Jump to content

Windows Me is still usable


sparky4

Recommended Posts

I originally chose Me over xP because of speed

I was running xP in 2007 and i hated it.

I switched in late 2007

and I do not want to go back

I know How to use Windows Me as my primary OS

I am what you can call a Windows Me Guru

and I am well known

The advantages of Having Windows Me over xP

1. Immunity to modern viruses made for xP only

2. MS-DOS 8.00 and full DOS compatibility

3. easy to back up and fix [if you know how]

4. speed

5. compatibility

6. 350MB is the full installation [from what I observed] xP SP2 is 2GB big [THAT IS A WHOLE FAT16 PARTITION]

98 is just as good

Please tell me what is good programs for Windows Me [utility and others], and for me to test on Windows Me?

I experiment with Windows Me daily and surprised that it is still usable and compatible with many modern programs, and more is compatible thanks to Xeno86

and it is very frustrating to be attacked by over 8000 people who are saying INSTALL XP constantly! :realmad:

I have Windows 2000 installed to back up Me

and

Me backs up 2000

2000 is not the primary OS

ohh and my Windows Me PC is also a http web server

http://4ch.us.to/sparky4/+4/me/

A Windows me BBS :hello:

post-249720-1246546360_thumb.png

Edited by sparky4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The advantages of Having Windows Me over xP

1. Immunity to modern viruses made for xP only

2. MS-DOS 8.00 and full DOS compatibility

3. easy to back up and fix [if you know how]

4. speed

5. compatibility

6. 350MB is the full installation [from what I observed] xP SP2 is 2GB big [THAT IS A WHOLE FAT16 PARTITION]

1. Security through obscurity is bad practice. Besides, many modern viruses are not XP only at all. And vulnerabilities in XP are still being patched unlike ME.

2. DOS? PowerShell is so much better. For compatibility, there's DosBox, Boch and Virtual Machines.

3. True, but this applies to all desktop Windows versions. In fact, I think maintenance is a lot easier and faster with win2k and up, due to their support for unattended installations, the ability to integrate SP's and hotfixes before hand, et cetera.

4. What speed? ME doesn't even support the latest technology, like dual and quad core processors, modern videocards, et cetera.

5. Less and less vendors support legacy OS's like ME. Compatibility is only going downhill more.

6. Far less than 2GB for a fresh install, but anyway, XP caches all important system files and drivers to disk (thus adding to the size). And the install size is a bit of a moot point, since HDD space is cheap these days. [Did you know XP has a decent, fast en secure filesystem, called NTFS, that has none of the ancient FAT limitations?].

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sparky4,

There should be quite a few threads in this forum about what software still works with ME.

Don't get the XP/Vista/Windows 7 zombies get to you(...you must install...you must install...). I use Win 2K but also Win 98 (with 98SE2ME and IE, OE, WMP, Windows Update, etc uninstalled) and it is still a viable OS with all the unofficial updates here and on mdgx's site.

With XP and later OS, your computer contacts MS daily, sometimes multiple times a day, all beyond your control! Who knows what info is being sent? ("Don't worry about us connecting to your computer...just stare into the colors and icons on your desktop...isn't aero pretty?")

Did you know with XP SP2, Vista and later, you cannot add MS domains to the host file to block your computer from connecting to MS?

I also see on the main page of MSFN of reports of 'stealth' updates to XP to users that have set their systems NOT to automatically install updates!

Edited by the xt guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am what you can call a Windows Me Guru

Would you know a way I could remove the WMI drivers (WMIDRV.SYS and WMILIB.SYS) from Window ME without breaking the ability to connect to the internet ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DOS? PowerShell is so much better.

I doubt (s)he was looking for a command line shell.

For compatibility, there's DosBox, Boch and Virtual Machines.

The real thing is always better. DOSBox is quite slow in comparison.

In fact, I think maintenance is a lot easier and faster with win2k and up, due to their support for unattended installations, the ability to integrate SP's and hotfixes before hand, et cetera.

I think it's possible to apply hotfixes in Win9x' install CDs as well.

What speed? ME doesn't even support the latest technology, like dual and quad core processors, modern videocards, et cetera.

Dual and quad core processors won't necessarily make your computer faster. Not to mention that XP will still bog down one core more than Me will. A 'modern' video card only matters if you like to play recent games.

And the install size is a bit of a moot point, since HDD space is cheap these days.

Just because it's cheap doesn't mean we want our OS to use more of it. We have our own files to store.

Did you know XP has a decent, fast en secure filesystem, called NTFS, that has none of the ancient FAT limitations?

NTFS is proprietary, less secure (you can hide things in streams), and benchmarks show it's not as fast as FAT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt (s)he was looking for a command line shell.

XP has a native DOS Prompt too. It's pretty compatible. Have you ever tried it?

The real thing is always better. DOSBox is quite slow in comparison.

Funny you leave out Bochs, which is quite fast actually. But even DosBox is fast enough to run old software, it doesn't need 3GHz Quad Core processors anyway.

I think it's possible to apply hotfixes in Win9x' install CDs as well.

Not in the way Win2k (and up) do. That means, true integrating, e.g. replacing the original files, which is something that Win9x doesn't support. You can chain-install Win9x updates yes, but this only adds more time to the total installation time.

What speed? ME doesn't even support the latest technology, like dual and quad core processors, modern videocards, et cetera.

Dual and quad core processors won't necessarily make your computer faster. Not to mention that XP will still bog down one core more than Me will. A 'modern' video card only matters if you like to play recent games.

Bunk, most modern software makes use of multiple cores these days. XP doesn't bog the CPU much more than 9x, provided you set it up correctly. But then again, Win9x needs some tweaking too, for best performance. Any OS does. And keep in mind, that the NT kernel does a lot more than the Win9x one. TRUE memory protection, multitasking, and virtual memory, unlike the hacks in Win9x. And IDK, but the majority of Windows users DO play recent games. Take a look a the best selling game charts, and the funny thing is, none of them will run on 9x.

Just because it's cheap doesn't mean we want our OS to use more of it. We have our own files to store.

Disable system restore and driver caching if you're so anal about disk space usage. That saves at least 50% of XP's default installation footprint.

NTFS is proprietary, less secure (you can hide things in streams), and benchmarks show it's not as fast as FAT.

Most commercial file systems are proprietary, moot point. Less secure? You're kidding, right? FAT doesn't even have the slighest form security. Show me the benchmarks, NTFS beats FAT big time on modern, large HHDs. Yes, NTFS is a tad slower on smaller, anchient HHD's, but even then not by much. And if you disable 8.3 filename support and file stamps for example, it beats FAT no matter the drive and condition.

To be clear, i have nothing against 9x. If you're happy, use it, by all means. But don't come up with myths, false/outdated information, to make an 'argument' that Win9x is better. Technically 9x inferior to NT. And in turn, NT is inferior to other OS's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt (s)he was looking for a command line shell.

XP has a native DOS Prompt too. It's pretty compatible. Have you ever tried it?

What what what? I really must ask where you got that information from. All the DOS apps that worked perfectly for me in Windows 98 and Me and, of course, pure DOS, never work in XP and beyond. Except for edit.com, I suppose. I don't see how you can say that. The commands are certainly the same, but it still doesn't make the DOS apps (probably what the original poster is getting at) work.

If you mean the command prompt then yes, I suppose it is. But that isn't DOS, it's the NT command prompt.

I also agree that we shouldn't have operating systems that take up the whole of your hard drive. They're excessively big these days. 98 and Me don't seem to have that problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What what what? I really must ask where you got that information from. All the DOS apps that worked perfectly for me in Windows 98 and Me and, of course, pure DOS, never work in XP and beyond. Except for edit.com, I suppose. I don't see how you can say that. The commands are certainly the same, but it still doesn't make the DOS apps (probably what the original poster is getting at) work.

cmdprompt.gif

Right, things like edit.com do not work in NT's command prompt. :rolleyes:

Edit: I overlooked except. What DOS command you want to see?

If you mean the command prompt then yes, I suppose it is. But that isn't DOS, it's the NT command prompt.

I meant the command prompt, and yes, it runs all ancient DOS command's perfectly well. Like you can see in the screenshot.

I also agree that we shouldn't have operating systems that take up the whole of your hard drive. They're excessively big these days. 98 and Me don't seem to have that problem.

Oh I agree, but keep in mind that 9x has far less apps and features than XP. Those extra applications use disk space.

Edited by beats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and it is very frustrating to be attacked by over 8000 people who are saying INSTALL XP constantly! :realmad:

I know the type. I'm a member of a Windows 7 forum and they are worse than Linux fan boys. If you like ME stick with it and don't let anyone tell you that their OS is better. It's all subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah,i've gotta say,windows me is a good system for entertainment at that time it was bornt.but you should notice some disadvantages.

now,hardwares are getting development.a big disadvantage for ms's 16 bit systems is supporting more than 512mb not well.but things are unfortunately,now memorie sticks are more than 1g.for windows me,it skipped the “start as the ms dos mode“ point。so,you can't change the config of the emm386 item to mod the MaxPhysPage before you enter the system.so you will restart again and again so that you can't enter the system.

and on the other hand, every hardware companie had stopped supporting win9x systems by 2007,including drivers and problem services.

but any solution?

Edited by aqcww
Link to comment
Share on other sites

XP has a native DOS Prompt too. It's pretty compatible.

It is not native, and compatibility is poor to not too bad at best.

Funny you leave out Bochs, which is quite fast actually. But even DosBox is fast enough to run old software, it doesn't need 3GHz Quad Core processors anyway.

I don't know anything about Bochs, only about DOSBox, which is pretty slow compared to the real thing.

Not in the way Win2k (and up) do. That means, true integrating, e.g. replacing the original files, which is something that Win9x doesn't support.

Tell me why not. I can't see why it wouldn't be possible. You can either add the newer files outside the cabinets, or replace the file in the cabinet and adjust the cabinet size in setuppp.inf.

Bunk, most modern software makes use of multiple cores these days.

Nonsense. Only professional modern software does, like 3D and video rendering suites.

XP doesn't bog the CPU much more than 9x

Try Windows XP, then Windows 95, 98 or Me on a Pentium II 233 Mhz CPU and come back. Not to mention XP needs a lot more RAM.

TRUE memory protection, multitasking, and virtual memory, unlike the hacks in Win9x.

We don't care, because we're not OS designers, and the hacks seem to work pretty well for us.

And IDK, but the majority of Windows users DO play recent games.

And the majority of Windows users run 'recent' OSs. We don't. Besides, what's stopping someone from having a 2nd PC for heavy work and video games? Don't forget that game consoles also exist to play them.

Less secure? You're kidding, right? FAT doesn't even have the slighest form security.

I'm talking about security in the sense of compromise, not of permissions. NTFS can hide files in alternate streams, for example. There are other backdoors for rootkits and viruses to use as well. FAT doesn't have this.

Show me the benchmarks, NTFS beats FAT big time on modern, large HHDs. Yes, NTFS is a tad slower on smaller, anchient HHD's, but even then not by much.

What about file systems for USB flash drives? I will concede that for very large drives NTFS is often better. But for everything else FAT is king.

Not to mention that FAT is much more compatible than NTFS.

Oh I agree, but keep in mind that 9x has far less apps and features than XP.

It has more applications, but that doesn't mean much, as long as you can use those you want to use. As for features, most aren't even used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Immunity to modern viruses made for xP only
Well, OK, only because they're using the APIs that don't exist on 9x systems anymore. However, 9x is still a flat memory model with no security, meaning any user-mode app can write to the kernel (and vice-versa), making security impossible. Sure new viruses don't target the >1% of users still using 9x, because there's no return on investment. It doesn't make you immune to anything, only immune to people wanting to take the time to test code on an OS that has no marketshare - with a flat memory model, you are inherently *in*secure. This is true security through obscurity, and while it may serve, it's not because you're immune, it's because your marketshare is irrelevant.

However, if ME works for you, stick with it. I see no reason not to, if it meets your needs.

I'm talking about security in the sense of compromise, not of permissions. NTFS can hide files in alternate streams, for example. There are other backdoors for rootkits and viruses to use as well. FAT doesn't have this.
True, but you'd have to get the malicious code onto your box to hide itself in the first place, which actually is irrelevant of filesystem. As mentioned above, getting malicious code onto 9x is far easier than a properly-configured NT-based system (running as a user rather than admin), but I know folks run 9x because it works for them. I just hate to see comments that are wrong - 9x has no security, and NTFS is not "insecure" any more than a system with FAT32 in this regard. The malicious code to place an ADS on an NTFS file system got there because it was able to bypass user security (as usual, the security hole is the user, not necessarily the system or the filesystem it runs on top of).

I'm guessing the speed factor is fairly moot as well - if you're really hammering your hard drives so often that it matters, then yes, FAT32 for that drive (or ExFAT, or NTFS on a fast RAID volume, if security and file permissions are required or files larger than 4GB).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

File system security doesn't matter. Once the code can interact directly with your machine, you've already lost. You're assuming they need system priviledges in the first place. They can still hog your CPU and Internet connection as much as they like once they execute from a place the user does have priviledges to.

The malicious code to place an ADS on an NTFS file system got there because it was able to bypass user security (as usual, the security hole is the user, not necessarily the system or the filesystem it runs on top of).

You're forgetting the drive-by exploits like Sasser that exist because NT likes to show its services to the outer world. Conficker also uses a drive-by exploit, though the situation wasn't the same because a patch was out for months before the malware appeared. Still, the services are an attack vector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...