Windows 98 SE vs. Windows ME

Abhi

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2003
4,548
0
76
Simple question:

Which is better
Windows 98 SE or Windows ME??

I simply require a stable operating system on this machine. Speed is NOT of the essence, reliability is. I also need the minimum driver conflicts. If something works in windows 98, is it sure to work in windows ME?

And no, XP or win 2000 are not options i can consider. The person who owns the computer wont buy em!



 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
windows ME sucks royal balls but might actually be more stable then 98SE

but you cant run either for more then a week straight
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Well I'll probrably get flamed for this, but here goes- Pick windows ME. I have systems with both and I find ME more stable, has features that 98se doesn't, and plays games really well. For example, ME has system restore. So if a problem developes, like system becomes unstable cuz you picked up some trash on the internet, you can restore your system to a prior point in time. Like yesterday, last week or last month.

Basically, I think ME is really just 98 3rd edition. Even though I think it's much better, be warned most people (who i believe mostly have no experience w/it) will criticize it. Techs I used to hire to come into my office always seemed unfami;iar w/it. That may be a disadvantage. Good Luck :)
 

SpeedFreak03

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2003
1,094
0
0
I think the real question is "Which OS sucks less". I wouldn't run either one lol! But I agree with Fern. Maybe its just my systems, but when I ran WinME (before finding about Windows 2000), I reformatted my computer ALOT less than with Win98. They both royally suck though.
 

Spyro

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2001
3,366
0
0
Originally posted by: Abhi
Simple question:

Which is better
<STRONG>Windows 98 SE or Windows ME??</strong>

I simply require a stable operating system on this machine. Speed is NOT of the essence, reliability is. I also need the minimum driver conflicts. If something works in windows 98, is it sure to work in windows ME?

A<EM>nd no, XP or win 2000 are not options i can consider. The person who owns the computer wont buy em!
</em>

Stability + Reliability = Linux
 

EeyoreX

Platinum Member
Oct 27, 2002
2,864
0
0
I won't bother to suggest 2000 or XP. I will just say that "stability" and Windows 98/ME should not be used in the same sentence. Unless it is something like "Windows 98/ME has no stability." I am not a Linux gi=uy, and have had no luck when I've tried it. But, it's free... And certainly even I know it's more stable than 98/ME.

\Dan
 

vetplus40

Member
Feb 9, 2002
110
0
0
A common belief amonst us novices is that each successive operating system was an improvement over the previous one. Just my humble opinion.
 

corkyg

Elite Member | Peripherals
Super Moderator
Mar 4, 2000
27,370
239
106
I'm with Fern. I had three computers on 98SE, and upgraded them all to ME. The result was much better stability and no lockups. I don't play games or waste time that - my systems are all for work. The big advantage of ME was the introduction of System Restore - and that made it all worth while. But - as soon as it was available, I migrated to XP Pro and have never looked back. :)
 

mrchen

Member
Oct 24, 2003
67
0
0
Just get XP PRO FAT32 fat32 is poop, besides you are more free on editing your options through your registrys
 

EeyoreX

Platinum Member
Oct 27, 2002
2,864
0
0
Just get XP PRO FAT32 fat32 is poop, besides you are more free on editing your options through your registrys
I am aware the OPer already made his decision... But could someone translate this for me? I am curious what it means...

\Dan

 

buckmasterson

Senior member
Oct 12, 2002
482
0
0
This is wild. Every box I worked on with Windows ME was a pain in the butt. As a matter of fact in many cases I converted them back to Windows 98SE at the owbers request. Windows ME drivers were difficult to find and I found the Operating System to be anything BUT stable. For me, I've gone from 98SE to XP and never considered ME.
 

jadinolf

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
20,952
3
81
Originally posted by: Anubis
windows ME sucks royal balls but might actually be more stable then 98SE

but you cant run either for more then a week straight

Oh Really.

My 98 has run since June 95' 1998.

But yes, mE sucks big time.
 

Abzstrak

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2000
2,450
0
0
win98SE sucks less.... U can get winxp home for as cheap as $65-$70 on ebay, it REALLY is worth it.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Win 3.1 < Win 95 < Win ME < Win 98SE < Win XP Home < Win 2000 < Win XP Pro

That would be my ranking of Microsoft's consumer operating systems. I think either Win 2000 or XP Pro could be #1, depending on whether or not you like the XP look.
 

KF

Golden Member
Dec 3, 1999
1,371
0
0
Win 3.1 < Win 95 < Win XP Home < Win XP Pro < Win 2000 < Win ME < Win 98SE

Although XP itself may hardly ever lock up compared to 98se, apps lock up more, so XP's hardiness is of dubious benefit to ordinary users. The lockups can be chalked up to XPs less mature implementation of the Windows API. MS was trying to marry two different concepts of what an OS should be, which is why it took so long to converge Windows and NT, and they haven't quite succeeded yet. Also, the registery in XP is more prone to screw-ups than 98se, and the screw-ups are even more impossible to track down. Plus, the Windows security problem exploded out of control with the advent of XP, and the gradual conversion of hackers to it, and their increasing knowledge of its internals. It is safe to predict the onslaught has barely begun, because the hackers are still in the exploratory stage. It is, no doubt, because of XP's prodigious capabilty to respond over the network as if the control were coming from on-board. Try spawning a process on W98se through hacked security over the network. Huh? In W98se you had to trick a user into running a program he thought was something else. Not necessary with XP. Even with the patches up to SP1, Blaster can have itself running on your computer within 5 minutes of dialing MSN.

Compared to Windows on the w9x track, XP is a mess for ordinary users to administer, which is something home users have to do. When an install program botches something, and it seems like a lot of them do in XP, you might as well hang it up. It is format and reinstall time, after you waste a week, and only succeed in digging yourself in deeper. That's XP. It's not so much that 98se has less mistakes in it (bugs), although it may, but that in XP it is impossible to recover from them, or work around them. Making XP impervious would be fine if XP were perfect, but it is far from that.

I converted to XP some time ago (after using it as a secondary OS from its intro), because I think it is about time to accept the inevitable, but I never anticipated the screwy, intractible problems it would bring. Compared to 98se, XP is a POS, the way ordinary users use their computers.

Now, I'm not saying XP doesn't have a lot of nice things that come with it. I don't mind the way it looks; its OK, and you can change the apperance if you prefer.

Wme, I think is OK, it you never change things. When Wme crashes, it is liable to silently "restore" itself, and royally screw things up so bad it is hopeless. The one time I truely needed to use the "recovery" capability, it gave me an error: something like "Unknown error. Recovery cancelled." Thanks a lot! And that explanation was so helpful!
Win 3.1 < Win 95 < Win XP Home < Win XP Pro < Win 2000 < Win ME < Win 98SE

Although XP itself may hardly ever lock up compared to 98se, apps lock up more, so XP's hardiness is of dubious benefit to ordinary users. The lockups can be chalked up to XPs less mature implementation of the Windows API. MS was trying to marry two different concepts of what an OS should be, which is why it took so long to converge Windows and NT, and they haven't quite succeeded yet. Also, the registery in XP is more prone to screw-ups than 98se, and the screw-ups are even more impossible to track down. Plus, the Windows security problem exploded out of control with the advent of XP, and the gradual conversion of hackers to it, and their increasing knowledge of its internals. It is safe to predict the onslaught has barely begun, because the hackers are still in the exploratory stage. It is, no doubt, because of XP's prodigious capabilty to respond over the network as if the control were coming from on-board. Try spawning a process on W98se through hacked security over the network. Huh? In W98se you had to trick a user into running a program he thought was something else. Not necessary with XP. Even with the patches up to SP1, Blaster can have itself running on your computer within 5 minutes of dialing MSN.

Compared to Windows on the w9x track, XP is a mess for ordinary users to administer, which is something home users have to do. When an install program botches something, and it seems like a lot of them do in XP, you might as well hang it up. It is format and reinstall time, after you waste a week, and only succeed in digging yourself in deeper. That's XP. It's not so much that 98se has less mistakes in it (bugs), although it may, but that in XP it is impossible to recover from them, or work around them. Making XP impervious would be fine if XP were perfect, but it is far from that.

I converted to XP some time ago (after using it as a secondary OS from its intro), because I think it is about time to accept the inevitable, but I never anticipated the screwy, intractible problems it would bring. Compared to 98se, XP is a POS, the way ordinary users use their computers.

Now, I'm not saying XP doesn't have a lot of nice things that come with it. I don't mind the way it looks; its OK, and you can change the apperance if you prefer.

Wme, I think is OK, it you never change things. When Wme crashes, it is liable to silently "restore" itself, and royally screw things up so bad it is hopeless. The one time I truely needed to use the "recovery" capability, it gave me an error: something like "Unknown error. Recovery cancelled." Thanks a lot! And that explanation was so helpful!
 

MrChad

Lifer
Aug 22, 2001
13,507
3
81
Originally posted by: KF
Win 3.1 < Win 95 < Win XP Home < Win XP Pro < Win 2000 < Win ME < Win 98SE

Although XP itself may hardly ever lock up compared to 98se, apps lock up more, so XP's hardiness is of dubious benefit to ordinary users. The lockups can be chalked up to XPs less mature implementation of the Windows API. MS was trying to marry two different concepts of what an OS should be, which is why it took so long to converge Windows and NT, and they haven't quite succeeded yet. Also, the registery in XP is more prone to screw-ups than 98se, and the screw-ups are even more impossible to track down. Plus, the Windows security problem exploded out of control with the advent of XP, and the gradual conversion of hackers to it, and their increasing knowledge of its internals. It is safe to predict the onslaught has barely begun, because the hackers are still in the exploratory stage. It is, no doubt, because of XP's prodigious capabilty to respond over the network as if the control were coming from on-board. Try spawning a process on W98se through hacked security over the network. Huh? In W98se you had to trick a user into running a program he thought was something else. Not necessary with XP. Even with the patches up to SP1, Blaster can have itself running on your computer within 5 minutes of dialing MSN.

Do you have any basis for your statements, or are you repeating hearsay and speculation? Debating the stability/performance of ME vs. 98 is one thing, but I don't think you're going to get anyone to agree that XP is a less stable and less secure platform than 9x. Please don't give advice based on misinformation.
 

seismik

Senior member
May 9, 2003
232
0
0
Win 3.1 < Win 95 < Win XP Home < Win XP Pro < Win 2000 < Win ME < Win 98SE
Among the most ridiculous things I've read today. XP Pro is MS's best OS to date... hehe, Win2000 < WinME, you are out to lunch my friend.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
were: 3 < 8000

Win98 "classic" < WinME < Win98 SE <(x6) W2k = XP < Redhat/SuSE/Mandrake < Debian

Just my very biased (and correct :p) opinion.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
(just FYI)
From my few meager months as a phone tech for a nationwide Dial-up ISP, this is the common knee-jerk (and much supressed) reaction/ (although it did slip thru commonly)

*click*
us: Hello, thank you for calling blah blah blah. This is Drag Sidious, may I get your name please?
them: Oh I am blah blah blah
us: (after 15 seconds to confirm identity and begin the report) Ok Mr. blah blah what can I help you with?
them: My modem is broken, tell me how to fix it.
us: Oh, I'll try, hehe (gag me with a spoon), what operating system are you using?
them: What's a operating system?
us: It's the what your computer runs off of, you know like windows 98 or 95, windows 2000 or win-XP
them: Ah it's Win-xp!
us: cool could you please right click.....
(5 seconds later)
us: I don't think this is XP, could you do me a favor realy quick?
them: sure...
us:eek:k go and close everything out and then right click on the "my computer" icon and select properties
them:You want me to close this out, too? Quicken...
us: (?!) ya sure, just close everything out, just right
them: Oops it froze...
us: Ok just hit ctrl-alt-...
them: oh I just shut it off....
(3 minutes later)
us: Ok Ok just right click
them: but..
us: no it's ok just right click on it.
them: It just opens it up! what do you want?!
us: The mouse has 2 buttons, on the right the other on the left, your left clicking on it, I want you to hit the right button.
them: Oh, doh. Thanks!
us. don't worry about it, happens all the time. (I have a quick mental flashback to the time when I had a call from a left-handed guy that switched the mouse buttons around)
them: ok I right clicked on it what am I looking for?
us: just read it from the top:
them: ok, windows M E 50682.2349....
us: OK, your using winME.. sorry.
them: what?
us: ever think about upgrading?
them: what?
us: ever think about downgrading?
them: what?
us: nevermind, I need you close that out, then open up the start menu and go to the control panel....

From then on most everybody assumed there computer was f-ed up. Luckly it will turn out to be a "driver issue" that we weren't allowed to deal with we'd have to OEM it, but if the error codes weren't the right ones then we would be forced to talk them thru uninstall and reinstall dial-up-networking and uninstall and reingstall tcp/ip among a few other steps like deleting the saved passwords and stuff I only remember vaguely....

With WinME it was a 50-50 chance that that would just screw the computer up. Win98 could handle it mostly, win95 is ok, but had trouble with some software modems, win2k was cool that almost never blew up. WinXP was a bit more irritating because all the menus and wizards and crap would realy slow you down because the person usually would ignore you until they were finished reading all the information in each dialog window and ask questions about it, but for the most part it did what it was suppose to.

The 20-30% of the time when WinME (win98 would do this to, but the percentage was closer to 10-15% when you'd have to do major surgury) would kick the bucket it would get ugly with the person accusing your for frying his computer. Then you'd have to agrue quick and smart and point out that stuff like (uninstalling, reinstalling TCP/IP then rebooting the computer) that wouldn't hurt a healthy computer, and that the first thing we had to do in the phone call before anything else was to shut down the computer because it locked up.(most of the time when the computers got to this point they were simply so unstable that it couldn't work the modem properly no more, but the drivers were still decent enough not be the issue)

WinME was pretty much universially feared by the phone techs.
 

clamum

Lifer
Feb 13, 2003
26,252
403
126
FWIW I had used 98SE for a long time with zero problems. No blue screens, no locking up, no crashing, none of that. I don't understand people's problems with the Windows OSes. What do you do, install a shitload of software all the time, never defrag, have a bunch of spyware, and have no virus protection? Guess I'm just lucky with every version of Windows I've ever used.