Jack
Thu Mar 17 07:48:17 CST 2005
Zee, I believe that Mike M, Noel, and I differ from Jim Eshelman's
assessment of WinME, which you quote in part, because we have considerably
more experience with WinME than Jim did (or has now) when he wrote those
words. And in the meantime, all vendors have increased support for WinME.
Even the latest, fastest games usually support WinME. Hardware and software
compatibility are no longer any issue.
Furthermore, I believe that Jim's assessment of 16-bit system resource
management by WinME is incorrect. In particular, it is my understanding
that as system resources decrease to a point of concern, WinME is far more
active in recovering unused resources previously allocated to now-closed
programs. Also, WinME is more conservative than Win98 at that point in
allocating resources to newly launched programs, allocating more than
minimal to run only when really needed by the program. This more active,
more intelligent management of the limited Win9X 16-bit resources permits
WinME to run far after any similarly stressed Win98 machine would have
requested that programs be closed to proceed, or would have crashed.
And I have previously posted additional advantages of WinME relative to
Win98.
Now, for the moment assuming that my position is correct, you are certainly
free to regard these points as unimportant or irrelevant, and/or that Mr.
Eshelman is more believable than me.
However, I think most informed users will differ from you.
My interest here is to inform better the readers of this thread, so that
they can have a better computing experience, ... not necessarily to persuade
you that we are correct.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you:
http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx
In Memorium: Alex Nichol
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/nichol.mspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"oops!!" <notme@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%23aG12zsKFHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> Noel,
>
> I'm sure we're not discussing the same article:
>
> Quoting a few lines from there:
>
> On Multimedia & Snaz:
>
> Windows XP is the most snazzy in this department, with Windows ME coming
in
> at a reasonably strong second place. Win98 sits in the middle.
>
> On Hardware Compatibility:
>
> Windows ME had the poorest hardware compatibility of any recent version of
> Windows for the simple reason that many hardware manufacturers never
> bothered to create drivers for it.
>
> On Managing the Underbelly
>
> All four operating systems have excellent tools for system maintenance, in
a
> way that leaves Windows 95 in the dust.
> ...
> Windows XP and ME require the least, and are the only ones that have
> something theoretically approaching a button for, ?Ooh! my system got
> kablooied, please put it back the way it was before I broke it.? This
System
> Restore feature is much better enabled in XP than in ME.
>
> On System Resource Depletion:
>
> Consumption of free System Resources has been an important and frustrating
> issue in Windows 9x, at least for many users, due to an architecture that
> was necessary for the backwards compatibility that has been so important
in
> Windows 9x.
> ....
> Win98 and Win ME do, however, have this problem. Of the two, Win98 handles
> it far, far better. System Resource consumption and management in Win ME
are
> worse than in any other version of Windows.
>
> On The Future:
>
> All other things being completely and totally equal, of the Windows
> operating systems available prior to the release of Windows XP, I
personally
> would use Windows 98 as my operating system of choice. Win98 (either
> version) is the high-water mark of the Win 9x OS family.
>
> Unquote.
>
> So... my opinion is similar to the above and different from yours.
>
> Is that so wrong that I can't even post it?
>
> And yes, I do run both Win98 and WinME every single day for some years....
>
> Why don't you just answer the questioner's request and post your opinion
> there, rather than contradicting mine?
>
> Why do you believe yourselves to be so damn important?
>
> Why the hell do you believe to be the exclusive owners of all truth?
>
> Stop a few minutes to think and see who's who or who's what in here.
>
> This ends my comments here until we meet again, of course.
>
> And, yes, be happy rather than grumpy.
>
> Zee
>
>
>
> "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:%23hnYt9rKFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > If *you* actually read the article you post, you'll find that the only
> thing
> > the author has against ME is it's lack of hardware support - which has
to
> a
> > large extent been rectified over the years. It's my belief that this has
> > also alleviated at least some of the resource problems that ME had
> initially
> > (the extent of which is open to dispute anyhow - I don't find it any
> worse
> > than 98 or 98SE, and a heck of a lot better than '95!)
> >
> > The rest of my comments are based on 5 years use of ME - on a number of
> > different systems, together with years of use of every other MS OS that
> has
> > ever been released (from Windows 2.1 on - but also including DOS).
> >
> > Most users have never used ME.
> > Most INFORMED users that I've spoken to - who have used ME for any
length
> of
> > time - prefer ME over 98, if only for System Restore, which far
outweighs
> > the minor niggles that remain in ME.
> >
> > --
> > Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
> >
> > Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> >
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
> >
> > In fond memory of one of life's Gentlemen - Alex Nichol
> >
http://www.aumha.org/alex.htm
> >
> > Please read
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
NG's
> >
> > "oops!!" <notme@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:eG7Z5mnKFHA.604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > >
> > > Bonjour Noel,
> > >
> > > Quote:
> > > Be aware, that >>most users<< do not consider WinME an
> > > upgrade against Win98SE.
> > > Unquote.
> > >
> > > And the rest of your comments are biased to say the least.
> > >
> > > Or probably typed in such a rush that you just forgot reading my
initial
> > > post, and didn't even care checking the link I posted to an opinion
> > > article
> > > from someone that should deserve the same respect Mike Maltby does.
> > >
> > > It seems that most MVPs around here are nothing more than "Yes-men".
But
> > > be
> > > my guest you're free to do it. I won't.
> > >
> > > Oh well, too damn predictable, again. Team work, probably.
> > >
> > > Be happy.
> > >
> > > À bientôt.
> > >
> > > Zee
> > >
> > >
> > > "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > > news:eLmZNbmKFHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > >> "Listen very carefully - I will say this only once."... (the UK
readers
> > > will
> > >> know the reference!)
> > >>
> > >> You know not whereof you speak - please learn a little, before
> attempting
> > > to
> > >> dispute with a person whom even the writers of the program consider
an
> > >> expert on the subject.
> > >>
> > >> IOW - you're talking rubbish.
> > >> If you want to enter a discussion, then it's a two-way thing - you
> > >> provide
> > > a
> > >> little insight into your thinking, and the others involved do
likewise.
> > >> So
> > >> far in this thread you have contributed one statement, and failed
> > > singularly
> > >> to back it up with either data or a plausible argument.
> > >> Put up or shut up.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
> > >>
> > >> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> > >>
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
> > >>
> > >> In fond memory of one of life's Gentlemen - Alex Nichol
> > >>
http://www.aumha.org/alex.htm
> > >>
> > >> Please read
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
> NG's
> > >>
> > >> "oops!!" <notme@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:%23OIqqqgKFHA.2688@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > >>
> > >> Mike,
> > >>
> > >> You're too predictable (a.k.a. boring.....).
> > >>
> > >> Should we expect something original in your next post?
> > >>
> > >> Funny, have you noticed that lately the longest threads around the
> WinME
> > >
> > >> NGs, excluding that KB891711 mess, are our discussions on and around
> the
> > > sex
> > >> of angels?
> > >>
> > >> Not funny.
> > >>
> > >> Zee
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
> > >> news:%23bgAXVbKFHA.3832@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > >> > I see you are still unable to provide the information requested.
It
> > >> > appears you know less about Win Me and system restore than you
thought.
> > >> > Perhaps you should confine your postings to areas where you have
expertise
> > >> > and are able to provide genuine help - something I know you can do
from
> > >> > other postings of yours.
> > >> > --
> > >> > Mike Maltby MS-MVP
> > >> > mike.maltby@gmail.com
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > oops!! <notme@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Mike,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > You're killing me... Stop, please.
> > >> >