a friend bought me a computer (cause my old one was, well in fact really really old)at a yard sale, i pluged it in and started it and a window popped up asking me for a password for admin, but i dont have that password, i know its windows 2000 but i was woundering if there was a way around that or an over ride password.
i want to put windows me on it but when i tryed it asked me for the same password.
i don't know much about computers so the easyest way to this would be great.

oh and i don't have windows 2000 os.

If it's a Windows password, just remove Windows - and in fact, to install WinME, you'll likely need to remove the existing partition (which is probably NTFS) anyways - then create a FAT32 one, format and run setup from the ME CD.

You'll require a WinME bootdisk or bootable CD to boot to, then run fdisk & format.

Occasionally, fdisk may be unable to remove the partition - if that's the case, you'd use something like delpart or killdisk - then create a FAT32 partition with fdisk, format etc.

If in fact it's the BIOS that is passworded, you would try to reset the CMOS using the jumper or by temporarily removing the CMOS battery

Basically, little to do with Win2K at all, since you'll be removing it entirely

... the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Do yourself a favor; don't install Me.

=====================================
If at first you don't succeed, you're about average.

M2

ME is the worst OS that MS produced. Stay with the Windows 2000, it's one of their best OS's.

All you need to do is use one on the password recovery utilities to clear/reset the password. Do a google search for "Windows password recovery". There are lots of recovery tools, just make sure you pick the free ones.

Y'know, it's really nice of you guys to share your opinions - but that's all those are.

Even if either of you have actually worked with ME (which I doubt very much) your experiences (if any) are not universal

It's getting tiresome, alright? So try jumping off the bandwagon and quit parading opinions as facts

Windows Millennium Edition ("Windows Me") Reviewed

If you want to make an argument for keeping Win2k, fine - I'm sure you can do that on the merits of that OS alone, without expressing your flawed assumptions

Computing is about choices - or so I've always felt

... the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

.... as well (as if more was even necessary) the OP Does Not Have the Win2K CD. Without that, they would be in dire straits indeed if by some chance there was a problem with Windows - pretty rare I know, but I've heard it does happen now and again (heh)

... the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Jboy,

I have used ME, but not as extensive as W2K. Due to the amount of problems that ME has, I switched over to W2K. With lots of tweaking, ME can be made reasonably stable, but never as stable as W2K.

Based on your comments, one would surmise that you believe that your comments are always fact and anyone that disagrees with you is just spouting off opinion and should be ignored.

I will agree that my statement of ME being the worst MS OS is an opinion, but that opinion is shared by a very large percentage of knowledgeable people and if you go beyond the marketing hype, much of which is directly or indirectly paid for by Microsoft, you'll find that to be a fact.

Fact: W2K is more stable due in part to its separation of kernel and user space and it has better drivers.

Fact: W2K supports more hardware.

Fact: W2K has security features built-in and on an NTFS partition is even more secure; there is NO security in ME.

You admit that it is rare to have problems with W2K, but you certainly can't say the same for ME. Most of the problems that do arise with W2K can be resolved without the original CD, because most of those problems are due to poorly written 3rd party programs.

Jboy, I think you need to take your own advice.

"So try jumping off the bandwagon and quit parading opinions as facts."

The website you site is just the opinion of that one person. Even in that "recomendation" he makes at least 1 contradictory comment regarding that recomendation.

"Windows Millennium Edition--or Windows Me (as in the dreadful, "get to know Me" tagline)--is a lame duck technologically,..."

IMHO It's a photo finish between Me and DOS 4 for the crapiest ever.

=====================================
If at first you don't succeed, you're about average.

M2

Well, I am going to jump in here against my better judgement.
I have never used ME but currently dual boot 98se & 2000. That said, I also use IE6 and constantly am told by my son how it is a piece of sh**. It serves me as well as I need it to, so I have no compelling reason to switch. The poster wants to install ME so why don't we help him or her do that. If you ALSO wish to express opinions about the wisdom of that choice, feel free to do so. Many times folks posting here are not aware of the ramifications of thier desires.

About Millenium. Windows Millenium is in my opinion a lot of fun. I've used it in the past for a little while and I found it to be really quite good, just an opinion is all. I now use Windows 2000 and it is vastly more stable than ME, or XP. The only criticism I have is that it has the inability to run older 16 bit apps, because of it's 32 bit wholeness. Millenium filled that hole, so if I had both I would dual boot my laptop with both of them but, for now, it's Windows 2000 all the way for me.

Not sure as to the original poster's question though.

I use Windows 2000 because I can.

WinME - boots quickly and runs well for light users- or at least it does for my mom - It's been on her machine for at least 8 years and I the only time I had to reinstall the O/S was when the drive died.

Run ME Well Version 5

I hope Trev catches this thread!