Replies

Ironically, Windows ME was the most stable of the 9X line for me, but that's because I build my own white boxes. I found that most people having trouble with ME were either upgraders or users of OEM versions on HPs, Compaqs, etc. OEM's put their own flaky drivers in the systems, and those machines were absolute crap, especially HPs. I found that when you do a clean install on generic, industry standard ATX board, ME was really stable. Also, few manufacturers tried to write new ME-specific drivers when they should have. And while it required more CPU horsepower and RAM than 98, it used excess memory more efficiently. After 96 mb in 98, you got declining returns in your RAM performance (this from the mouth of a Microsoft rep). You could put 256, 384 MBs on a ME box and it would be used much more efficiently and effectively.

Gotta disagree with the prior poster that said ME was XP with a 9X kernel....it was more like a 9X kernel with Windows 2000's looks and (some) features.

Gotta disagree with the prior poster that said ME was XP with a 9X kernel....it was more like a 9X kernel with Windows 2000's looks and (some) features.

That'd be me as well. The reason for the comparrison to XP is the system restore feature, unique to Windows ME and Windows XP.

i have to agree with your comments. i have Windows ME on two machines, a Toshiba Satellite laptop, and a custom built system that was given to me. Windows ME has more than met my needs on those machines. Oddly enough, the only problems i've had were with Internet Explorer.