Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Mar 2008 23:03 UTC, submitted by Flatland_Spider
Windows "I have a confession to make, I used Windows Millennium Edition and I liked it. That doesn't stop me making fun of it however. At a time where there was still a separation between consumer and enterprise operating systems, Windows ME was at the top of its class. What a lot of people forget or don't even recognize to begin with is that Windows ME is actually a rather innovative and forward-looking operating system. Instead, almost everyone focuses on its reliability problems which can be largely attributed to the flaky and inherently unstable Win9x kernel."
Thread beginning with comment 305748
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I'll admit I was a ME fan
by leech on Wed 19th Mar 2008 23:55 UTC in reply to "I'll admit I was a ME fan"
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

It was the last of the Windows OSs to use the *nix model of desktop-environment-riding-atop-command-line-OS (for better or for worse), and as such, there were some things that Just Worked better in ME.


Actually this is the reason that ME was a pile of crap, it DID NOT have a command line at all. They got rid of all the DOS compatibility, which after the release of Windows 2000 was the only reason to keep Windows 9x around. Windows ME was in essence a step between Windows 98SE and Windows 2000.

They got rid of the underlying DOS (as in WinNT) but didn't even have the emulation running under it. To even run DOS with ME, you had to boot off of a floppy with DOS. Windows 98SE was the last worthwhile 16/32 bit operating system from Microsoft, afterward they went with the pure 32bit operating systems of Win2k and XP, then finally came out with 64bit after Win2k3 (which you can argue that there is a Windows XP 64bit, but it is built upon the 2003 kernel.)

XP even is kind of a ME of the NT line, but Vista is more so. Again, it seems that Vista will be a stop gap until the purely 64bit Operating Systems from Microsoft, especially since Windows 7 (what a lame name, though less lame than Vista) is coming out (supposedly) sometime in 2009. I recall at one point getting completely pissed off at Windows XP and was about to switch back to Windows 2000, but for some reason I couldn't get it to even install on my newer hardware.

Fortunately for 98% of the time, I'm just using Ubuntu ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

"Actually this is the reason that ME was a pile of crap, it DID NOT have a command line at all. They got rid of all the DOS compatibility, which after the release of Windows 2000 was the only reason to keep Windows 9x around. Windows ME was in essence a step between Windows 98SE and Windows 2000."

Don't discuss things about which you have no knowledge please. Windows Me did have a command line, same as all the other versions of Windows 9x. What was different in Me was that MS removed the ability to boot the system in real mode.

"They got rid of the underlying DOS (as in WinNT) but didn't even have the emulation running under it. To even run DOS with ME, you had to boot off of a floppy with DOS."

Windows Me was architecturally identical to Windows 95 and 98, based on MS-DOS. They hid the ability to boot into real mode DOS.

"XP even is kind of a ME of the NT line, but Vista is more so. Again, it seems that Vista will be a stop gap until the purely 64bit Operating Systems from Microsoft, especially since Windows 7 (what a lame name, though less lame than Vista) is coming out (supposedly) sometime in 2009."

I'm not sure there is any sane way to respond to this...

Reply Parent Score: 14

leech Member since:
2006-01-10

They did have DOS running under ME, It did not run in real mode at all. That's why a large amount of DOS 9x software didn't run all that well. ME was basically crap. That's why it is so shunned. It didn't have any real advantages over Windows 98, and Windows 2000 was already out and while it still had a bit to go as far as having drivers made for it, it was still far better in the stability range.

But I could say that I used ME for about the same length of time I used Vista. Which is long enough to know that they are both garbage (about a month).

They hid the DOS from the users. Kind of like them hiding anything useful in Vista.

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/10/16/001016oplivingsto...

Edited 2008-03-20 00:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

astroraptor Member since:
2005-07-22

Actually, ME did run ontop of DOS. There were just programming measures that disallowed one to boot to DOS. It's possible to hack said measures and boot to pure MS-DOS 8.0. It didn't emulate DOS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

This sounds interesting. My gf is still using Win ME right now, and as honorary sysadmin for this disaster I'm always looking for ways to make her (and my) life more bearable.

What are the benefits of accessing true DOS mode? and if there are some, where are these 'hacks' found at?

As I now don't dare perform the six-monthly reinstall of her OEM CD (due to eight years' worth of Windows Updates I can no longer access), I'm up for any tips that might help sustain the unhappy beast.

(For the record, I've tried advocating a move to a low-footprint Linux distro, but she won't have it.)

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

Actually this is the reason that ME was a pile of crap, it DID NOT have a command line at all. They got rid of all the DOS compatibility, which after the release of Windows 2000 was the only reason to keep Windows 9x around. Windows ME was in essence a step between Windows 98SE and Windows 2000.

Me did indeed have a command line, they just worked extra hard at hiding it.

In essence, it was Windows 98 SE with the updating common controls library from Windows 2000 integrated into the explorer shell. Of course the changes were deeper than that considering the instabilities that people experienced, but it wasn't caused by them removing DOS.

DOS was still very much running below the GUI, just hidden to a greater degree.

Me did introduce one nice feature that has found its way into every MS OS since, system restore.

Reply Parent Score: 2

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Me did introduce one nice feature that has found its way into every MS OS since, system restore.

Ironically, System Restore is one of those things that I used to have on my list of "Annoying Resource & Disk Wasting Crap" that I always disable as soon as I booted into a new XP setup. It never ran more than two minutes on my machine after a fresh install. I've found that if Windows is going to crap out, it's going to crap out--there is no saving it, and in my experience, SysRestore never could. So why waste extra resources trying to "save" it? Not to mention, XP installed on an NTFS filesystem is a lot less likely to self-destruct in such severe ways that ME did on FAT32, making it even more useless.

Edited 2008-03-20 15:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4