ran as administrator all the way up to XP and nobody really complained. They only introduced this safety mechanism (UAC) in Vista, and all of a sudden everybody complained.

It's not really the same as running as root on Linux, because the Linux thing is designed to protect the OS from users who don't know what they're doing. Linux is not user-friendly like Windows, and it's very possible to mess up the entire OS by doing things you're not supposed to be doing. UAC, on the other hand, generally just prevents program executions. Most common users can't really destroy the OS even if they tried.

[luthair]

It's not a good idea, but there's nothing too much wrong with it. In XP, without UAC and running as administrator is still like running on root in Unix.

You're right, it was exactly the same, but it wasn't considered a smart thing to do then either.


I run on root on my Linux box most of the time, it's more convenient that way.

....


It's not a good idea only if you don't know all the little intricacies of Windows. Otherwise it's fine. People ran as administrator all the way up to XP and nobody really complained. They only introduced this safety mechanism (UAC) in Vista, and all of a sudden everybody complained.

No, XP was the first consumer Windows OS with a differentiation in account privileges. It was never a good idea to run as admin on XP either, unfortunately shoddy app programming forced people into it.


It's not really the same as running as root on Linux, because the Linux thing is designed to protect the OS from users who don't know what they're doing. Linux is not user-friendly like Windows, and it's very possible to mess up the entire OS by doing things you're not supposed to be doing. UAC, on the other hand, generally just prevents program executions. Most common users can't really destroy the OS even if they tried.

Its exactly the same as running as root, in both cases access to critical system areas is prevented.

[board123]

No, XP was the first consumer Windows OS with a differentiation in account privileges. It was never a good idea to run as admin on XP either, unfortunately shoddy app programming forced people into it.
Differentiation - yes. However, the account you make when you install the OS is by default an admin account. Most people just stick with that. The difference in Vista is that you get UAC with it, whereas in XP you had full control without anything stopping you.



Its exactly the same as running as root, in both cases access to critical system areas is prevented.
Yes, the idea is essentially the same, but there is so much more you can do to the OS under Linux compared to Windows. You can configure Xserver however you want in Linux, which can render the OS unusable for the novice user. In Windows, even with full admin rights, you can't really mess up the OS that easily.

The bottom line is: root is more important in Linux than UAC is for Windows because Windows is much more idiot-proof by design.