Windows 2000 vs. Windows ME

[Xenon14]

I have both versions; haven't tried either one yet. I'm just a regular home user and my current system has Win98. I am about to build my K7 system as soon as the rest of the parts arrive; what windows should I install? Does the 2000 version run everything windows ME and is more stable?

 

[magicslax]

well, anything is more stable than winME, and that does include the "hole in your head" mentioned in the OS forum.

I don't know if win2k fits your needs, but sticking with Win98 would be much better than "upgrading" to ME.

 

[Anfield]

I'm no expert but I would say avoid Me like the plague. I think it;s multimedia is better, but I've ended up having to reinstall countless times because of irrecuperable errors. Win2k is far more stable in my estimation.

 

[MoFunk]

ME is crap! You can find most of the little cutesy bells and whistles that they bundled with ME at Micro$oft for free. Look into Win2k, it is very stable and has some nice features, but has a lot of stuff the average home user does not need. Plus some software and hardware is not supported. If Win2k is not for you, stay with 98. Or how about a dual boot?

 

[noxipoo]

Funny, winME is more stable than all my other windows OSes. i'm about to format and redo me/2k dual boot.

i've never had a problem in ME and booting up under 10 secs is good.

 

[Oyeve]

I too love ME. No, im not narcisic. I am a massive game player and own pretty much every high end game to date and have had NUMEROUS problems running some of them under Win98 and Win98SE. NFS porchse unleashed and Deus Ex are 2 that come to mind and WinME resolved these issues. Now, I also run Win2k and these games work on that also bit they play much better on WinME. just MO.

 

[LakerGod]

I have been working with Windows 2000 for a while and I installed ME on my brothers machine less than a year ago. I have loved Win2K ever since I installed it. My brother really hated ME and so did I every time I used his computer. I highly reccommend Win2k...but if you're not into that, i'd suggest going with Win98SE.

 

[Joyride]

I have used ME for a while and I am about ready to pop the CD in my microwave? (ever done that, really cool)

I now have a copy of Win 2k Pro and the RC1 WinXP disk on the way.

All I know is that when I get used to or likeing these 2 better all my 9x CD's are gonna get microwaved with my Pizza Roll snacks.

 

[Xenon14]

Will installing WIndows 2000 Professional over Windows ME allow me to use all of the apps and games that Windows ME has? Is there a tradeoff by going w/ the stable Win2k vs WinME, if so what is it?

 

[technogeeky]

<< Will installing WIndows 2000 Professional over Windows ME allow me to use all of the apps and games that Windows ME has? Is there a tradeoff by going w/ the stable Win2k vs WinME, if so what is it? >>



In my professional opinion, there are no tradeoffs.

It's what YOU need from your OS.

Bottom line: both are windows - they feel very much the same. WinME is a little more cutting edge, but it comes with tons of problems. It crashes more than a crack addict driving a Ferrari, and it's more fickety than a manic depressive scitzo.

Windows 2000 is very stable *for Windows*. It has a nice interface, and is compatable with most software (and hardware, if you have up-to-date stuff). You'll find that some things in Windows 2000 are more complicated than they should be (system stuff, mostly) and if you're not used to NT you'll have a little of a learning curve.

I'd put my two cents on Windows 2000 for whatever you need, but if you are a heavy gamer and that's it, go with Windows 98 SE - it's much more stable than Windows ME.

Ateast, that's what /me thinks.

 

[SpideyCU]

I agree with technogeeky all the way. That's why I have my system dual-boot with Win98SE for gaming and Win2k for work. I've seen the horrors WinME can do (especially if you try to install it by &quot;upgrading&quot; instead of doing a fresh insallation...oh the pain!) and refuse to go near it. The only thing that was keeping my dad from upgrading to Win2k was that his scanner didn't have Win2k drivers, but now that I found him a new one that does, I'll go home next weekend and install Win2k for him. Scanners (and some older printers) are about the only thing I can think of that might not have Win2k drivers; everything else (hardware &amp; software wise) should be good to go.

 

[TuffGuy]

WinME works just fine for me, and i think that i've owned every single piece of problematic hardware there is. it's more stable that win98, it just requires more resources. i think that most people have problems with WinME when installing it on via chipsets.

 

[jmc]

Use Win Me and you will find out why they put the restore feature in it. W2k rocks!

 

[julianf]

WinME = 16bit kernel (dos kernel)
Win2000 = 32bit kernel

You go figure....

 

[CQuinn]

Incorrect,

both WinME and Win2k have 32-bit kernels.

The core of the OS (Kernel) in Windows ME is based on the evolution of the
OS from the days when Windows was just an operating evironement on top of
16-bit DOS. But ever since Windows 95, DOS was only used to load
legacy drivers and switch from real to protected mode (the way all 32-bit kernels
on x86 processors have to load). The later versions tried to use DOS
less-and-less for legacy support until ME, which (by default) only uses the
DOS portion as the real-mode loader.

Windows NT/2000/XP all started out based on the 32-bit OS designs used for
OSes like OS/2 and VMS. That gave the developers the advantage of creating
a solid foundation for a good performing 32-bit OS, but also made it very
difficult to support the various, confusing, and conflicting functions of
previous DOS and Windows programs. The first versions of NT couldn't even
run DOS apps natively, they had to use a DOS emulator. Eventually they
have developed the NT designs into both a more robust and sophisticated
version of NT, that also carries the user-friendliness of the consumer
Windows interfaces.

 

[julianf]

basicly i'm right ( i think)

 

[Bozz]

Cquinn:

Almost exact - the kernel of the 4.xxx.xxxx series of winbloze (from win95a's 4.00.950 to ME's 4.9.whateveritis it still uses the same 16 bit loader and legacy code. It &quot;thunks&quot; (M$ terminology for converting 32bit code to 16bit code and vice versa) parts of its code back to 16 bit to ensure compatibility for earlier DOS based app's, the NT4 and NT5 are a proper OS, not a graphical menu system sitting on DOS like 95, 98 and ME is.

BTW did you all know that M.E. really stands for Mistake Edition

Cheers

 

[julianf]

C ???

 

[NelsonMuntz]

I don't have any experience yet with Windows 2000, but I am hoping that one day I can get my hands on it and install it in one of my machines. This irrational hatred of Windows Me is something I don't really understand though. I have Windows Me on one machine and Windows 98SE on the other machine and although I do prefer using Windows 98SE because I am more familiar with it, I don't mind Windows Me. I should also mention that the install that took place on my Windows Me machine was an upgrade and there haven't been issues with it at all. My brother also &quot;upgraded&quot; from Windows 98SE to Windows Me and he has had some weird issues, but not really more than he had with Windows 98SE. I just did a clean install of it on a client's computer and it seems to be working great for him. The problems he has is between the chair and the keyboard not with the computer. Speaking of which, he called me last night complaining that his computer wouldn't reboot just had a black screen with writing. I was a little concerned and went down to check it out. He had tried to reboot with a non-bootable disk in a:\ . I took it out and it booted fine. I had a good laugh over that one. I set it up so that it doesn't try to boot from the floppy anymore.