Dades wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:46:
People defending Windows ME, I've truly seen everything now.

Dades wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:46:
People defending Windows ME, I've truly seen everything now.

dj LiTh wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:48:

Muscular Beaver wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:39:

dj LiTh wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:38:
Windows 7 = Desktop / Laptop
Windows 8 = Touchscreen / tablets

I really dont understand the hate that windows 8 gets when its being built with touch screens in mind. Atleast ms is makin its own OS for tablets and touchscreens rather than doing the lazy apple way and just porting a phone os to a tablet. I know when my laptop finally dies (5 years on, 2 hdd's later and just put a ssd in it it just wont die) i'll be wanting a win8 tablet

As for my desktop that will of course be staying win7

Because it doesnt even support all touch screen devices. My Car PC cant benefit from it, because metro needs a minimum of 1024x768.
Its a joke even for what its supposed to be (even though its not).

A joke would be iOS, and 1024x768 isnt exactly an extreme resolution requirement

Dades wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:46:
People defending Windows ME, I've truly seen everything now.

Muscular Beaver wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:39:

dj LiTh wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:38:
Windows 7 = Desktop / Laptop
Windows 8 = Touchscreen / tablets

I really dont understand the hate that windows 8 gets when its being built with touch screens in mind. Atleast ms is makin its own OS for tablets and touchscreens rather than doing the lazy apple way and just porting a phone os to a tablet. I know when my laptop finally dies (5 years on, 2 hdd's later and just put a ssd in it it just wont die) i'll be wanting a win8 tablet

As for my desktop that will of course be staying win7

Because it doesnt even support all touch screen devices. My Car PC cant benefit from it, because metro needs a minimum of 1024x768.
Its a joke even for what its supposed to be (even though its not).

dj LiTh wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:38:
Windows 7 = Desktop / Laptop
Windows 8 = Touchscreen / tablets

I really dont understand the hate that windows 8 gets when its being built with touch screens in mind. Atleast ms is makin its own OS for tablets and touchscreens rather than doing the lazy apple way and just porting a phone os to a tablet. I know when my laptop finally dies (5 years on, 2 hdd's later and just put a ssd in it it just wont die) i'll be wanting a win8 tablet

As for my desktop that will of course be staying win7

Agent.X7 wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:32:

HorrorScope wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 18:40:

Agent.X7 wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 18:30:
Eh, all I know is that MS seems locked in to the 1 bad OS release followed by 1 good OS release cycle.

By that logic:

98 - Good
ME - OH God, is there a word that describes how bad that was?
XP - Good
Vista - WTF? NO!
7 - Good
8- Going to be bad? Most freakin' likely.

(No, I'm not counting the Enterprise centered NT OSs before they merged with consumer level.)

Personally I think a lot of users are drama queens. The one's that you list as omg bad, really weren't that bad vs the previous generation. ME vs 98, pretty much near the same damn thing. Vista got bad mouthed because driver compatibilty issues, if those weren't there it was better then XP in general or very close to not matter.

I see it more like:
95 (face it 98 and me were small additions to 95)
XP
Win7

As true generational jumps and the others stepping stones more then god awful attempts vs the predecessor. As for 8, this is a MS strategy to get into the phone and pad market that they completely blown, like the CEO should have been fired blown. If you don't pay them for getting these big moves right, why even pay them?

You weren't around for Windows ME, were you? Either that, or you don't remember just how bad it really was. Vista? It wasn't ME bad, but they broke shit that worked just fine on XP and it took them a year to fix most of it. (And some of it they never fixed at all.)

I worked in IT. You can "drama queen" me all you want, but I'll "ignorant bitch" you back.

CJ_Parker wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:25:

Muscular Beaver wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:16:
...

*cough*
Well, there's system admins with skill like that horror guy and then there's Beavers and Prezels...

HorrorScope wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:28:

Muscular Beaver wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:16:

CJ_Parker wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:13:

Prez wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 18:47:
I'm sorry but that is just not true. I got more blue screens in any week I ran Windows ME than I did in a year of using Win 98. ME was terrible compared to Win98; I don't even see how that's arguable.

Just because you lack the skill to set up a stable system does not mean ME stability was a global issue.
My personal experience with ME was nearly flawless. I remember System Restore eating up resources like a starved piranha with a bleeding pig nearby but once that was turned off ME was a pleasure to play and work with.
I had much less BSODs with ME than with 95A/B/98/98SE.
Another neat improvement of ME (thanks to some of Win2K's kernel getting ported over and less 16-bit legacy crap than in Win 9x) was that you didn't have to reboot at least once every few hours to have a stable system.
Win 98 was horrible in that regard. If you multitasked just a little then it was only a matter of when the system would crash and not if. Memory management was abysmal. If you were a "power user" then it was also guaranteed that you had to reinstall Win 98 at least once a year or so due to the registry becoming wonky beyond a certain age or usage.
Win ME on the other hand was the first consumer Windows OS that at least somewhat resembled the reliability, stability and up-time that was normally to be found in enterprise environments at that time.

Needless to say that XP was another major improvement over the Win 9x era but I fully agree with that other dude in that ME is getting tons of undeserved bashing (and I'd bet real money that the most vocal negativity is coming from people who have never even had ME installed).

*cough*
When ME was released I had to install it on many PC. I did support back then too. Driving to customers. ME was pure hell. Installing it and having it run in the first place was almost impossible, but then providing support for it... lol...
It was HELL. Pure hell and we quickly abandoned it and went back to 98SE, which was rock stable compared to ME.

I had success for both, how can one explain it?

CJ_Parker wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:25:

Muscular Beaver wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:16:
...

*cough*
Well, there's system admins with skill like that horror guy and then there's Beavers and Prezels...

HorrorScope wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 18:40:

Agent.X7 wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 18:30:
Eh, all I know is that MS seems locked in to the 1 bad OS release followed by 1 good OS release cycle.

By that logic:

98 - Good
ME - OH God, is there a word that describes how bad that was?
XP - Good
Vista - WTF? NO!
7 - Good
8- Going to be bad? Most freakin' likely.

(No, I'm not counting the Enterprise centered NT OSs before they merged with consumer level.)

Personally I think a lot of users are drama queens. The one's that you list as omg bad, really weren't that bad vs the previous generation. ME vs 98, pretty much near the same damn thing. Vista got bad mouthed because driver compatibilty issues, if those weren't there it was better then XP in general or very close to not matter.

I see it more like:
95 (face it 98 and me were small additions to 95)
XP
Win7

As true generational jumps and the others stepping stones more then god awful attempts vs the predecessor. As for 8, this is a MS strategy to get into the phone and pad market that they completely blown, like the CEO should have been fired blown. If you don't pay them for getting these big moves right, why even pay them?

NKD wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:22:
Not sure what GayBen is on about here. Windows 8 has that goofy Metro thing which I despise, but it doesn't have the myriad technical and performance issues that ME or Vista had at launch. At worst, people will just pass it over for not being a big enough upgrade and that'll be that.

No one is gonna fucking switch to Linux of all things. I never pegged Newell as being that retarded, but I guess I was wrong.

Muscular Beaver wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:16:

CJ_Parker wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:13:

Prez wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 18:47:
I'm sorry but that is just not true. I got more blue screens in any week I ran Windows ME than I did in a year of using Win 98. ME was terrible compared to Win98; I don't even see how that's arguable.

Just because you lack the skill to set up a stable system does not mean ME stability was a global issue.
My personal experience with ME was nearly flawless. I remember System Restore eating up resources like a starved piranha with a bleeding pig nearby but once that was turned off ME was a pleasure to play and work with.
I had much less BSODs with ME than with 95A/B/98/98SE.
Another neat improvement of ME (thanks to some of Win2K's kernel getting ported over and less 16-bit legacy crap than in Win 9x) was that you didn't have to reboot at least once every few hours to have a stable system.
Win 98 was horrible in that regard. If you multitasked just a little then it was only a matter of when the system would crash and not if. Memory management was abysmal. If you were a "power user" then it was also guaranteed that you had to reinstall Win 98 at least once a year or so due to the registry becoming wonky beyond a certain age or usage.
Win ME on the other hand was the first consumer Windows OS that at least somewhat resembled the reliability, stability and up-time that was normally to be found in enterprise environments at that time.

Needless to say that XP was another major improvement over the Win 9x era but I fully agree with that other dude in that ME is getting tons of undeserved bashing (and I'd bet real money that the most vocal negativity is coming from people who have never even had ME installed).

*cough*
When ME was released I had to install it on many PC. I did support back then too. Driving to customers. ME was pure hell. Installing it and having it run in the first place was almost impossible, but then providing support for it... lol...
It was HELL. Pure hell and we quickly abandoned it and went back to 98SE, which was rock stable compared to ME.

CJ_Parker wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:13:

Prez wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 18:47:
I'm sorry but that is just not true. I got more blue screens in any week I ran Windows ME than I did in a year of using Win 98. ME was terrible compared to Win98; I don't even see how that's arguable.

Just because you lack the skill to set up a stable system does not mean ME stability was a global issue.
My personal experience with ME was nearly flawless. I remember System Restore eating up resources like a starved piranha with a bleeding pig nearby but once that was turned off ME was a pleasure to play and work with.
I had much less BSODs with ME than with 95A/B/98/98SE.
Another neat improvement of ME (thanks to some of Win2K's kernel getting ported over and less 16-bit legacy crap than in Win 9x) was that you didn't have to reboot at least once every few hours to have a stable system.
Win 98 was horrible in that regard. If you multitasked just a little then it was only a matter of when the system would crash and not if. Memory management was abysmal. If you were a "power user" then it was also guaranteed that you had to reinstall Win 98 at least once a year or so due to the registry becoming wonky beyond a certain age or usage.
Win ME on the other hand was the first consumer Windows OS that at least somewhat resembled the reliability, stability and up-time that was normally to be found in enterprise environments at that time.

Needless to say that XP was another major improvement over the Win 9x era but I fully agree with that other dude in that ME is getting tons of undeserved bashing (and I'd bet real money that the most vocal negativity is coming from people who have never even had ME installed).

Muscular Beaver wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 19:16:
...