The 25 worst tech products of all time

Hello!

http://www.webwereld.nl/articles/41338/the-25-worst-tech-products-of-all-time.html
[quote]
4. Microsoft Windows Millennium (2000)

This might be the worst version of Windows ever released--or, at least, since the dark days of Windows 2.0. Windows Millennium
Edition (aka Me, or the Mistake Edition) was Microsoft's follow-up to Windows 98 SE for home users. Shortly after Me appeared in
late 2000, users reported problems installing it, getting it to run, getting it to work with other hardware or software, and getting
it to stop running. Aside from that, Me worked great.
To its credit, Me introduced features later made popular by Windows XP, such as system restore. Unfortunately, it could also restore
files you never wanted to see again, like viruses that you'd just deleted. Forget Y2K; this was the real millennium bug.
[/quote]

I don't agree! Besides since IE6 is on the list, then maybe XP (not XP.SP2) should be on the list!


Roman

William
Sat May 27 13:10:41 CDT 2006

"roman modic" <modicr@astral-it.com> wrote in message
news:eZA%23Z5agGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
http://www.webwereld.nl/articles/41338/the-25-worst-tech-products-of-all-time.html
> [quote]
> 4. Microsoft Windows Millennium (2000)
>
> This might be the worst version of Windows ever released--or, at least, since
the dark days of Windows 2.0. Windows Millennium
> Edition (aka Me, or the Mistake Edition) was Microsoft's follow-up to Windows
98 SE for home users. Shortly after Me appeared in
> late 2000, users reported problems installing it, getting it to run, getting
it to work with other hardware or software, and getting
> it to stop running. Aside from that, Me worked great.
> To its credit, Me introduced features later made popular by Windows XP, such
as system restore. Unfortunately, it could also restore
> files you never wanted to see again, like viruses that you'd just deleted.
Forget Y2K; this was the real millennium bug.
> [/quote]
>
> I don't agree! Besides since IE6 is on the list, then maybe XP (not XP.SP2)
should be on the list!

Nor do I. I've installed this on a number of computers without a glitch. In
one instance I changed the motherboard out from under it (old MB died.
Replaced just the motherboard, leaving all else in place). It rebooted many
times while figuring out what was what, but it did come up and run well enough
that I put off a cold-install (my preference for a new machine) until I had a
weekend free to do it.

Every Win2K installation I've done has been troublesome, and Win NT was no
bargain either.

I've only installed XP once, and was pleased to see it glitchless.

Running ME has been an occasional chore, and is becoming more so as software I
want to use is less and less frequently tested on it so I get failures. And
the latest versions of some things I do use, with features I'd like to have,
only do XP. I figure I'll have to take the plunge soon, but then, I've been
saying that since February or so of 2005. :)

- Bill

KB
Sat May 27 14:12:02 CDT 2006

Learning to properly configure and maintain WinME taught me more about
computing than one could imagine. One could refer to it as
WinM(ilignant)E(rror) but I always felt it was WinM(y)E(ducator).

Hardware and accessories eventually forced me to get an XP box, which runs
flawlessly, but the 'ol WinME system's still cranking it out some six years
after purchase.

"roman modic" <modicr@astral-it.com> wrote in message
news:eZA%23Z5agGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hello!
>
> http://www.webwereld.nl/articles/41338/the-25-worst-tech-products-of-all-time.html
> [quote]
> 4. Microsoft Windows Millennium (2000)
>
> This might be the worst version of Windows ever released--or, at least,
> since the dark days of Windows 2.0. Windows Millennium Edition (aka Me, or
> the Mistake Edition) was Microsoft's follow-up to Windows 98 SE for home
> users. Shortly after Me appeared in late 2000, users reported problems
> installing it, getting it to run, getting it to work with other hardware
> or software, and getting it to stop running. Aside from that, Me worked
> great.
> To its credit, Me introduced features later made popular by Windows XP,
> such as system restore. Unfortunately, it could also restore files you
> never wanted to see again, like viruses that you'd just deleted. Forget
> Y2K; this was the real millennium bug.
> [/quote]
>
> I don't agree! Besides since IE6 is on the list, then maybe XP (not
> XP.SP2) should be on the list!
>
>
> Roman
>

Joan
Sat May 27 15:59:09 CDT 2006

Similar story here, the old WinME box of mine is still going strong now in
the hands of daughter and has kept up with all her college course work not
to mention the games she has on it, OK it has the occasional hiccup but
nothing that drastic and it's more a slight annoyance than a major drama
<g>
Joan



KB wrote:
> Learning to properly configure and maintain WinME taught me more about
> computing than one could imagine. One could refer to it as
> WinM(ilignant)E(rror) but I always felt it was WinM(y)E(ducator).
>
> Hardware and accessories eventually forced me to get an XP box, which
> runs flawlessly, but the 'ol WinME system's still cranking it out
> some six years after purchase.
>

KB
Sat May 27 16:38:27 CDT 2006

It's still running because you're good ;) But given the choice, I think you
know which way I'm voting ;) .

Nice e-ing 'ya here, Joan. See you over at AumHa.

<the other KB> LOL
"Joan Archer" <archer_joan@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:OpnKqBdgGHA.2040@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Similar story here, the old WinME box of mine is still going strong now in
> the hands of daughter and has kept up with all her college course work not
> to mention the games she has on it, OK it has the occasional hiccup but
> nothing that drastic and it's more a slight annoyance than a major drama
> <g>
> Joan
>
>
>
> KB wrote:
>> Learning to properly configure and maintain WinME taught me more about
>> computing than one could imagine. One could refer to it as
>> WinM(ilignant)E(rror) but I always felt it was WinM(y)E(ducator).
>>
>> Hardware and accessories eventually forced me to get an XP box, which
>> runs flawlessly, but the 'ol WinME system's still cranking it out
>> some six years after purchase.
>>
>
>

Joan
Sun May 28 05:07:17 CDT 2006

<lol> Flattery will get you anywhere <g>

I'm just being mean as I don't intend buying her a new machine, I've told
her if she wants to get a new one she can buy it herself, as long as the
old WinME keeps going that's all that matters. It's bad enough that I have
to keep her supplied with paper and ink for her printer <g>

As you say see you over at AumHa <g>
Joan




KB wrote:
> It's still running because you're good ;) But given the choice, I
> think you know which way I'm voting ;) .
>
> Nice e-ing 'ya here, Joan. See you over at AumHa.
>
> <the other KB> LOL

Terry
Mon May 29 22:39:19 CDT 2006


Actually WIN ME is fine that's why I still use it.
I was forced to Use XP on the studio machines
cause of hardware and software requirements
but at home WIN ME
Terry

Walterius
Tue May 30 00:56:08 CDT 2006

I quite agree. Win ME has stood the test of time. I have been using it since
it came out, and it seldom if ever gives me any problems. I also use Win 2K
Pro and Ubuntu Linux (multiboot system), and Win ME is the simplest and
fastest booting.

"Terry Cano" <tcmusic@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:H7Peg.2037$VE1.79@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Actually WIN ME is fine that's why I still use it.
> I was forced to Use XP on the studio machines
> cause of hardware and software requirements
> but at home WIN ME
> Terry
>
>