"hopefully they will have Longhorn out by then or someone will come up with a good Linux OS that home users can use". Well, we can hope Vipergg, but the way M$ is going , Longhorn() will probably be a super bloated monster that will leave no control to the user. XP is rapidly getting to that point. There is hope for Linux, but about the time it grabs a large share of the market, the hackers and virus, etc, turds will take advantage of the open source nonsense and really rip it/them to shreds. (Sounds pessimistic doesn't it?) :D

0

Sounds like a user problem, not an OS problem. ME has been very very very good to me since it came out. Most problems attributed to ME are user related and "not knowing what to do" problems.

0

One more thing, just because the support will be gone doesn't mean it is the end for ME. I still have an old computer that runs DOS version 6 on it. The computer itself is slower than a snail, but it works and I can run programs on it.

0

Couple of points from this. Keep your eyes on a desktop Linux distro called Ubuntu Linux. It's a really really good desktop distro. It's still in it's infancy and is extemely well supported by a determined and goal driven crew. It's not even out of preview release yet and is still excellent, so you can see the potential there for future releases. If any of you has spare Linux playtime coming up then I strongly suggest you give it a good ole "playing" with, I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised indeed. As for your average "script kiddie" taking advantage of Linux and the open source community they haven't the wit, wisdom or intelligence to make a signifcant dent. Fanatical, aggressive free thinking programmers and developers will piss on people like that every single day of the week, because they're smarter and know what they're doing. The open source community is the hub and backbone of geekness, the chances of average joe virus writer catching these people out for any length of time is minimal. Your average smart programming grad wouldn't catch em out for that long either. As for 9x/ME, I'll continue to use them despite being "forced" at every turn to "upgrade" whether it be by M$ starving older Windows users of browser security updates or anything else. I know the value of a "simple" OS that does what it does with no frills or fuss, there is a firm place for 9x/ME with older games and stuff, for me anyway. A lot of the time I actually prefer to use a "simple" OS and a stripped down Windows ME does me just fine and dandy for home messing about. If you want something else for another reason, then fine, go ahead and install that too. Oh, and ta21, while I'm here (too much clicking to get to the other post above) - give Firefox or Opera a try, they're well worth it. Firefox is my favourite and default browser, but they both have there own appeal and both piss on IE in many many respects. Security being the obvious one, functionality, versatility being some of the others. Plus Firefox is just about to get out of preview release phase and turn into a fully fledged 1.0 version. See the iDiOt walk See the idiot TaLk WaLk IdIoT WaLk

0

When ever someone list a post like this ,I tell them to go to the other forums for the various O/S! WindowsMe is the only O/S I've ever had ,so I dont have alot of exprience to compare it to ,all i know is after using MSCONFIG to trim down apps loading at startup and keeping my harddrive clean of clutter and T.I.F. etc. Its as stable as I should expect for a P3 750MHZ , Iam holding off on puschasing a new PC ,w the constant fast change in technology and more 64bit systems coming out and new O/S. Also Iam going to do my own build using a full size tower with plenty of room for growth !

0

Just to close out this thread, let me say this: ME is a steaming pile of.......... well you know. As well as all the rest of the Microshaft line. I do spend most of my personal time in 1 of my many Linux Distro's. It's mostly just a question I posted because that's the OS I seem to have to repair the most for my customers. Knowledge is power! It's also dangerous, Very, very, dangerous

0

Well that's just your misinformed, ill educated opinion -- so who gives a s--- WHAT you think. Just because you struggle with a M$ 9x based OS, it's suddenley crap for everyone. It must be crap because you say so. LMAO -- Yeah right ! If your a tech (yeah right ! - again) and can't get ME to work, then I'd find a new job because you sure as hell suck at this one. As for your "customers" (yeah right) you've now been given concrete advice that works to not only make ME run well, but the fixes too. And you got it for FREE by experienced users and professionals who make ME work. So the next time you come on a message board with a distorted and jaundiced point of view about something you know next to nothing about, don't bother. Save those fingers for a real day time job. Something you have an obvious aptitude for, like making a circle with your thumb and index finger and making up and down motions. Mr Handy ;) See the iDiOt walk See the idiot TaLk WaLk IdIoT WaLk

0

Ha ha! Guys, take it :) easy. He may be pretty young. I know, I know, but the best way is to see the humour in it. Of course, what you all say is true, and it is also true that you've offered lots of very accurate advice for free. He'll never thank you for your effort, but you all live to your own standards, right? Not his. (Definitely not his. But, as I said, maybe he's very young.) Here is something I find interesting. I bought my first XP with very little memory in the machine. I had enormous difficulties until I put it into a different setup. If you can recall, in the year 2000, computers suddenly jumped from, oh, 300 to 500 MB to 1.2 GB systems. But ME came out when those 300 to 500 MB systems were common. During that year, then, ME was being run on systems with vastly more power. I've always wondered about that. Many people HATED Millennium (I was going to say, "hated ME", but all in caps it looked like I was saying something very different!!!), and I wonder if they were mostly people running it on the limited system power. Of course, MS said you could, but we won't consider that, will we? :) I'm going to post this elsewhere in these forums, but I have a basic question myself. I'm now running 2 HDDs, with two independent XP SP2s (needlessly, but I'm just having fun); one on each. The other day I put my Windows ME back on one of those. Everything is FAT32 now, so it worked fine. However, after I fixed my XP boot, I lost access to ME. XP should have allowed for it, but apparently not. Strange. I haven't got it back yet, though I tried some SYS C: experiments. -- Both XPs boot up perfectly. I'll look for a more suitable place to post this, though. I put it here now, because I thought with everyone's steam coming out of their ears, that would be a lot of good thermonuclear energy for solving my problem! (Just kidding.) Meantime, feel good about the good advice you gave. Remember, every tiny little thing we do is a gesture or an action in the book we're writing ourselves, right? So, well done, guys. Don't feel bad at all. Good advice, and good gestures; well done, all of you. (Although I have to say that some of the really angry parts did get pretty funny.) -- If you'd like to have a shot at my question, please see if you can find it on my new thread. Thanks a lot. :)

0

P.S. - I'll put that in the XP section.

0

Gee whiz, I see I made a typo up there that might have thrown you. Should read, "I bought MILLENNIUM [not XP] with very little memory in the box." -- I used that very ME program--the same CD--with a system running 300/128, and then with a system running 1.7/512=479. The difference was truly amazing. In the original system, that ME was a disaster. Maybe our friend was finding his ME hopeless in a low-power system too. You could hardly run it. Crashes happened every 20 minutes, and required an hour's recovery. (;) Joke.) It was bad, guys--it was REALLY bad. That was why I upgraded. I couldn't believe ME could be quite that inept. I knew it was a controversial OS. It is really a trio of systems that have to dance down the street hand-in-hand. If any one of them trips, it brings down the whole three of them that comprise ME. Well, the system I had in the end was really nice. Faster than XP, too, on a Cel 1.7. (XP is a faster OS, but Cellies have severely crippled caches, courtesy of Intel purposely impairing them for the bargain basement. So a Cel is always desperate for cache. [So am I!] :)] --In that environment, the slower ME OS will run with more snap than XP. -- Someone said he'd always run ME. Well, as much as I like it, XP is a whole different world of computing. You can throw an XP box off a tall building and run over it with a train, and XP just won't crash. XP is not like an upgrade--it's a totally different experience. (Not all good, but very, very strong.) And NTFS is a much safer file system for important files. The road definitely ended with ME, and a nicely tweaked ME was very nice indeed. But XP is a whole different road. I'm not saying you should switch, especially if you run a more modest system. I'm just saying that there is a reason for XP's proliferation, way beyond mere hype. And, as for Firefox, me too--with reservations. I spent way too much time on it these last 13 months, and this month I'm not using it at all. (This I'm writing on K-Meleon.) Firefox indeed is good when it's good, but, um, bad when it's bad. If you want to use it as it claims you can, with, say, 40 extensions, it is VERY high maintenance. For a long time, I really enjoyed tweaking my dozens and dozens and dozens of Firefox builds, but I'm afraid the massive amount of time I spent became more an addiction than a rewarding venture. It is true that Firefox is, in many ways, the best browser--but it is a long way from ready for its imminent 1.0 release--it'll be a good year before it loses some of its bugs. If you want to try it, maybe you'll have the most success with just a few extensions. Moox, a freestyler, makes the best Firefoxes, BTW. Put in +moox +pryan +firefox and see what Google suggests. Those are better builds than the officials. (So are mmoy's, but he makes fewer of them.) Good computing. :)

0

(Those moox Firefox builds are downloadable at http://moox.ws/tech/mozilla/ .)

0

Go on. I'll let you break that down for me, what was the question again ? The browser bit. Huummm. What on earth are you doing loading 40 extensions onto a beta product anyway ? Apart from for playtime purposes of course ;) Seriously, your asking for problems as well you should know. For the masses who want an immediate "alternative" browser, then Firefox is a great choice for your average browsing needs. In fact it's the ideal chioce "virtually" straight from the box. No, correct, some of the bugs won't be ironed out in a day. But the full 1.0 release will not only tie the VAST majority of home users over just fine, but will actually convert some into the merits of trying other things in computer land. Make no bones about it, Firefox is a very professional product and it will be a cold day in hell before I'd stop using it, ahead of any other browser. That said ... Yes, K-Meleon 0.8.2 is an excellent lightweight browser. No arguement. But just a little tooo lightweight at times. Still, great alternative to a great greater alternative ;) If you want Ben Goodgers words on the matter, then check the updated release schedule on Inside Firefox. It will give you an insight into motives and real world considerations involved in that particular softwares development. See the iDiOt walk See the idiot TaLk WaLk IdIoT WaLk

0

No worries. I see you did post in the XP forum. See the iDiOt walk See the idiot TaLk WaLk IdIoT WaLk

0

viking you are an IDiOt

0

Of course I am "crap" ;) See the iDiOt walk See the idiot TaLk WaLk IdIoT WaLk

0

Carson, I've never actually attempted to do what you've done. For the simple reason I've always followed the "OS hierachy" principle, which I've never had any trouble with. Plus I've always been in the position to follow the the OS hierachy principle at the time. I've always installed 98 or ME first on C:\, and hidden either one using a boot manager. Then installed 2k and finally XP. Linux I've always left the appropriate free space on the HDD for Linux to find itself. Even with that method (adding Linux to a predominantly Windows drive) I've had my share of hiccups. But it's always panned out. Nowadays I don't even bother confusing things. A second HDD used solely for Linux/BSD fits the bill just fine, and that's how it remains. Windows on one HDD and Linux/BSD on the other. Never the twain shall meet on a single drive again. I guess that's one reason why you posted on this thread, it is relevant to the original posters comments. Which, if he'd have worded his post better, I would have bothered to delve into his partitioning strategy and setup. That Doug Knox article you were pointed to on the XP forum seems an excellent work around, whether it works cleanly for you, is for you to find out -- and tell me :D Seriously, I'm really interested in the outcome if you do try :) Please post back on either thread if you attempt it. Thanks. See the iDiOt walk See the idiot TaLk WaLk IdIoT WaLk

0