What is the advantages & disadvantages of upgrading Windows 95/98 to Windows ME instead of Windows XP Pro or Windows 2000 Pro. (A network system is involve using Windows 4.0)

You might get more help in one of the Windows forums.

Windows (oh) ME is nothing but a bunch of crap. Upgrade to XP if you can BUT better yet, use Linux... taurus

ME is a downgrade. It's more bloat with no new features. If you have at least 256Mb of RAM and 1.5Gb of HD space to waste, use XP. Otherwise use 2000 or 98. Of course, Linux would be better than any of the above.

win2k pro, that way you don't have to fool with that stupid xp activation every time your system crashes and you have to re-load the os.

windows pe http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/ only version of windows you dont have to wory about crashing all the time

Use Windows XP Professional Service PAck 1 (for 256MB or more RAM). This is the best. If your computer struggles to run it try 2000 Pro (for 64MB, preferably 96MB or more RAM). Failing this, as long as you have at least 32MB RAM (or preferably 64MB) I'd use NT (assuming you aren't bothered with gaming, USB or support from Microsoft). All three of these operating systems are built on the newer Windows NT kernel, which is far superior to the DOS kernel that Windows 1-3.11 and Win95/98/ME are built on. WinNT and its variants 2000 and XP are all far superior as far as stability and security are concerned then Win9x/ME (my Win9x moan and slagging-off session is in the next paragraph)... Steer clear of Win95/98/ME (especially ME and 98 first edition) ther are all useless patheric unstable excuses for ancient DOS shells, and I keep expecting to see a punchcard distribution for each of them. As you posted in the Linux forum, i'll blow Linux's trumpet for a minute: You could try Linux (MAndrake 9 or RedHat 9, or RH 7 for older PCs) and put it in dual-boot with Windows XP/2000/NT4 - both the Linux and NT codebases have their own niches of functionality, and I'm sure you'd find them both useful at times. Hope I've helped.