Switching from Windows ME to Windows 98

In general, the people I talk to find 98 to be a better
operating system then ME. Is this valid? I am switching
from a Celeron, 768 mhz, to a Pentium 3, 933 mhz machine
and the guy want to put windows 98 on it. Sound good?

Mike
Tue Dec 02 10:25:57 CST 2003

> Sound good?

No, not at all. Why install an operating system that which will only be
supported by Microsoft for another month or so. IMO you would be much better
advised to install XP Home.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mcmaltby@hotmail.com


Verne Harris <vmh53@comcast.net> wrote:

> In general, the people I talk to find 98 to be a better
> operating system then ME. Is this valid? I am switching
> from a Celeron, 768 mhz, to a Pentium 3, 933 mhz machine
> and the guy want to put windows 98 on it. Sound good?

SaltPeter
Tue Dec 02 15:54:21 CST 2003

The guy who says that "Win98 is better than WinME" shouldn't be allowed
near your system. It's obvious that the issue has to do with hardware
compatibility. And in those systems where compatibility isn't an issue,
WinME destroys Win98 specially in a networking environment. He who says
otherwise is a rookie or lacks a little practice.

"Verne Harris" <vmh53@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0b2401c3b8e5$b16650c0$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> In general, the people I talk to find 98 to be a better
> operating system then ME. Is this valid? I am switching
> from a Celeron, 768 mhz, to a Pentium 3, 933 mhz machine
> and the guy want to put windows 98 on it. Sound good?

Gary
Wed Dec 03 15:56:39 CST 2003

This is a common rumor, but rumor is too polite a term. WinME is much
easier to set up for networking and new hardware, and has many features that
are in XP, such as system file protection (ever try to keep on top of your
files with 98's system file checker??), system restore, etc. All systems
need basic care to remain stable.

Part of the origin of this idea that ME is a bad system probably comes from
the fact that it appeared so quickly after 98SE...no one really wanted it
anyway. Add to that the fact that things like sypware have increased, web
pages have gotten complicated, you click a poput and it installs something
you don't want, applications and games have gotten huge and demanding,
everything you install wants to put itself in the startup, and the huge
increase in virus activity as well as more complex ways of having to deal
with the threat...and you get people with newer machines that remember when
their Win98 machines didn't act up like the ME one does now. So they blame
ME, and think they could fix it by going back to 98.

My oldest installation of ME is on a machine where I installed it in June
2000, when it was released. Still going strong and without problems,
through a new motherboard, several hard drives, and much hardware. Problems
have arisen, but not that couldn't be fixed, and not the fault of the OS in
general. Other later installations have been similarly stable. With Win95,
I used to reformat every 6 months at most to keep it running. Win98 was
better, but ME is better yet.

If I were building a P133 64 MB machine, I'd probably put 98 on it, it's a
simpler system; but I'd miss the features and usability of ME.

Gary

"Verne Harris" <vmh53@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0b2401c3b8e5$b16650c0$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> In general, the people I talk to find 98 to be a better
> operating system then ME. Is this valid? I am switching
> from a Celeron, 768 mhz, to a Pentium 3, 933 mhz machine
> and the guy want to put windows 98 on it. Sound good?