Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

What's The Difference Between 9x And Me?


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 RknRusty

RknRusty

  • Members
  • 396 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Local time:12:39 AM

Posted 23 February 2008 - 08:32 PM

Hi all, I just popped over from the XP forums to ask about this. I grew up on DOS, graduated to Windows 3.1, then on to 95, 98, and skipped on up to 2000. I've always wondered exactly what the heck ME is. Could someone humor me with an answer?
Just curious, thanks.

XP RULES! :thumbsup:

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


m

#2 El_Tel

El_Tel

  • Members
  • 196 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottingham The Worlds Best City... England U.K.
  • Local time:04:39 AM

Posted 24 February 2008 - 02:35 AM

:trumpet:


I've always wondered exactly what the heck ME is. Could someone humor me with an answer?

It is an alternative :cool: "Operating System" :woot:

I :thumbsup: kind of like it :flowers:


:inlove:
Posted Image



Tarrah then... Why not check my Intro

Many Thanks for taking the time out of your busy day...

#3 OmegamB

OmegamB

  • Members
  • 56 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:US
  • Local time:01:39 AM

Posted 24 February 2008 - 03:32 AM

Wiki description:

The successor to Windows 98, Windows Me was marketed as a "Home Edition" when compared to Windows 2000 Professional, which had been released seven months earlier.


Basically a badly made "home edition" OS.

Posted Image


#4 Platypus

Platypus

  • Moderator
  • 12,902 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:03:39 PM

Posted 24 February 2008 - 03:36 AM

Windows 2000 was part of the business group of operating systems along with 2000 Server, Advanced Server and Datacenter.

Windows Millennium Edition was the home use update to Windows 98SE, and it was heavily weighted towards providing a much more complete out-of-the-box multimedia and home networking capability.

It included things like Windows Movie Maker, Media Player 7, Image Acquisition, Internet Explorer 5.5, a Home Networking Wizard, system file protection & system restore, Auto Update and hot docking (including the useful USB mass storage device support).

There were also the usual incremental updates to things like uPNP & WDM (Windows Driver Model), and system utilities to correctly display information for hard drives over 64GB in size.

Top 5 things that never get done:

1.


#5 pip22

pip22

  • Banned
  • 341 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:39 AM

Posted 24 February 2008 - 06:38 AM

Main difference: Windows 98 works, whereas Windows ME doesn't (most of the time anyway). It was the worst OS Microsoft released because it was a 'stop gap' between the ageing windows 98 and the not-yet-ready XP. They rushed it through on to the market (even more than they usually do) and it was a dog. It probably damaged their reputation more than any other product. I was one of those who unfortunately adopted it as soon as it became availabe -- one week of torture and I went back to using 98SE.

Edited by pip22, 24 February 2008 - 06:45 AM.


#6 RknRusty

RknRusty
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 396 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Local time:12:39 AM

Posted 24 February 2008 - 08:56 AM

Well, now I know! Thanks for all the good answers, people.
I loved my 98, although it was still crash-prone, but superior to 95, and I just didn't know any better. Right clicking was just too cool. 2k was even a better experience for me, but now I love my XP, and I hope they support it for a long time.

#7 Eyesee

Eyesee

    Bleepin Teck Shop


  • BC Advisor
  • 3,536 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In the middle of Kansas
  • Local time:10:39 PM

Posted 24 February 2008 - 11:16 AM

ME = Mistake Edition. Rushed out the door because XP wasnt ready

I like spider solitaire & the super fast defrag 98 defrag is slow.
Both of which work with 98. Just copy the files to the Windows folder
In the beginning there was the command line.

#8 Tomo2

Tomo2

  • Members
  • 402 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wanganui, Aotearoa NZ
  • Local time:04:39 PM

Posted 05 March 2008 - 11:50 PM

You know I don't quite see why so many people hated ME. Sure it was terrible when you bought it from the shop but if it came pre-installed it was pretty good. I have 98, ME and XP and ME has features of XP but the layout of 98 and its on DOS.

But hey, you can liken vista to it. Everyone ran out and bought that just to find its nice to look at but goes at a snails pace on the average pc. Plus major compatibility issues with both OS's.

To go against the grain - I love Windows ME! :thumbsup:

L&P, World Famous in New Zealand since ages ago!
Posted Image
Avast! Antivirus : Spybot S&D : Trend Micro Housecall : Hosts file : HiJack This
Don't be too open minded - your brains will fall out


#9 El_Tel

El_Tel

  • Members
  • 196 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottingham The Worlds Best City... England U.K.
  • Local time:04:39 AM

Posted 06 March 2008 - 03:00 AM

:flowers:

To go against the grain - I love Windows ME! :inlove:


:trumpet: Put mi name down :thumbsup:
Posted Image



Tarrah then... Why not check my Intro

Many Thanks for taking the time out of your busy day...

#10 mommabear

mommabear

  • Members
  • 492 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:39 AM

Posted 06 March 2008 - 01:46 PM

:flowers:

To go against the grain - I love Windows ME! :inlove:


:trumpet: Put mi name down :thumbsup:


Me too! I guess I'm finally used to XP...I fought it tooth and nail though. It's tolerable using the Classic Theme. And I still won't use NTFS. I'm in FAT32. If I could get ClearType to work in Windows Me (my old eyes need it now), I'd go back to Me in a second!

#11 Billy O'Neal

Billy O'Neal

    Visual C++ STL Maintainer


  • Malware Response Team
  • 12,301 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redmond, Washington
  • Local time:09:39 PM

Posted 06 March 2008 - 01:56 PM

To go against the grain - I love Windows ME!


What are you smoking?

Billy3
Twitter - My statements do not establish the official position of Microsoft Corporation, and are my own personal opinion. (But you already knew that, right?)
Posted Image

#12 Andrew

Andrew

    Bleepin' Night Watchman


  • Moderator
  • 8,250 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Right behind you
  • Local time:08:39 PM

Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:14 PM

Windows ME introduced several features which were later incorporated into XP and Vista. Off the top of my head, I only remember System Restore as being one of them.

ME was the last Microsoft OS to be based on the 9x kernel and the last to incorporate DOS. In my opinion, it represents their last effort to salvage the 9x kernel before abandoning it altogether for the more stable and secure paradigm brought by the NT kernel. The chief reason for the 9x kernel's unwarranted longevity was the number of hardware drivers available for it compared to NT.

Among the improvements NT brought were the NTFS file system which is much more resistant to fragmentation and corruption than FAT(16/32); can handle files up to an exabyte in size compared to FAT32's paltry 4 gigabytes; built in permission controls (not as good as Unix/Linux, though); and built in compression and encryption abilities.

Hmmm... looks like I missed the question, you wanted to no the difference between 9x and ME. In my opinion, the major difference is as follows: one uses numbers in the name, the other uses letters. Aside from that, the differences are largely cosmetic (except for ME's ability to crash more often than not.)

#13 Billy O'Neal

Billy O'Neal

    Visual C++ STL Maintainer


  • Malware Response Team
  • 12,301 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redmond, Washington
  • Local time:09:39 PM

Posted 06 March 2008 - 05:08 PM

Windows 9x is the series of operating systems including:
  • Windows 95
  • Windows 98
  • Windows ME
Therefore, Windows 9x and Windows ME are one in the same.

More information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win9x

Releases [of Windows 9x]
* Windows 95 original release (version 4.00.950)
* Windows 95 OEM Service Release 1 (OSR1) (version 4.00.950A)
* Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2 (OSR2) (version 4.00.950B)
* Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2.1 (OSR 2.1) (version 4.00.950B)
* Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2.5 (OSR 2.5) (version 4.00.950C)
* Windows 98 Standard Edition (version 4.10.1998)
* Windows 98 Second Edition (version 4.10.2222)
* Windows Millennium Edition (Me) (version 4.90.3000)

Billy3
Twitter - My statements do not establish the official position of Microsoft Corporation, and are my own personal opinion. (But you already knew that, right?)
Posted Image

#14 meisinscotland

meisinscotland

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:39 AM

Posted 16 March 2008 - 06:22 PM

Goodness me... Windows ME comes back into the spotlight again eh!

It's basically a remodelled Windows 98 with a slightly more polished UI. Microsoft kinda tried to hide the fact that it was *STILL* DOS based, by removing the options to reboot into DOS mode. They introduced System Restore and Windows Movie Maker into that OS, innovations that have carried on thru-out the Windows line.

The problem with Windows ME is, like its predecessors Windows 95 and 98, it was still a strictly single user OS. So no matter how much they may have touted how it was suitable for families, even small businesses perhaps, more secure, etc... there simply was no security on those OSes because any user was the root user. Some could say that this is security because permissions don't even exist, but eh whatever. Also the Kernel was not designed for security, and if the kernel of an OS is not secure then adding any upper security does not result in true security but instead perceived security, which is actually, computer insecurity. That is why Windows NT was around, for business and truly 'mission critical' situations. It was a true multi-user system and had a very secure Kernel that could be built on with upper levels of security including but not limited to group policies, permissions/ACLs and access control.

Windows 9x. is dead - I still use it in VMs, and I wouldn't mind a 486 with '95 to screw around on, but you can't really rely on it anymore and you never really could.

:thumbsup:

#15 Keithuk

Keithuk

  • Members
  • 951 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:39 AM

Posted 17 March 2008 - 07:43 AM

Windows 9x. is dead

Not it isn't. :thumbsup:

Keith

Windows ME (spare computer)
Windows XP 2002 Professional SP3 (desktop computer)
Windows 7 Professional SP1 32bit (laptop computer)

Windows 8 64bit spare drive for laptop computer





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users