ME or 2K

Compaq PRESARIO
February 17, 2009 at 03:53:31
Specs: ME, 850/256
Need some opinions guys, any will do! I am committed/have available either ME or Win2000. Is Win2000 a significant improvement over ME or are they about the same? I am leaning towards Win2000 but does it have any major problems? Thanx to all:>)

See More: ME or 2K

Report •


#1
February 17, 2009 at 05:15:06
If you know how to tame WinME, it will probably perform better. You may have trouble finding sofware such as anti-virus that still supports it though.

Win2K is the precursor to WinXP. It's probably the better choice but don't expect it to be blazing fast with just 256MB memory.


Report •

#2
February 17, 2009 at 11:11:39
I like both but most of my Me installs are dual boot with W2K. It's a good way to go if you have games or other apps that won't run on W2K systems.

Start here to tame Windows Me...

http://www.burzurq.com/forum/trevtw...

Like jam said, either OS would benefit from from doubling your memory to 512Mb.

Software writers are making life "better" and "easier" for you. As an example, my 98se and W2K installs now show increased physical memory usages of about 100Mb when both IE6 and FF3 are open. It's no wonder a system that worked swell 3 or 4 years ago just plugs along now; the days when a Me install worked fine with 128Mb are long gone.

Let us know what you decide.

Skip


Report •

#3
February 17, 2009 at 15:33:26
Thanx to both for the insights. I've had experience with both O.S. and W2K always seemed more impressive, but without adequate memory it did slow things down. Compatibility is definitely an issue, both forward and backward, and I always have to ask people what do they intend to use the computer for. Remarkably, most people are totally in the dark. Anyway, I had come to the conclusion that W2K was superior until a so-called "guru" told me otherwise. I feel better now. OBTW, the computer described above belongs to a senior citizen who only wants to do e-mail so I will re-install her ME after I wipe out the HDD. ME always seems to work better with a clean install.

Report •

Related Solutions

#4
February 17, 2009 at 18:01:03
Yeah, time to keep it simple. If the customer is used to Me and IE/OE, there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

Although both OS's have their place and use, I think you just made a good decision.

Skip


Report •

#5
February 17, 2009 at 18:05:48
In my experience 2000 can be really slow . If you keep on top of it ME works great, still use it myself. It will work better with less resources than 2000 . 2000 is just about out the door also so as far as a OS goes either one is about obsolete . The only known AV at this ppoint for ME is Avast which works well and its free. I have had very few problems with ME . When I hit the shutdown it is shutdown and powered off in about 6 seconds , none of this 30-40 seconds like XP or vista . I keep using ME until this pc craps then I'll get something new .

Report •

#6
February 18, 2009 at 05:10:58
My biggest issue with ME is that it tends to hang when too many operations are on-going. Otherwise, it has a good database of drivers and runs just about anything W98SE will run, but it's getting harder and harder to find antivirus/antimalware for it. W98SE was by far the easiest O.S. to use but it became victiom to progress. Those M$ SW engineers have to do something to earn their pay, in addition to getting a free lunch!

Report •

#7
February 18, 2009 at 13:51:01
Here's a few performance tweaks off the top of my head:

1. turn off system restore!
2. change the "typical role" to network server
3. turn off the eye candy by going to Display Properties > Effects tab & remove the checks from all options except "Show icons using all colors"
4. install 98lite

http://www.litepc.com/


Report •

#8
February 25, 2009 at 19:11:27
I'd vote for Win2K, but largely because of stability. You could shrink it's size and resource consumption using nLite...

Report •


Ask Question