On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 02:31 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote: > On 5/16/06, Stephen Mirowski <spmirowski@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Arthur Pemberton wrote: > > > [ snip ] > > > > > >> The windows XP was a huge improvement over windows ME which was a > > >> bag of bugs. My wife bought a computer that came with ME. She had > > >> several problems and called a kid who lived down the street but is now > > >> an up an coming Microsoft manager. She called him and he said delete ME > > >> and load the XP Home and you will be happy. She has been but I'm tired > > >> of buying virus programs :-) > > >> > > >> > > >> Karl > > > > > > Not for me. I much prefer Windows ME to Windows XP. However, newer > > > Windows only applications tend not to work in ME. But I still prefer > > > Windows ME to XP. > > > > > Strange thing about ME. On a percentage of installs on a percentage of > > hardware profiles, it will act like the best operating system every > > made. However, when doing the math, a percentage of a percentage isn't > > much. I figure the quality installs of ME is about 0.00001% > > > > Stephen > > > > I guess I was lucky and within that percentage. But here's some of the > issues i have with WinXP: I tend to "fix" computer for friends and > family, and with Windows XP i have seen many errors, when after > tickering and Googling, the best solution seems to be to just > reinstall. I was able to _never_ reinstall my Windows ME, and still > have it working well. Also, with ME, i could simply copy drivers and > .inf files to where they need to be and have thigns work. That simply > is not possible with WInXP. I personally wouldn't touch ME with a bargepole. I've tried a few times on different systems and found it incredibly unstable. I think it was a major regression from Windows 98 Second Edition, which is actually quite usable and stable. I've also found Win2000 and WinXP quite stable, as long as you can get the right drivers for what you're using - obviously Win9x drivers won't work as they're 16 bit. Paul.
