Time for a new operating system??

I used winme just until a little after they stopped offering support
and they admitted, at the very end, that it was a dud that cannot be
secured. I found windows2000 that I like and is supported but how
about trying Linux and give up the spyware virus magnet, especially on
a system that cannot even be secured in the first place.

Try PcLinux, get the minime version. Simply download the ISO file and
burn it to a CD with DeepBurner and
set your BIOS to boot fropm the CD drive and reboot. Use the system
from your hard drive and decide
if you like it or not. If you like it install it.

Mike
Thu Feb 14 01:35:44 PST 2008

> it was a dud that cannot be secured.

No more so than any other Win9x operating system and the same is true of
all other operating systems today. All contain hidden vulnerabilities
which when discovered need to be patched be the OS Linux, Mac OS Leopard,
Vista or XP. However without on going support, such as is the case with
Win Me, those holes won't get patched. Due to its age and being a Win 9x
system Win Me isn't particularly vulnerable to exploits currently in the
wild since these primarily target more modern operating systems such as XP
and Vista. Perhaps the biggest weakness is Internet Explorer which is
frozen at IE6 SP1 but that's an easy problem to solve, use Firefox.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


squirltok@yahoo.com <squirltok@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I used winme just until a little after they stopped offering support
> and they admitted, at the very end, that it was a dud that cannot be
> secured. I found windows2000 that I like and is supported but how
> about trying Linux and give up the spyware virus magnet, especially on
> a system that cannot even be secured in the first place.
>
> Try PcLinux, get the minime version. Simply download the ISO file and
> burn it to a CD with DeepBurner and
> set your BIOS to boot fropm the CD drive and reboot. Use the system
> from your hard drive and decide
> if you like it or not. If you like it install it.

webster72n
Thu Feb 14 07:49:22 PST 2008


"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:ezppC0ubIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > it was a dud that cannot be secured.
>
> No more so than any other Win9x operating system and the same is true of
> all other operating systems today. All contain hidden vulnerabilities
> which when discovered need to be patched be the OS Linux, Mac OS Leopard,
> Vista or XP. However without on going support, such as is the case with
> Win Me, those holes won't get patched. Due to its age and being a Win 9x
> system Win Me isn't particularly vulnerable to exploits currently in the
> wild since these primarily target more modern operating systems such as XP
> and Vista. Perhaps the biggest weakness is Internet Explorer which is
> frozen at IE6 SP1 but that's an easy problem to solve, use Firefox.

Thanks for the tip Mike. <H>.

> --
> Mike Maltby
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> squirltok@yahoo.com <squirltok@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I used winme just until a little after they stopped offering support
> > and they admitted, at the very end, that it was a dud that cannot be
> > secured. I found windows2000 that I like and is supported but how
> > about trying Linux and give up the spyware virus magnet, especially on
> > a system that cannot even be secured in the first place.
> >
> > Try PcLinux, get the minime version. Simply download the ISO file and
> > burn it to a CD with DeepBurner and
> > set your BIOS to boot fropm the CD drive and reboot. Use the system
> > from your hard drive and decide
> > if you like it or not. If you like it install it.
>

squirltok
Thu Feb 14 22:19:06 PST 2008


Mike M wrote:
> > it was a dud that cannot be secured.
>
> No more so than any other Win9x operating system and the same is true of
> all other operating systems today.

Might I say I did use ME for years and had 95, had 3.1 I think it was
called, used DOS and have XP Today.

ME was an ongoing lack of worthwhile performance let alone needed to
be reinstalled pretty often, at least for me, to get it's performance
back or after it became totally unusable.

I started using windows2000 professional and started using Linux and I
almost kick myself for not just plain getting away from relying on ME
far far sooner.

> All contain hidden vulnerabilities
> which when discovered need to be patched be the OS Linux, Mac OS Leopard,
> Vista or XP. However without on going support, such as is the case with
> Win Me, those holes won't get patched.

Microsoft states that ME cannot be patched. It seems to me that they
waited until support for ME was to end to finally gave us that news.
That alone may be good reason to look at the alternatives that are out
there.

> Due to its age and being a Win 9x
> system Win Me isn't particularly vulnerable to exploits currently in the
> wild since these primarily target more modern operating systems such as XP
> and Vista.

I've heard that before but that doesn't make it any more secure today
or any more less obsolete. I like to hobby around with older operating
systems, I occasionally install Win95 ME and use DOS programs. I like
all of them but there is no reason to not come to todays supported,
easy to use, responsive, stable, secure, wonderful, did I mention
free, operating systems that are out there.

> Perhaps the biggest weakness is Internet Explorer which is
> frozen at IE6 SP1 but that's an easy problem to solve, use Firefox.
> --

Sounds good, I use Firefox and generally use IE as casually as I do
Firefox. However what I've seen with ME tells me that Firefox and any
amount of security software, no matter how carefully and thoughtfully
used, cannot really
help much security-wise, unless the operating system its-self can be
secured from existing and future
security threats.

And it's really not the security aspects for me posting but going
through all this spyware and virus programs on an unsupported system
makes no sense when there are soo many great operating systems that
are under ongoing development and are supported.

http://distrowatch.com/

webster72n
Fri Feb 15 12:33:09 PST 2008


<squirltok@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6eb9073-8cc7-40ff-87af-26f5a4da5be1@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike M wrote:
> > > it was a dud that cannot be secured.
> >
> > No more so than any other Win9x operating system and the same is true of
> > all other operating systems today.
>
> Might I say I did use ME for years and had 95, had 3.1 I think it was
> called, used DOS and have XP Today.
>
> ME was an ongoing lack of worthwhile performance let alone needed to
> be reinstalled pretty often, at least for me, to get it's performance
> back or after it became totally unusable.
>
> I started using windows2000 professional and started using Linux and I
> almost kick myself for not just plain getting away from relying on ME
> far far sooner.
>
> > All contain hidden vulnerabilities
> > which when discovered need to be patched be the OS Linux, Mac OS
Leopard,
> > Vista or XP. However without on going support, such as is the case with
> > Win Me, those holes won't get patched.
>
> Microsoft states that ME cannot be patched. It seems to me that they
> waited until support for ME was to end to finally gave us that news.
> That alone may be good reason to look at the alternatives that are out
> there.
>
> > Due to its age and being a Win 9x
> > system Win Me isn't particularly vulnerable to exploits currently in the
> > wild since these primarily target more modern operating systems such as
XP
> > and Vista.
>
> I've heard that before but that doesn't make it any more secure today
> or any more less obsolete. I like to hobby around with older operating
> systems, I occasionally install Win95 ME and use DOS programs. I like
> all of them but there is no reason to not come to todays supported,
> easy to use, responsive, stable, secure, wonderful, did I mention
> free, operating systems that are out there.
>
> > Perhaps the biggest weakness is Internet Explorer which is
> > frozen at IE6 SP1 but that's an easy problem to solve, use Firefox.
> > --
>
> Sounds good, I use Firefox and generally use IE as casually as I do
> Firefox. However what I've seen with ME tells me that Firefox and any
> amount of security software, no matter how carefully and thoughtfully
> used, cannot really
> help much security-wise, unless the operating system its-self can be
> secured from existing and future
> security threats.
>
> And it's really not the security aspects for me posting but going
> through all this spyware and virus programs on an unsupported system
> makes no sense when there are soo many great operating systems that
> are under ongoing development and are supported.

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.
I am still using it, despite Heather's disapproval and it works better than
ever, including IE6/SP1. But to each his own. <H>.

>
> http://distrowatch.com/

Ogg
Fri Feb 15 14:51:53 PST 2008

webster72n 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.
|| I am still using it, despite Heather's disapproval and it works
|| better than ever, including IE6/SP1. But to each his own.
|| <H>.


Ever since I added 512meg ram to my previous 256meg, WinME has become very
unstable. My mobo is from year 2000, and can support a full 1gig, but
WinME limits me to 256meg to be "reliable". That's not progress, nor is
that acceptable.

webster72n
Fri Feb 15 15:18:38 PST 2008


"Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message
news:OetyuVCcIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> webster72n 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.
> || I am still using it, despite Heather's disapproval and it works
> || better than ever, including IE6/SP1. But to each his own.
> || <H>.
>
>
> Ever since I added 512meg ram to my previous 256meg, WinME has become very
> unstable. My mobo is from year 2000, and can support a full 1gig, but
> WinME limits me to 256meg to be "reliable". That's not progress, nor is
> that acceptable.

There must be another reason for your problem. I have 512MB's of RAM with no
trouble at all. That is the limit, not 256. Mike could probably shed some
light on this for you. I know that one has to be selective in
adding/exchanging one's sticks.
<H>.

>
>

Mike
Fri Feb 15 15:21:04 PST 2008

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

> Ever since I added 512meg ram to my previous 256meg, WinME has become
> very unstable. My mobo is from year 2000, and can support a full
> 1gig, but WinME limits me to 256meg to be "reliable". That's not
> progress, nor is that acceptable.

Have you limited the amount of RAM that can be used for the virtual cache
to 512MB? If not then it is not surprising that the system is unstable as
you will be running out of upper memory address space.

For details see MS KB 253912 - ""Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large
Amounts of RAM Installed" (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=253912). The
reason is that allocating more than 512MB of RAM to vcache will exhaust
all available upper memory addresses and thus prevent them being used for
other purposes. Note that this will still mean that all memory is
available to applications but is simply limiting the amount used as
virtual cache memory.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com

O
Fri Feb 15 17:15:57 PST 2008

Hello:

An alternative to Firefox is the fast, freeware Opera v9.x browser, the
latest version which will still run on Win 95 and up, although Win 98 and up
is preferred.

See: http://www.opera.com/products/desktop/ .

Cheers,
O.J.

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:ezppC0ubIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Perhaps the biggest weakness is Internet Explorer which is frozen at IE6
> SP1 but that's an easy problem to solve, use Firefox.
> --
> Mike Maltby
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
you like it or not. If you like it install it.
>

Ogg
Fri Feb 15 17:18:23 PST 2008

Mike M wrote:
|| Have you limited the amount of RAM that can be used for the virtual
|| cache to 512MB? If not then it is not surprising that the system is
|| unstable as you will be running out of upper memory address space.
||
|| For details see MS KB 253912 - ""Out of Memory" Error Messages with
|| Large Amounts of RAM Installed"
|| (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=253912). ..


Yes.... I did the vcache limit setting. I investigated all the various
helps regarding all that. Still get unpredictable and random problems. I
could probably remove the 256meg module, and just run with 512. But I don't
like the idea of "downgrading" my hardware just to accomodate WinME. I'd
rather move to an OS that can handle the hardware, even though it's old
hardware from year 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.

RockyTSquirrel
Fri Feb 15 17:22:50 PST 2008

Thanks for this heads up Mike,
I was planning to add a couple of gegs to my me puter this spring..
Might save me asking the same question later.. :-)

RTS


"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:%23Z1RPsCcIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Ogg <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote:
>
> > Ever since I added 512meg ram to my previous 256meg, WinME has become
> > very unstable. My mobo is from year 2000, and can support a full
> > 1gig, but WinME limits me to 256meg to be "reliable". That's not
> > progress, nor is that acceptable.
>
> Have you limited the amount of RAM that can be used for the virtual cache
> to 512MB? If not then it is not surprising that the system is unstable as
> you will be running out of upper memory address space.
>
> For details see MS KB 253912 - ""Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large
> Amounts of RAM Installed" (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=253912). The
> reason is that allocating more than 512MB of RAM to vcache will exhaust
> all available upper memory addresses and thus prevent them being used for
> other purposes. Note that this will still mean that all memory is
> available to applications but is simply limiting the amount used as
> virtual cache memory.
> --
> Mike Maltby
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>

squirltok
Fri Feb 15 19:37:14 PST 2008



Ogg wrote:
> Mike M wrote:
> || Have you limited the amount of RAM that can be used for the virtual
> || cache to 512MB? If not then it is not surprising that the system is
> || unstable as you will be running out of upper memory address space.
> ||
> || For details see MS KB 253912 - ""Out of Memory" Error Messages with
> || Large Amounts of RAM Installed"
> || (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=253912). ..
>
>
> Yes.... I did the vcache limit setting. I investigated all the various
> helps regarding all that. Still get unpredictable and random problems. I
> could probably remove the 256meg module, and just run with 512. But I don't
> like the idea of "downgrading" my hardware just to accomodate WinME. I'd
> rather move to an OS that can handle the hardware, even though it's old
> hardware from year 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.

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.

I have a processor of 733 Mhz and 318MB of ram and it works great.
Also the current version was just released in January.

squirltok
Fri Feb 15 19:45:49 PST 2008



Ogg wrote:
> Mike M wrote:
> || Have you limited the amount of RAM that can be used for the virtual
> || cache to 512MB? If not then it is not surprising that the system is
> || unstable as you will be running out of upper memory address space.
> ||
> || For details see MS KB 253912 - ""Out of Memory" Error Messages with
> || Large Amounts of RAM Installed"
> || (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=253912). ..
>
>
> Yes.... I did the vcache limit setting. I investigated all the various
> helps regarding all that. Still get unpredictable and random problems. I
> could probably remove the 256meg module, and just run with 512. But I don't
> like the idea of "downgrading" my hardware just to accomodate WinME. I'd
> rather move to an OS that can handle the hardware, even though it's old
> hardware from year 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.

ME is OK but Windows2000 works waaay better, at least for me, the way
an operating system should act and feel when using it.

Also compared to XP I would rather use 2000.

I can install Linux distributions and versions that are getting close
to ten years old and aren't supported anymore and they would still be
far more worthwhile to use than ME.

Ogg
Sat Feb 16 16:35:17 PST 2008

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.

Ogg
Sat Feb 16 16:50:42 PST 2008

squirltok@yahoo.com wrote:
|| ME is OK but Windows2000 works waaay better, at least for me, the way
|| an operating system should act and feel when using it.
||
|| Also compared to XP I would rather use 2000.
||
|| I can install Linux distributions and versions that are getting close
|| to ten years old and aren't supported anymore and they would still be
|| far more worthwhile to use than ME.


I'd rather move away from WinAnything at this point if I had a choice. I
currently use a laptop pre-installed with XPp and that's fine. If I have
to spend the time and energy to work with a new OS, I'd rather it be
something more reliable like Linux.

I'm really fed up with the way WinME sometimes refreshes the desktop icons
and the icons end up with different images! That used to be "cute", and not
much of a bother since the problem would go away until the next reboot. But
now it has become a stupid WinME behaviour. And Window's occassional
insistence to do a Scandisk (even though the computer shut down normally
just fine) has driven me to the limits of my patience; my ME pc has a 120gig
harddrive, and the scandisk just takes w-a-y too long to complete. Add the
extra time needed to do defrags, and ME is just too maintenance intensive to
be worthwhile anymore.

Mike
Sat Feb 16 17:32:36 PST 2008

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


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

> I'd rather move away from WinAnything at this point if I had a
> choice. I currently use a laptop pre-installed with XPp and that's
> fine. If I have to spend the time and energy to work with a new OS,
> I'd rather it be something more reliable like Linux.
>
> I'm really fed up with the way WinME sometimes refreshes the desktop
> icons and the icons end up with different images! That used to be
> "cute", and not much of a bother since the problem would go away
> until the next reboot. But now it has become a stupid WinME
> behaviour. And Window's occassional insistence to do a Scandisk
> (even though the computer shut down normally just fine) has driven me
> to the limits of my patience; my ME pc has a 120gig harddrive, and
> the scandisk just takes w-a-y too long to complete. Add the extra
> time needed to do defrags, and ME is just too maintenance intensive
> to be worthwhile anymore.

squirltok
Sat Feb 16 18:11:11 PST 2008



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.

Well the full version has a bunch of stuff that I would never use.
With synaptic you can
say a description of what you want, like email, media player or web
browser then click on a program and it will give you a description of
what it is and does.
>
> || 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.

Amarok is great for music.

Do consider making about 5 to 10 gigs for your / and maybe 1 gig for
your /swap and maybe the rest for your /home

You likely know all this but

The home is where you store all your music and downloads, ect, and if
the system
fails then you can simply reinstall it back to the / and don't format
your /home and you will still have all your music ,etc

webster72n
Sat Feb 16 19:20:00 PST 2008


"Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message
news:OFjry8PcIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> squirltok@yahoo.com wrote:
> || ME is OK but Windows2000 works waaay better, at least for me, the way
> || an operating system should act and feel when using it.
> ||
> || Also compared to XP I would rather use 2000.
> ||
> || I can install Linux distributions and versions that are getting close
> || to ten years old and aren't supported anymore and they would still be
> || far more worthwhile to use than ME.
>
>
> I'd rather move away from WinAnything at this point if I had a choice. I
> currently use a laptop pre-installed with XPp and that's fine. If I have
> to spend the time and energy to work with a new OS, I'd rather it be
> something more reliable like Linux.
>
> I'm really fed up with the way WinME sometimes refreshes the desktop icons
> and the icons end up with different images! That used to be "cute", and
not
> much of a bother since the problem would go away until the next reboot.
But
> now it has become a stupid WinME behaviour. And Window's occassional
> insistence to do a Scandisk (even though the computer shut down normally
> just fine) has driven me to the limits of my patience; my ME pc has a
120gig
> harddrive, and the scandisk just takes w-a-y too long to complete. Add
the
> extra time needed to do defrags, and ME is just too maintenance intensive
to
> be worthwhile anymore.

I'm very sorry to see you have these problems with WinME, but it can't all
be ME's fault, because I surely don't have them with my system. There may be
little snags now and then, but so far Windows has corrected itself for me
with the help of Scandisk and Defrag. Also they don't take an unusual amount
of time either.
I have nothing set up for automatic run and do everything manually,
periodically.
Any of the free Linux systems, are probably a valid alternative.
Good luck,

Harry.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ogg
Sun Feb 17 06:10:17 PST 2008

webster72n wrote:

|| I'm very sorry to see you have these problems with WinME, but it
|| can't all be ME's fault, because I surely don't have them with my
|| system. There may be little snags now and then, but so far Windows
|| has corrected itself for me with the help of Scandisk and Defrag.
|| Also they don't take an unusual amount of time either.
|| I have nothing set up for automatic run and do everything manually,
|| periodically.
|| Any of the free Linux systems, are probably a valid alternative.
|| Good luck,


I have several apps in the System tray, but I ruled them out by cancelling
their load at startup. The icon jumble-dance often occurs when there are no
other apps even running. Explorer (the directory viewer) would get stuck
with a "program not responding". That IS all WinME's fault.

ME seemed to perform well after 2 years of frustration before I learned
about this ng and disabling many OS features inorder to get a stable system.
Now it has been over 8 years since I've had this pc, but the added ram just
added new frustration and disappointment.

However, the existing hardware works very well with the various Linux
distros I've tried.

Therefore, it's not the fault of hardware nor any of my win apps. The
problem is WinME not being able to operate consistently well when I need to
rely on it. WinME can't keep up with I need to do.

I don't particularly like to mess around with a dramatic change like this.
But I really don't have much choice if I want to actually USE my computer
instead of babysitting it or be afraid to use it for fear of having it
stall.

Yes.. I do beleive that I will have a much better problem-free experience
with Linux.

webster72n
Sun Feb 17 10:34:03 PST 2008


"Ogg" <no-spam-wanted@at.all> wrote in message
news:O5DtT8WcIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> webster72n wrote:
>
> || I'm very sorry to see you have these problems with WinME, but it
> || can't all be ME's fault, because I surely don't have them with my
> || system. There may be little snags now and then, but so far Windows
> || has corrected itself for me with the help of Scandisk and Defrag.
> || Also they don't take an unusual amount of time either.
> || I have nothing set up for automatic run and do everything manually,
> || periodically.
> || Any of the free Linux systems, are probably a valid alternative.
> || Good luck,
>
>
> I have several apps in the System tray, but I ruled them out by cancelling
> their load at startup. The icon jumble-dance often occurs when there are
no
> other apps even running. Explorer (the directory viewer) would get stuck
> with a "program not responding". That IS all WinME's fault.

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.

>
> ME seemed to perform well after 2 years of frustration before I learned
> about this ng and disabling many OS features inorder to get a stable
system.
> Now it has been over 8 years since I've had this pc, but the added ram
just
> added new frustration and disappointment.
>
> However, the existing hardware works very well with the various Linux
> distros I've tried.
>
> Therefore, it's not the fault of hardware nor any of my win apps. The
> problem is WinME not being able to operate consistently well when I need
to
> rely on it. WinME can't keep up with I need to do.
>
> I don't particularly like to mess around with a dramatic change like this.
> But I really don't have much choice if I want to actually USE my computer
> instead of babysitting it or be afraid to use it for fear of having it
> stall.
>
> Yes.. I do beleive that I will have a much better problem-free experience
> with Linux.
>
>
>
>
>

Ogg
Sun Feb 17 16:34:50 PST 2008

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". ;).

dlsayremn
Sun Feb 17 16:52:01 PST 2008

Use a 2001 Gateway w/Win ME and IE6 as a second computer. Email, surf if
someone on main, games that won't play on Vista, etc..
It is slow, but most of my problems are with MS sites. Took about six tries
w/reboot to reply to this message.
It feels that MS has not only stopped supporting older systems, but is
making it harder for them to interface with MS sites.
Presently have comps with Vista, XP sp2, ME, and 98 in house. All are up to
date with last downloads for each system, but both 98 and ME have problems
with MS sites since the sites have been updated.

"squirltok@yahoo.com" wrote:

> I used winme just until a little after they stopped offering support
> and they admitted, at the very end, that it was a dud that cannot be
> secured. I found windows2000 that I like and is supported but how
> about trying Linux and give up the spyware virus magnet, especially on
> a system that cannot even be secured in the first place.
>
> Try PcLinux, get the minime version. Simply download the ISO file and
> burn it to a CD with DeepBurner and
> set your BIOS to boot fropm the CD drive and reboot. Use the system
> from your hard drive and decide
> if you like it or not. If you like it install it.
>
>

webster72n
Sun Feb 17 17:22:45 PST 2008


"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.
For that reason I am hanging on to my present setup with ME, since it
fullfills my needs for the time being and with the least amount of trouble
(none of the stuff you are talking about).
You mentioned ME being temperamental when using more than 512 MB's of Ram,
that's only normal, because it's the limit.
All in all, I'm still having fun with WinME.
C U later...:).

Harry.

>
>

Mike
Sun Feb 17 17:53:39 PST 2008

> 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.

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. During testing I was running with
384MB of RAM and that put my PC in the top 1% of machines being used for
testing. The same can also be said for hard drives and their capacity
where anything over 32GB was considered big. Even XP released in 2001
didn't support drives larger than 137GB until SP1 and then badly with the
problems being ironed out for SP2 released in late 2004. Processors much
the same, 400MHz was around the fastest processors in use at the time.
Faster processors need new bioses and microcode and Win Me in common with
Win 98SE was never updated for such cpus.

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 so I'm
sorry to say your statement that Win Me "can't do what it was expected to
do" has little or no relation to reality.

Nevertheless it is now 2008 and unless one is still running late last
century hardware or has a specific task that requires a Win 9x platform
then it is time to move on and has been for the last three years or so.
As for the best platform for your needs, that's for you to choose.

> "..thanks or all the fishy performance".

Shame you didn't fix your problems years ago, others did. <g>
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com



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

> 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". ;).

Mike
Sun Feb 17 17:56:43 PST 2008

> It feels that MS has not only stopped supporting older systems, but is
> making it harder for them to interface with MS sites.

If on the other hand you were to use a news client to post to this
newsgroup you would have no problems. Your posting problem is down to
attempting to use Microsoft's poor web interface to these newsgroups which
is equally poor regardless of the operating system used by the user.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


dlsayremn <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> Use a 2001 Gateway w/Win ME and IE6 as a second computer. Email, surf
> if someone on main, games that won't play on Vista, etc..
> It is slow, but most of my problems are with MS sites. Took about six
> tries w/reboot to reply to this message.
> It feels that MS has not only stopped supporting older systems, but is
> making it harder for them to interface with MS sites.
> Presently have comps with Vista, XP sp2, ME, and 98 in house. All are
> up to date with last downloads for each system, but both 98 and ME
> have problems with MS sites since the sites have been updated.

squirltok
Sun Feb 17 22:43:15 PST 2008



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.

squirltok
Mon Feb 18 00:03:22 PST 2008



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.

squirltok
Mon Feb 18 00:41:36 PST 2008



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.

Ogg
Mon Feb 18 07:01:53 PST 2008

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.

Mike
Mon Feb 18 07:45:58 PST 2008

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.

webster72n
Mon Feb 18 09:59:49 PST 2008


<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.

Ogg
Mon Feb 18 10:15:33 PST 2008

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.

EW
Mon Feb 18 16:47:10 PST 2008

On Feb 15, 2:33=A0pm, "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 o=
ut
> 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

MrTom
Mon Feb 18 17:53:41 PST 2008

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

squirltok
Mon Feb 18 18:00:24 PST 2008



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.

webster72n
Mon Feb 18 19:31:11 PST 2008


"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

Joan
Tue Feb 19 04:04:06 PST 2008

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.
>
>
>