Windows 98 SE vs. Windows ME

[GonzoDaGr8]

Originally posted by: americangigolo
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.

You'd be surprised at the percentage of people out there that are doing just that ..We here at AT may have the knowledge to take care of such things as doing defrags and running anti-spyware programs, But many, many, don't. I see this all the time when I called for tech help. I end up fixing the initial problem and then spend a sh!tload more time cleaning things up. Not like Windows comes with a very good Chilton's owners manual you know.

Edited for sloppy spelling.

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: GonzoDaGr8

Originally posted by: americangigolo
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.

You'd be surprised at the percentage of people out there that are doing just that ..We here at AT may have the knowledge to take care of such things as doing defrags and running anti-spyware programs, But many, many, don't. I see this all the time when I called for tech help. I end up fixing the initial problem and then spend a sh!tload more time cleaning things up. Not like Windows comes with a very good Chilton's owners manual you know.

Edited for sloppy spelling.

That is true. I suppose the average computer person isn't aware of the things that'll happen if you don't do that but it was referring to the posts about 98SE or ME not being stable and stuff, ppl here should be able to do defrags and system maintence it's not that hard! Hehe

 

[suklee]

Originally posted by: t3h1337guy
dude win 98se clearly out does me there is no comparason

winME = :evil:

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: Spyro

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

Unfortunatley its too arcane to use for almost everybody.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: jadinolf

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.

My 98 has run since June 95' 1998.

What does that even MEAN?

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: MrChad

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.

xp had full set of pipes, the guy that created leak test predicted the security issues a year before release.

Iv ehad macines come in for a reinstall of an OS with xp and had blaster issues before i was even done with windows update.