Time for a new operating system??

[Guest squirltok@yahoo.com]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

 

 

Ogg wrote:

> squirltok@yahoo.com wrote:

> || Ogg wrote:

> ||| 2000. WinME itself doesn't provide anything extraordinary to

> ||| compel me to stay with it. I've tested Ubuntu and a few other

> ||| distro's with the pc (and the full 756meg), and the results are

> ||| much more satisfactory.

> ||

> || If you liked Ubuntu OK then do consider trying PcLinux minime. It

> || installs in I'd say around 5 minutes and isn't packed with a bunch of

> || programs that try to fit into every persons attraction.

>

>

> Thanks for the heads-up on that. I had heard about PcLinux elsewhere. I'm

> not sure if I would settle for the minime version, but I'm going to take a

> look.

>

>

> || You simply use the synaptic package manager to install programs.

> || Which is another

> || nice thing, you don't have to go to different web sites to download

> || and then install programs. The package manager does it all for you.

>

>

> That's a plus. I am basically planning to retire my WinME system to do

> just www, email, some basic photo editing, and music collections. I feel

> much more comfortable doing all that in a Linux environment than the current

> tempermental WinME.

 

Yea, I used ME through it's entire supported lifecycle anbd got my use

out of it. It's definitely not mandatory to all get the new whatever

that comes out in life, but just do what works for you.

[Guest squirltok@yahoo.com]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

 

 

Mike M wrote:

> Do you have more than one partition on that drive or are you running it as

> a single C: drive? If so, then delays are to be expected. Regardless of

> the OS keep the system drive clean and lean and place the date elsewhere.

> Scandisk and defrags take but a few seconds on my Win Me system where the

> partition containing the OS is about 2.5GB.

> --

> Mike Maltby

> mike.maltby@gmail.com

>

It's definitely a good option for anybody and even everybody to create

and use at least another drive. Keeping up on defrag and scandisk this

way you can have a pretty lean fast system using a small amount of

space with ME.

 

Because when windows fragments I believe the fragments end up here

there and everywhere on the drive.

--

I put in 318 MB of ram into my WinME box from 64MBs and it it really

woke up and defrag worked waay faster

 

I liked ME cause it was just simply an operating system that did what

I told it to. Sure I had problems but it served me well. Me

personally, the reason I bring up the PCLInux and Linux in general is

that it was like the upgrade that woke up my computer all over again.

I have a far newer one that has XP and a Linux on it but

I don't really use it very much.

[Guest squirltok@yahoo.com]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

 

 

webster72n wrote:

> "Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message

> news:eGaRnYccIHA.4144@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> > webster72n wrote:

> > || Just for the record, these are 'minor' occurrences and can easily be

> > || fixed by either using Tweak UI, or IE Repair in Add/Remove Programs.

> > || Once the system is stabilized, it will most likely stay that way.

> >

> >

> > I've TweakUI'd and Repair IE'd quite a bit over the years. I've come to

> the

> > conclusion that if the only way to stabilize WinME is by turning features

> > off, and imposing other restrictions such as ram/vcache, etc... then it's

> > obvious that WinME can't do what it was expected to do.

> >

> > It basically irks me that WinME is so tempermental with more than 512ram.

> > Another problem it seems to have is accepting a new AGP video card that I

> > researched to be WinME compatible. I really wanted to increase the video

> ram

> > from 64meg to 128meg and obtain dual DVI/VGA output for supporting a

> future

> > LCD screen. The card installed OK, but the performance was problematic.

> > However, Ubuntu had absolutely no problem with it.

> >

> > Time to say "solong WinME and thanks or all the fishy performance". ;).

>

> I've tried to "interview" Ubuntu, but my bios refused to cooperate, to the

> dismay of Alias, who blamed it on me. If I would want to install Ubuntu or

> any other Linux system, I will have to have a newer motherboard or a new

> machine.

 

Well, that's not necessarily true, Linux has been around for a long

while and many distributions will accommodate all kinds of older

systems. The name Linux is kind of generic when it comes to what

the distributions can accomplish and or designed to accomplish. I

personally wouldn't recommend

Ubuntu as the first choice for Linux to anybody, even if I figured it

would probably work well for them.

 

As far as a new motherboard goes, wow, I recently 'nearly' got a new

one but luckily with a chain of benign events, I realized that could

have been kind of more than an annoyance that it would have been worth

for

me.

 

For what it's worth I live near a microcenter computer store and they

often have motherboard CPU combos

for less than $80.00, I hope that within a few months to build a new

system.

[Guest Ogg]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

Mike M wrote:

|| I'm sorry but that's absolute rubbish and I'm surprised that you

|| make such a statement. Take RAM for example, Systems simply didn't

|| have 1 or 2GB of RAM when Win Me was developed in 1999..

 

Review your research. I purchased a 1gig-capable 1ghz pc in 1999. The

basic purchase configuration was 128meg ram. I requested a total of 256meg

(with one module) which raised the price by atleast $200 at the time. And

THAT configuration was on its way out of the market already. Granted..

WinME was on its way out of the market by then as well, replaced by XP. But

I decided to stay with the pre-built WinME pc because the price was about

half of a XP system at the time.

 

 

|| ....The same can also be

|| said for hard drives and their capacity where anything over 32GB was

|| considered big.

 

My pc had 40gig. 40giggers were quite readily available. Yes.. I thought

that would be plenty at the time. :(

 

 

|| .. Processors much the same,

|| 400MHz was around the fastest processors in use at the time.

 

You have your dates mixed up. 1gHz CPUs were very common in 1999/2000.

 

 

|| Win Me continues to do exactly what it was designed to do, that is

|| to run pretty well on hardware common in the domestic environment in

|| 2000..

 

If you have to disable features in an OS to reach an acceptable level of

performance, then the OS was designed poorly and could NOT do was it was

expected to do with all those features.

 

 

||| "so long WinME and thanks or all the fishy performance".

||

|| Shame you didn't fix your problems years ago, others did. <g>

 

 

My first 2 years of usung WinME were hell. Then I discovered this ng and a

couple of other fine WinME support forums. I received a lot of helpful hints

and tips from the folks here, including you. Then the next 4 years of using

WinME went fairly smoothly. But the common concensus was to disable a pile

of WinME features, reduce settings, and even delete certain WinME components

such as PCHealth. I did all that. WinME was "usable" again. But there

still existed the strange way that the Explore process would refresh the

desktop and jumble the icons, and the occasional lock-up when the pc was

just sitting idle! I tolerated most of that rather well. Recently, in the

last 2 years since I added 512meg more ram and did some more WinME "fixes",

the performance has not been good. The whole idea with adding more ram was

so that I could have more windows open and switch between 3 or 4 apps.

That's not an extraordinary expectation. With the ram upgrade, WinME has

trouble managing more windows.

 

I don't want to downgrade my existing hardware, and I don't want to waste

any more $'s on new stuff, OS nor HW. I want to keep the total 756meg of

ram. I want to re-install my new/old 128meg AGP with dual VGA/DVI and TV

Out ports. It's all brand-new WinME-ready hardware from 2000. There is

nothing wrong with the hardware.

 

Unlike you, my computing needs have grown a little bit. I can't stay with

WinME if it can't support a basic hardware upgrade from its own era. From

my exposure to the various Linuxes, the change will be a kind of breath of

fresh air as well.

[Guest Mike M]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

Review your dates. Win Me wasn't even released until June 2000. My cpu

comments were out by about a year.

> You have your dates mixed up. 1gHz CPUs were very common in

> 1999/2000.

 

Simply not true. The first 1GHz cpus were not released until May 2000.

 

Pentium IIIs Slot I Katami's were first available in May 1999 with a

600MHz version being released in August 1999. These were replaced by

Coppermines using socket 370 in October 1999 with a 1 GHz version released

in May 2000 so yes, this would have been at the same time that Win Me was

released but to say that they were common in 1999 is false and not true

either of 2000 other than for top of the range systems. Tulatins ranging

from 1GHz to 1.4GHz were first released during 2001.

> And THAT configuration was on its way out of the market already.

 

Simply untrue..

> Unlike you, my computing needs have grown a little bit.

 

Oh dear. Such complete and total ignorance and perhaps sum up your post.

You have absolutely no idea about my computing needs let alone the

hardware and operating systems that I am running. I haven't used Win Me

other than in a support role since September 2000 when I first started

running XP although I do still have a Celeron 333MHz with 256MB that ran

flawlessly for years and was used by my family. Much of my Win Me support

is by running Win Me in a virtual machine.

> From my exposure to the various Linuxes, the change will be a

> kind of breath of fresh air as well

 

Some might say the same would be true if you and perhaps myself were to

cease posting to this newsgroup.

--

Mike Maltby

mike.maltby@gmail.com

 

 

Ogg <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote:

> Mike M wrote:

>>> I'm sorry but that's absolute rubbish and I'm surprised that you

>>> make such a statement. Take RAM for example, Systems simply didn't

>>> have 1 or 2GB of RAM when Win Me was developed in 1999..

>

> Review your research. I purchased a 1gig-capable 1ghz pc in 1999. The

> basic purchase configuration was 128meg ram. I requested a total

> of 256meg (with one module) which raised the price by atleast $200 at

> the time. And THAT configuration was on its way out of the market

> already. Granted.. WinME was on its way out of the market by then as

> well, replaced by XP. But I decided to stay with the pre-built WinME

> pc because the price was about half of a XP system at the time.

>

>

>>> ....The same can also be

>>> said for hard drives and their capacity where anything over 32GB was

>>> considered big.

>

> My pc had 40gig. 40giggers were quite readily available. Yes.. I

> thought that would be plenty at the time. :(

>

>

>>> .. Processors much the same,

>>> 400MHz was around the fastest processors in use at the time.

>

> You have your dates mixed up. 1gHz CPUs were very common in

> 1999/2000.

>

>>> Win Me continues to do exactly what it was designed to do, that is

>>> to run pretty well on hardware common in the domestic environment in

>>> 2000..

>

> If you have to disable features in an OS to reach an acceptable level

> of performance, then the OS was designed poorly and could NOT do was

> it was expected to do with all those features.

>

>

>>>> "so long WinME and thanks or all the fishy performance".

>>>

>>> Shame you didn't fix your problems years ago, others did. <g>

>

>

> My first 2 years of usung WinME were hell. Then I discovered this ng

> and a couple of other fine WinME support forums. I received a lot of

> helpful hints and tips from the folks here, including you. Then the

> next 4 years of using WinME went fairly smoothly. But the common

> concensus was to disable a pile of WinME features, reduce settings,

> and even delete certain WinME components such as PCHealth. I did

> all that. WinME was "usable" again. But there still existed the

> strange way that the Explore process would refresh the desktop and

> jumble the icons, and the occasional lock-up when the pc was just

> sitting idle! I tolerated most of that rather well. Recently, in the

> last 2 years since I added 512meg more ram and did some more WinME

> "fixes", the performance has not been good. The whole idea with

> adding more ram was so that I could have more windows open and switch

> between 3 or 4 apps. That's not an extraordinary expectation. With

> the ram upgrade, WinME has trouble managing more windows.

> I don't want to downgrade my existing hardware, and I don't want to

> waste any more $'s on new stuff, OS nor HW. I want to keep the total

> 756meg of ram. I want to re-install my new/old 128meg AGP with dual

> VGA/DVI and TV Out ports. It's all brand-new WinME-ready hardware

> from 2000. There is nothing wrong with the hardware.

>

> Unlike you, my computing needs have grown a little bit. I can't stay

> with WinME if it can't support a basic hardware upgrade from its own

> era. From my exposure to the various Linuxes, the change will be a

> kind of breath of fresh air as well.

[Guest webster72n]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

 

<squirltok@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:7f36b403-3854-44ee-bb65-031782cc73c8@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>

>

> webster72n wrote:

> > "Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message

> > news:eGaRnYccIHA.4144@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> > > webster72n wrote:

> > > || Just for the record, these are 'minor' occurrences and can easily

be

> > > || fixed by either using Tweak UI, or IE Repair in Add/Remove

Programs.

> > > || Once the system is stabilized, it will most likely stay that way.

> > >

> > >

> > > I've TweakUI'd and Repair IE'd quite a bit over the years. I've come

to

> > the

> > > conclusion that if the only way to stabilize WinME is by turning

features

> > > off, and imposing other restrictions such as ram/vcache, etc... then

it's

> > > obvious that WinME can't do what it was expected to do.

> > >

> > > It basically irks me that WinME is so tempermental with more than

512ram.

> > > Another problem it seems to have is accepting a new AGP video card

that I

> > > researched to be WinME compatible. I really wanted to increase the

video

> > ram

> > > from 64meg to 128meg and obtain dual DVI/VGA output for supporting a

> > future

> > > LCD screen. The card installed OK, but the performance was

problematic.

> > > However, Ubuntu had absolutely no problem with it.

> > >

> > > Time to say "solong WinME and thanks or all the fishy performance".

;).

> >

> > I've tried to "interview" Ubuntu, but my bios refused to cooperate, to

the

> > dismay of Alias, who blamed it on me. If I would want to install Ubuntu

or

> > any other Linux system, I will have to have a newer motherboard or a new

> > machine.

>

> Well, that's not necessarily true, Linux has been around for a long

> while and many distributions will accommodate all kinds of older

> systems. The name Linux is kind of generic when it comes to what

> the distributions can accomplish and or designed to accomplish. I

> personally wouldn't recommend

> Ubuntu as the first choice for Linux to anybody, even if I figured it

> would probably work well for them.

>

> As far as a new motherboard goes, wow, I recently 'nearly' got a new

> one but luckily with a chain of benign events, I realized that could

> have been kind of more than an annoyance that it would have been worth

> for

> me.

>

> For what it's worth I live near a microcenter computer store and they

> often have motherboard CPU combos

> for less than $80.00, I hope that within a few months to build a new

> system.

 

Considering our's and Mike's and Ogg's comments, the thought occurs whether

it might not be time to terminate the existence of this NG, but OTOH, who

would want to miss Heirloom and the many others?

I'm not giving up, yet,

 

Harry.

[Guest Ogg]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

Mike M wrote:

|| Review your dates. Win Me wasn't even released until June 2000. My

|| cpu comments were out by about a year.

 

 

I was out by six months. Reviewing the date of my order, I purchased my

WinME pc in June 2001. But you've missed the whole point of my remarks.

WinME had to be tweaked down and features disabled inorder to work with the

year 2000 hardware. If you're suggesting that WinME was not designed to

work with CPUs and hardware newly released in 2000, then I will accept that.

 

This ng has probably outgrown its usefulness, and no "new" users are using

WinMe anymore. I only stuck around incase someone still needed a WinMe tip

or some help based on a real system, not a virtualized one.

[Guest EW]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, "webster72n" <webster...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> I do understand your reasoning, squirltok, but your assessment of WinME

> isn't justified by far. ME isn't as unstable and insecure as you make it out

> to be; a lot has to do with the user and the installed software. Mike will

> probably attest to that.

ETC.....................................

 

Totally agree. Windows ME gets many bad raps for no good reason. I

have it running on 3 of my 6 systems and it keeps hanging in there. I

even use it on a very old vintage Pentium at 133 MHz.

 

My ME systems are also very stable, unlike the negative reviews from

others. What are they doing on their ME systems??!

 

I also use Win ME on a Virtual PC, try to break it, but it keeps

withstanding my attempts. Just lucky, I guess.

 

EW

[Guest MrTom]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

webster72n wrote:

> Considering our's and Mike's and Ogg's comments, the thought occurs

whether

> it might not be time to terminate the existence of this NG, but OTOH, who

> would want to miss Heirloom and the many others?

> I'm not giving up, yet,

>

> Harry.

>

>

 

Terminate this newsgroup? No way.

 

Tom

[Guest squirltok@yahoo.com]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

 

 

webster72n wrote:

> <squirltok@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:7f36b403-3854-44ee-bb65-031782cc73c8@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> >

> >

> > webster72n wrote:

> > > "Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message

> > > news:eGaRnYccIHA.4144@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> > > > webster72n wrote:

> > > > || Just for the record, these are 'minor' occurrences and can easily

> be

> > > > || fixed by either using Tweak UI, or IE Repair in Add/Remove

> Programs.

> > > > || Once the system is stabilized, it will most likely stay that way.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I've TweakUI'd and Repair IE'd quite a bit over the years. I've come

> to

> > > the

> > > > conclusion that if the only way to stabilize WinME is by turning

> features

> > > > off, and imposing other restrictions such as ram/vcache, etc... then

> it's

> > > > obvious that WinME can't do what it was expected to do.

> > > >

> > > > It basically irks me that WinME is so tempermental with more than

> 512ram.

> > > > Another problem it seems to have is accepting a new AGP video card

> that I

> > > > researched to be WinME compatible. I really wanted to increase the

> video

> > > ram

> > > > from 64meg to 128meg and obtain dual DVI/VGA output for supporting a

> > > future

> > > > LCD screen. The card installed OK, but the performance was

> problematic.

> > > > However, Ubuntu had absolutely no problem with it.

> > > >

> > > > Time to say "solong WinME and thanks or all the fishy performance".

> ;).

> > >

> > > I've tried to "interview" Ubuntu, but my bios refused to cooperate, to

> the

> > > dismay of Alias, who blamed it on me. If I would want to install Ubuntu

> or

> > > any other Linux system, I will have to have a newer motherboard or a new

> > > machine.

> >

> > Well, that's not necessarily true, Linux has been around for a long

> > while and many distributions will accommodate all kinds of older

> > systems. The name Linux is kind of generic when it comes to what

> > the distributions can accomplish and or designed to accomplish. I

> > personally wouldn't recommend

> > Ubuntu as the first choice for Linux to anybody, even if I figured it

> > would probably work well for them.

> >

> > As far as a new motherboard goes, wow, I recently 'nearly' got a new

> > one but luckily with a chain of benign events, I realized that could

> > have been kind of more than an annoyance that it would have been worth

> > for

> > me.

> >

> > For what it's worth I live near a microcenter computer store and they

> > often have motherboard CPU combos

> > for less than $80.00, I hope that within a few months to build a new

> > system.

>

> Considering our's and Mike's and Ogg's comments, the thought occurs whether

> it might not be time to terminate the existence of this NG, but OTOH, who

> would want to miss Heirloom and the many others?

> I'm not giving up, yet,

>

> Harry.

 

Heck no, this group lets me see some normalcy in life. Me personally I

bitch and whine all the time

and I like seeing simple discussions and good ol simple nice comments

like the folks here tend to

make.

[Guest webster72n]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

 

"EW" <EW1947@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:5d957f4f-ad71-4647-9063-1b422b471640@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, "webster72n" <webster...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> I do understand your reasoning, squirltok, but your assessment of WinME

> isn't justified by far. ME isn't as unstable and insecure as you make it

out

> to be; a lot has to do with the user and the installed software. Mike will

> probably attest to that.

ETC.....................................

 

Totally agree. Windows ME gets many bad raps for no good reason. I

have it running on 3 of my 6 systems and it keeps hanging in there. I

even use it on a very old vintage Pentium at 133 MHz.

 

My ME systems are also very stable, unlike the negative reviews from

others. What are they doing on their ME systems??!

 

I also use Win ME on a Virtual PC, try to break it, but it keeps

withstanding my attempts. Just lucky, I guess.

 

Don't consider it luck, EW, that's proper handling and pure skill.

Your comments are quite refreshing and just what we needed.

Thank you. <H>.

 

EW

[Guest Joan Archer]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

I don't think so, I still have a WinME system here that is running with no

problems at the moment but that doesn't mean I wont have any and you try

going into an XP group and ask about it, I don't think so. <g> And mine is

an actually system on my network not a virtual one <g>

 

Anyway what's wrong with it still going, at least you can get sensible

answers to questions here from knowledgeable people, unlike some of the

other ng's around <g>

 

 

"Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message

news:OY2OZplcIHA.6080@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

> This ng has probably outgrown its usefulness, and no "new" users are using

> WinMe anymore. I only stuck around incase someone still needed a WinMe

> tip or some help based on a real system, not a virtualized one.

>

>

>

[Guest Mike M]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

> But you've missed the whole point of my remarks.

 

Not at all. You made yourself perfectly clear demonstrating your failure

to understand much of what you were complaining about.

> I only stuck around incase someone still needed

> a WinMe tip or some help based on a real system, not a virtualized

> one.

 

As I stated I still have a Celeron 333MHz with 256MB that ran (Win Me)

flawlessly for years and is still available to me when required. However

I rarely nowadays need to fire up Win Me, real or virtual, to answer

queries posted in this NG.

--

Mike Maltby

mike.maltby@gmail.com

 

 

Ogg <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote:

> Mike M wrote:

>>> Review your dates. Win Me wasn't even released until June 2000. My

>>> cpu comments were out by about a year.

>

>

> I was out by six months. Reviewing the date of my order, I purchased

> my WinME pc in June 2001. But you've missed the whole point of my

> remarks. WinME had to be tweaked down and features disabled inorder

> to work with the year 2000 hardware. If you're suggesting that WinME

> was not designed to work with CPUs and hardware newly released in

> 2000, then I will accept that.

> This ng has probably outgrown its usefulness, and no "new" users are

> using WinMe anymore. I only stuck around incase someone still needed

> a WinMe tip or some help based on a real system, not a virtualized

> one.

[Guest Ogg]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

Mike M wrote:

>> But you've missed the whole point of my remarks.

>

> Not at all. You made yourself perfectly clear demonstrating your

> failure to understand much of what you were complaining about.

 

It's your perogative to remain stubborn and to refuse to recognize the

truth. But that doesn't bother me.

 

> As I stated I still have a Celeron 333MHz with 256MB that ran (Win Me)

> flawlessly for years and is still available to me when required.

> However I rarely nowadays need to fire up Win Me, real or virtual, to

> answer queries posted in this NG.

 

I remember all that, Mike. However your WinME senario is not real-world,

and not using the latest updates of any other Win app. That is precisely

the difference between your seldom used outdated program/OS environment and

my currently updated-with-many-apps and in-use system. We're not comparing

equal WinME systems at all. If I had to only fire up my system for a few

minutes and run an app and then shut down, I am sure my system would appear

to be just as "reliable" as yours. Unlike you, I *do* still rely on my ME

system daily for more than 12 hours at a stretch.

 

I believe we can rest this discussion.

[Guest webster72n]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

 

"Ogg" <sorry-nopam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message

news:OaVVknzcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Mike M wrote:

> >> But you've missed the whole point of my remarks.

> >

> > Not at all. You made yourself perfectly clear demonstrating your

> > failure to understand much of what you were complaining about.

>

> It's your perogative to remain stubborn and to refuse to recognize the

> truth. But that doesn't bother me.

>

>

> > As I stated I still have a Celeron 333MHz with 256MB that ran (Win Me)

> > flawlessly for years and is still available to me when required.

> > However I rarely nowadays need to fire up Win Me, real or virtual, to

> > answer queries posted in this NG.

>

> I remember all that, Mike. However your WinME senario is not real-world,

> and not using the latest updates of any other Win app. That is precisely

> the difference between your seldom used outdated program/OS environment

and

> my currently updated-with-many-apps and in-use system. We're not

comparing

> equal WinME systems at all. If I had to only fire up my system for a few

> minutes and run an app and then shut down, I am sure my system would

appear

> to be just as "reliable" as yours. Unlike you, I *do* still rely on my ME

> system daily for more than 12 hours at a stretch.

 

All the more reason to keep this group alive, don't you think?

There isn't much advantage in arguing about "non-essential" details. <H>.

>

> I believe we can rest this discussion.

>

>

[Guest Ogg]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

webster72n wrote:

>> ...I *do* still rely on my ME system

>> daily for more than 12 hours at a stretch.

>

> All the more reason to keep this group alive, don't you think?

> There isn't much advantage in arguing about "non-essential" details.

> <H>.

 

Well.. I'm only hanging on to WinMe until I've fully transferred and backed

up my existing data. It's taking a while because I still continue to use

the same system to do my work and most of my communication too. When I've

decided what I can absolutely give up, I'm simply going to overwrite the

existing WinMe environment with the replacement OS. I'm not needing

anymore WinMe fixes because I believe I've applied everything that has been

published on the various quirks and problems and there's nothing more that

can get fixed in WinMe that I haven't

tried. Meanwhile, all I can do is avoid doing certain things like launching

more than three apps or windows and not be tempted to try new apps nor

"upgrade" any of my current WinMe apps.

 

I've received great tips and advice here over the years that has helped

minimize certain system problems. I am quite grateful for that. However,

WinMe has reached its limit of fixability. The OS can't meet my current

needs, but the current hardware can. I want my current hardware (despite it

being dated from year 2000) to work as I expect.

[Guest webster72n]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

 

"Ogg" <sorry-nopam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message

news:etZXAO1cIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> webster72n wrote:

> >> ...I *do* still rely on my ME system

> >> daily for more than 12 hours at a stretch.

> >

> > All the more reason to keep this group alive, don't you think?

> > There isn't much advantage in arguing about "non-essential" details.

> > <H>.

>

> Well.. I'm only hanging on to WinMe until I've fully transferred and

backed

> up my existing data. It's taking a while because I still continue to use

> the same system to do my work and most of my communication too. When I've

> decided what I can absolutely give up, I'm simply going to overwrite the

> existing WinMe environment with the replacement OS. I'm not needing

> anymore WinMe fixes because I believe I've applied everything that has

been

> published on the various quirks and problems and there's nothing more that

> can get fixed in WinMe that I haven't

> tried. Meanwhile, all I can do is avoid doing certain things like

launching

> more than three apps or windows and not be tempted to try new apps nor

> "upgrade" any of my current WinMe apps.

>

> I've received great tips and advice here over the years that has helped

> minimize certain system problems. I am quite grateful for that. However,

> WinMe has reached its limit of fixability. The OS can't meet my current

> needs, but the current hardware can. I want my current hardware (despite

it

> being dated from year 2000) to work as I expect.

 

I don't see anything wrong with your decision under the circumstances.

Once you have severed the ties with WinME, don't forget to stop by once in a

while, your presence always was and will be appreciated. <H>.

>

>

[Guest Job]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

My ME runs on an old HP Pavilion (only computer that I own)

and I keep it powered up day and night. I do a lot of

surfing, games, music and rarely have any problems with the

system even though I never installed ALL the Microsoft

recommended updates.

 

What I mean to say is I am happy with ME and I'm very glad

there is still a newsgroup that I can come to for

knowledgeable help on the rare occasion that I encounter a

problem.

 

If I ever become ready to move on to another computing

system I will do so and, hopefully, I won't assume that

others should do the same.

 

 

 

"Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message

news:OY2OZplcIHA.6080@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

Mike M wrote:

|| Review your dates. Win Me wasn't even released until

June 2000. My

|| cpu comments were out by about a year.

 

 

I was out by six months. Reviewing the date of my order, I

purchased my

WinME pc in June 2001. But you've missed the whole point

of my remarks.

WinME had to be tweaked down and features disabled inorder

to work with the

year 2000 hardware. If you're suggesting that WinME was not

designed to

work with CPUs and hardware newly released in 2000, then I

will accept that.

 

This ng has probably outgrown its usefulness, and no "new"

users are using

WinMe anymore. I only stuck around incase someone still

needed a WinMe tip

or some help based on a real system, not a virtualized one.

[Guest webster72n]

Re: Time for a new operating system??

 

 

"Job" <iam@best.slow> wrote in message

news:ev%23y2DBdIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> My ME runs on an old HP Pavilion (only computer that I own)

> and I keep it powered up day and night. I do a lot of

> surfing, games, music and rarely have any problems with the

> system even though I never installed ALL the Microsoft

> recommended updates.

>

> What I mean to say is I am happy with ME and I'm very glad

> there is still a newsgroup that I can come to for

> knowledgeable help on the rare occasion that I encounter a

> problem.

>

> If I ever become ready to move on to another computing

> system I will do so and, hopefully, I won't assume that

> others should do the same.

 

Thanks, Job, glad to have you. <H>.

>

>

>

> "Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message

> news:OY2OZplcIHA.6080@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Mike M wrote:

> || Review your dates. Win Me wasn't even released until

> June 2000. My

> || cpu comments were out by about a year.

>

>

> I was out by six months. Reviewing the date of my order, I

> purchased my

> WinME pc in June 2001. But you've missed the whole point

> of my remarks.

> WinME had to be tweaked down and features disabled inorder

> to work with the

> year 2000 hardware. If you're suggesting that WinME was not

> designed to

> work with CPUs and hardware newly released in 2000, then I

> will accept that.

>

> This ng has probably outgrown its usefulness, and no "new"

> users are using

> WinMe anymore. I only stuck around incase someone still

> needed a WinMe tip

> or some help based on a real system, not a virtualized one.

>

>

>

>