Oh, you twanged my guitar string on this topic.
I still have no idea what the hell Microsoft was thinking here.
I think I have an idea; if you will remember, ME was released within the year of the millenium, but what everyone was buzzing about was M/Soft's transition to an OS based on NTFS which was reputed to be released to public soon, discarding FAT32. We were waiting for that OS to be announced formally but it had no name yet. I remember many thinking that ME was the one, but all M/Soft did was add a few bells and whistles to Win98 and cut 'er loose as the new hotsy-totsy OS with the usual marketing advertising public hoopla. After purchase, many were shocked that this was just Win98 with fresh make-up over an old face. I remember I was a member of another forum at that time, and we were flooded with bewildered users trying to make the new movie-maker work properly, system freezes, BSODs, some DOS based programs refused to run, ad infinitum.
ME was launched in Sept. 2000; Windows 2000 was launched February of 2000. There is no way in hell that anyone can convince me that was an accident. Two (2) operating systems aimed at the general public launched in the same year? Within 6 months?? Microsoft pulled off one of the greatest cons in financial history by squeezing the last bit of profit off an old DOS system that already was destined for the scrap heap.
Whatever respect I had for M/Soft was lost with that debacle; I don't trust them any further than I can spit, and their marketing ploys since then has only reinforced my viewpoint.
One man's opinion.
Oh....and in reference to your main question...WIndows 3.x without question. Welcome to Crash City folks, chills & thrills as you take a roller-coaster ride through one of the most unstable OSs ever conceived by man.
Edited by ranchhand_, 24 May 2017 - 10:18 AM.