Is ME really the worst OS?

I've found 98 SE and ME to be about the same. It's almost a toss up. Some new features in ME are kind of cool, but some of the features 98 had that were dropped or modified in ME are cool too. ME seems to work a slight bit better for me at detecting devices and installing drivers. But its MS DOS support for Windows is not as good.

I'd say generally that the older the O/S and the more people are still using it, the more known issues and bugs have been discovered and worked out around it. That is likely what gives 98 the edge, if anything. More people have it on their PCs and more issues with it are known and have work arounds.

I haven't had the privilege of XP yet, which some people tell me is the bomb. But the new thing is always the best in some people's eyes.

The short answer: I personally haven't had that many problems specifically with ME. But then I'm not running a lot of the most current hardware or games apps. And those are some things that can put the real demands on your O/S. But I've never heard of any O/S that didn't give somebody a bad problem at some time. When they come out with one like that, I'm definitely down! LOL ;)

Tharsis

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tharsis
But I've never heard of any O/S that didn't give somebody a bad problem at some time. When they come out with one like that, I'm definitely down

---

try any version of dos

;)

I have an old Tandy Coco III for sale.
17000 Hz 8606 processor.
512 K of RAM (32k useable by BASIC)
and two 51/4'' 360K FLOPPY DRIVES. wow.
12" RGB monitor with an 80 x 32 column screen
dirt cheap :D

To echo the thoughts of others here....if it's working great for you, then it's a great OS. A friend of mine has it on her Compaq laptop and she has all sorts of crashes, etc. My wife is running 98SE on an AMD 900TB with a low cost Amptron MOBO and it's only crashed twice in the last year! She uses it constantly, though mostly for Word, WordPerfect and AOL.

I run XP Pro on a couple of boxes at home and just love it. I had been using 2000 Pro but found it didn't like Photoshop very much. Photoshop tended to hang or lag temporarily, as did Dreamweaver and Illustrator, under 2000. No such trouble in XP Pro. By the way, my workstation at work has 2000 Pro and exhibits the same problems with Photoshop, DW and Illustrator. For those reasons I would definitely NOT recommend 2000 for a graphics station. Other than that, stability of 2000 vs XP is the same in my experience......rock steady.

I think that when people upgraded over problems they had with 98, they kept those same problems and it probably added a few because of it. I had very few problems with ME, but did have lots with 98 and 98SE.

Georgeq:
See that link in my post? That's how.

To save you the bother of working it out, it goes like this:

Open C:\Windows\System.ini
Find [vcache]
Add this below [vcache]

MinFileCache=131072
MaxFileCache=262144
ChunkSize=512

Now put the extra memory in.

You want it to look something like this:

(blah blah blah)
(blah blah blah)
(blah blah blah)

[vcache]
MinFileCache=131072
MaxFileCache=262144
ChunkSize=512

[(whatever comes next)]
(blah blah blah)
(blah blah blah)
(blah blah blah)

Does that fix it?

to: Spiny

Thanks for the info and the link, I have just yesterday returned the extra stick to memoryman for credit.

But I will get another one. At the present time my Vcache is just an empty folder.

I can always send it back if it does not work, they are going to love me overthere, but then I have bought memory fronm them when a 128MB stick of PC100 sold for about $ 300.00 also.

[vcache] is normally empty, that just means Windows is (mis)handling the virtual cache automatically.

Don't forget - the customer is always right, but they must be punished for their arrogance. Just ask Dogbert.

Spiny,

Me think you are absulutely positively 100 % right. You hit it right on the gazu, so to speak.

It is my honest opinion that Windows is (mis)handling a lot of issues very well.

My hat off to Billy Gates and his gang members.