A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows ME » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

gotta say.. so long ME



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 26th 07, 05:50 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Ogg[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 55
Default gotta say.. so long ME

I'm am almost dissapointed to do this, afterall, ME has been a fine
performer eversince I discovered this ng and other ME forums on the 'net to
help me tame ME enough to be able to believe that I would never need to move
to XP, ...but recently, I've been very disappointed in ME's performance and
reliability eversince I changed my video card to a newer and "better" one
(worked ok for a while - it only caused a problem with Shutdown), and
eversince I upped the ram from 256 to 768. The various tweaks to fool ME
to limit it to 512 or LESS is not working. I am actually running out of
resources sooner! Very annoying. The whole idea of adding more ram was to
be able to use it. There was a modest speed boost in screen rendering, and
application loading with the extra ram, but I still can't seem to have more
apps open at the same time which I need.

So.. I'm moving on to Ubuntu. The winapps that I absolutely need will be
hosted on my XP'd Thinkpad.

ME first came into my life when I purchased a new 1gHz, AGP 2x 64meg, 256meg
ram, 40gig box in year 2000. The first upgrade it ever needed was a
critical one - a new 120gig hdd. About 3 years into its life ME had started
to insist on Scandisk at every boot (even after successful scandisk and
Shutdown), plus the 40gig drive produced strange intermittent clunking
noises. The new 120gig hdd solved that problem. But interestingly.. that
same 40gig hdd is now parked into a "spare" 500mHz 256meg ram pc, loaded
with Ubuntu, and there are NO problems.

We've probably all been hanging on to ME because we're adamant to not dish
out more $'s to MS. If your needs for faster processor, more ram, and new
programs do not exist, then ME should serve you well.

I really really really wanted to believe that ME would serve me well for the
rest of my days with modest upgrades as required. Afterall, I upgraded the
original box with USB 2.0 and even replaced the original NIC. ME continued
to perform well. But all I really wanted was to be able to load atleast 3
apps in memory (Wordperfect, my browser, and WindowsExplorer as I navigated
through files over my network). Suddenly, Explorer.exe would close and fail
to reload the Taskbar apps! The only solution was to reboot. Very time
consuming and frustrating. Then when I learned that ME is theoretically
limited to 512meg ram and that the only way to use more ram is to trick ME
to think there is LESS, that disappointed me. Under those conditions it's
better to get a new OS that can handle that. And.. I really don't want to
spend more $'s on a new box when I've already invested in a fine 120gig hdd,
USB 2.0 expansion, 768meg total ram, and a better (DVI-capable) video card.

My appreciation and many thanks go out to all the fine folks who helped me
with my ME questions over the years. I enjoyed helping the few people with
my insights too when I could.

...Ogg.


  #2  
Old June 26th 07, 06:12 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Mike M
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,047
Default gotta say.. so long ME

Sorry to read you're leaving and all the best for the future.

I am actually running out of resources sooner!


Not that, as you well know, the term resources as used by Win 9x systems,
have anything to do with the amount of RAM installed but rather the fixed
size 64KB stack used to store 16 bit pointers and the like. Nevertheless
no Win 9x system is particularly good at multi-tasking with the stack size
being one of the major limiting factors.
--
Mike M


Ogg wrote:

I'm am almost dissapointed to do this, afterall, ME has been a fine
performer eversince I discovered this ng and other ME forums on the
'net to help me tame ME enough to be able to believe that I would
never need to move to XP, ...but recently, I've been very
disappointed in ME's performance and reliability eversince I changed
my video card to a newer and "better" one (worked ok for a while - it
only caused a problem with Shutdown), and eversince I upped the ram
from 256 to 768. The various tweaks to fool ME to limit it to 512
or LESS is not working. I am actually running out of resources
sooner! Very annoying. The whole idea of adding more ram was to be
able to use it. There was a modest speed boost in screen rendering,
and application loading with the extra ram, but I still can't seem to
have more apps open at the same time which I need.
So.. I'm moving on to Ubuntu. The winapps that I absolutely need
will be hosted on my XP'd Thinkpad.

ME first came into my life when I purchased a new 1gHz, AGP 2x 64meg,
256meg ram, 40gig box in year 2000. The first upgrade it ever needed
was a critical one - a new 120gig hdd. About 3 years into its life
ME had started to insist on Scandisk at every boot (even after
successful scandisk and Shutdown), plus the 40gig drive produced
strange intermittent clunking noises. The new 120gig hdd solved that
problem. But interestingly.. that same 40gig hdd is now parked into
a "spare" 500mHz 256meg ram pc, loaded with Ubuntu, and there are NO
problems.
We've probably all been hanging on to ME because we're adamant to not
dish out more $'s to MS. If your needs for faster processor, more
ram, and new programs do not exist, then ME should serve you well.

I really really really wanted to believe that ME would serve me well
for the rest of my days with modest upgrades as required. Afterall,
I upgraded the original box with USB 2.0 and even replaced the
original NIC. ME continued to perform well. But all I really
wanted was to be able to load atleast 3 apps in memory (Wordperfect,
my browser, and WindowsExplorer as I navigated through files over my
network). Suddenly, Explorer.exe would close and fail to reload the
Taskbar apps! The only solution was to reboot. Very time consuming
and frustrating. Then when I learned that ME is theoretically
limited to 512meg ram and that the only way to use more ram is to
trick ME to think there is LESS, that disappointed me. Under those
conditions it's better to get a new OS that can handle that. And.. I
really don't want to spend more $'s on a new box when I've already
invested in a fine 120gig hdd, USB 2.0 expansion, 768meg total ram,
and a better (DVI-capable) video card.
My appreciation and many thanks go out to all the fine folks who
helped me with my ME questions over the years. I enjoyed helping the
few people with my insights too when I could.

..Ogg.


  #3  
Old June 27th 07, 04:06 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
webster72n
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,526
Default gotta say.. so long ME

Ogg:

To echo Mike, sorry to see you leave.
Suppose we'll find you at "nntp.aioe.org" under "alt.os.linux.ubuntu"?
Myself I plan to keep ME and run ubuntu as dual boot, if that's possible.
There's no reson for me to "trash" WinME, since it's running quite nicely.

Harry.


"Ogg" wrote in message
...
I'm am almost dissapointed to do this, afterall, ME has been a fine
performer eversince I discovered this ng and other ME forums on the 'net

to
help me tame ME enough to be able to believe that I would never need to

move
to XP, ...but recently, I've been very disappointed in ME's performance

and
reliability eversince I changed my video card to a newer and "better" one
(worked ok for a while - it only caused a problem with Shutdown), and
eversince I upped the ram from 256 to 768. The various tweaks to fool ME
to limit it to 512 or LESS is not working. I am actually running out of
resources sooner! Very annoying. The whole idea of adding more ram was

to
be able to use it. There was a modest speed boost in screen rendering,

and
application loading with the extra ram, but I still can't seem to have

more
apps open at the same time which I need.

So.. I'm moving on to Ubuntu. The winapps that I absolutely need will be
hosted on my XP'd Thinkpad.

ME first came into my life when I purchased a new 1gHz, AGP 2x 64meg,

256meg
ram, 40gig box in year 2000. The first upgrade it ever needed was a
critical one - a new 120gig hdd. About 3 years into its life ME had

started
to insist on Scandisk at every boot (even after successful scandisk and
Shutdown), plus the 40gig drive produced strange intermittent clunking
noises. The new 120gig hdd solved that problem. But interestingly.. that
same 40gig hdd is now parked into a "spare" 500mHz 256meg ram pc, loaded
with Ubuntu, and there are NO problems.

We've probably all been hanging on to ME because we're adamant to not dish
out more $'s to MS. If your needs for faster processor, more ram, and new
programs do not exist, then ME should serve you well.

I really really really wanted to believe that ME would serve me well for

the
rest of my days with modest upgrades as required. Afterall, I upgraded

the
original box with USB 2.0 and even replaced the original NIC. ME

continued
to perform well. But all I really wanted was to be able to load atleast

3
apps in memory (Wordperfect, my browser, and WindowsExplorer as I

navigated
through files over my network). Suddenly, Explorer.exe would close and

fail
to reload the Taskbar apps! The only solution was to reboot. Very time
consuming and frustrating. Then when I learned that ME is theoretically
limited to 512meg ram and that the only way to use more ram is to trick ME
to think there is LESS, that disappointed me. Under those conditions it's
better to get a new OS that can handle that. And.. I really don't want to
spend more $'s on a new box when I've already invested in a fine 120gig

hdd,
USB 2.0 expansion, 768meg total ram, and a better (DVI-capable) video

card.

My appreciation and many thanks go out to all the fine folks who helped me
with my ME questions over the years. I enjoyed helping the few people

with
my insights too when I could.

..Ogg.




  #4  
Old June 29th 07, 12:59 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
KB
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 7
Default gotta say.. so long ME

Be sure that your system's compatible with XP. Valuable information can be
found here = http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316639 You'll especially find
the Upgrade Advisor useful =
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...g/advisor.mspx

Note that despite their recommendation of 128MB RAM, I'd run, IMHO, 512MB
minimum.

Having been a strong advocate of ME for many years, I've not been
dissapointed with XP which took over a year to throw up an error message.
Note that I didn't upgrade but bought a new system due to hardware
incompatibility with the old system.

Best of Luck!
"Ogg" wrote in message
...
I'm am almost dissapointed to do this, afterall, ME has been a fine
performer eversince I discovered this ng and other ME forums on the 'net
to help me tame ME enough to be able to believe that I would never need to
move to XP, ...but recently, I've been very disappointed in ME's
performance and reliability eversince I changed my video card to a newer
and "better" one (worked ok for a while - it only caused a problem with
Shutdown), and eversince I upped the ram from 256 to 768. The various
tweaks to fool ME to limit it to 512 or LESS is not working. I am
actually running out of resources sooner! Very annoying. The whole idea
of adding more ram was to be able to use it. There was a modest speed
boost in screen rendering, and application loading with the extra ram, but
I still can't seem to have more apps open at the same time which I need.

So.. I'm moving on to Ubuntu. The winapps that I absolutely need will be
hosted on my XP'd Thinkpad.

ME first came into my life when I purchased a new 1gHz, AGP 2x 64meg,
256meg ram, 40gig box in year 2000. The first upgrade it ever needed was
a critical one - a new 120gig hdd. About 3 years into its life ME had
started to insist on Scandisk at every boot (even after successful
scandisk and Shutdown), plus the 40gig drive produced strange intermittent
clunking noises. The new 120gig hdd solved that problem. But
interestingly.. that same 40gig hdd is now parked into a "spare" 500mHz
256meg ram pc, loaded with Ubuntu, and there are NO problems.

We've probably all been hanging on to ME because we're adamant to not dish
out more $'s to MS. If your needs for faster processor, more ram, and new
programs do not exist, then ME should serve you well.

I really really really wanted to believe that ME would serve me well for
the rest of my days with modest upgrades as required. Afterall, I
upgraded the original box with USB 2.0 and even replaced the original NIC.
ME continued to perform well. But all I really wanted was to be able to
load atleast 3 apps in memory (Wordperfect, my browser, and
WindowsExplorer as I navigated through files over my network). Suddenly,
Explorer.exe would close and fail to reload the Taskbar apps! The only
solution was to reboot. Very time consuming and frustrating. Then when I
learned that ME is theoretically limited to 512meg ram and that the only
way to use more ram is to trick ME to think there is LESS, that
disappointed me. Under those conditions it's better to get a new OS that
can handle that. And.. I really don't want to spend more $'s on a new box
when I've already invested in a fine 120gig hdd, USB 2.0 expansion, 768meg
total ram, and a better (DVI-capable) video card.

My appreciation and many thanks go out to all the fine folks who helped me
with my ME questions over the years. I enjoyed helping the few people
with my insights too when I could.

..Ogg.




  #5  
Old June 29th 07, 01:34 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Eric
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 216
Default gotta say.. so long ME


"KB" wrote in message
...
Be sure that your system's compatible with XP. Valuable information can
be found here = http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316639 You'll especially
find the Upgrade Advisor useful =
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...g/advisor.mspx

Note that despite their recommendation of 128MB RAM, I'd run, IMHO, 512MB
minimum.

Having been a strong advocate of ME for many years, I've not been
dissapointed with XP which took over a year to throw up an error message.
Note that I didn't upgrade but bought a new system due to hardware
incompatibility with the old system.

They recommend 128MB? It does run OK on 128MB. I believe it does run on
64MB though.
Of course 512MB is nicer, but so is 2GB. The more RAM you give it, the
smoother it will run. If you do anything that uses much RAM, it will just
use the swap file if it runs out. Just make sure you keep enough free HD
space.
Same goes for any OS. Win98 can run on 16MB, Vista can run on 1GB maybe
even less. The more you get, the smoother they run.
If you increase any one component past a certain point, you just shift the
bottleneck. Any one piece can be the weakest link for performance (CPU,
RAM, video speed, video RAM, BUS, HD...).


  #6  
Old June 29th 07, 02:33 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
John John
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 359
Default gotta say.. so long ME

Eric wrote:

"KB" wrote in message
...

Be sure that your system's compatible with XP. Valuable information can
be found here = http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316639 You'll especially
find the Upgrade Advisor useful =
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...g/advisor.mspx

Note that despite their recommendation of 128MB RAM, I'd run, IMHO, 512MB
minimum.

Having been a strong advocate of ME for many years, I've not been
dissapointed with XP which took over a year to throw up an error message.
Note that I didn't upgrade but bought a new system due to hardware
incompatibility with the old system.


They recommend 128MB? It does run OK on 128MB. I believe it does run on
64MB though.
Of course 512MB is nicer, but so is 2GB. The more RAM you give it, the
smoother it will run. If you do anything that uses much RAM, it will just
use the swap file if it runs out. Just make sure you keep enough free HD
space.
Same goes for any OS. Win98 can run on 16MB, Vista can run on 1GB maybe
even less. The more you get, the smoother they run.
If you increase any one component past a certain point, you just shift the
bottleneck. Any one piece can be the weakest link for performance (CPU,
RAM, video speed, video RAM, BUS, HD...).


Above a certain amount of RAM any additional RAM added to the machine is
just a waste of money and it will not make the computer run any faster
or smoother. Where that "magic" amount lies depends on what you do with
your computer and what type of applications you run, if your computer is
not paging then adding extra RAM will do nothing to make your computer
run better, faster or smoother. Many XP users, I would say half or more
of XP users, don't need much more than 512MB of RAM and other than those
doing multimedia/AV editing or those running CAD/CAM and very large
spreadsheets or other demanding programs few users ever need or use more
than 1GB. Users who barely use 512MB will not see a bit of difference
when adding additional RAM to their computers. We see occasional posts
in the XP groups where users have increased RAM from 512MB or 768MB to
1GB and more and they disappointedly report no performance gains. The
reason they see no gains is that they weren't using what they already
had to work with.

John

  #7  
Old June 29th 07, 06:37 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Eric
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 216
Default gotta say.. so long ME


"John John" wrote in message
...
Eric wrote:
They recommend 128MB? It does run OK on 128MB. I believe it does run on
64MB though.
Of course 512MB is nicer, but so is 2GB. The more RAM you give it, the
smoother it will run. If you do anything that uses much RAM, it will
just use the swap file if it runs out. Just make sure you keep enough
free HD space.
Same goes for any OS. Win98 can run on 16MB, Vista can run on 1GB maybe
even less. The more you get, the smoother they run.
If you increase any one component past a certain point, you just shift
the bottleneck. Any one piece can be the weakest link for performance
(CPU, RAM, video speed, video RAM, BUS, HD...).


Above a certain amount of RAM any additional RAM added to the machine is
just a waste of money and it will not make the computer run any faster or
smoother. Where that "magic" amount lies depends on what you do with your
computer and what type of applications you run, if your computer is not
paging then adding extra RAM will do nothing to make your computer run
better, faster or smoother. Many XP users, I would say half or more of XP
users, don't need much more than 512MB of RAM and other than those doing
multimedia/AV editing or those running CAD/CAM and very large spreadsheets
or other demanding programs few users ever need or use more than 1GB.
Users who barely use 512MB will not see a bit of difference when adding
additional RAM to their computers. We see occasional posts in the XP
groups where users have increased RAM from 512MB or 768MB to 1GB and more
and they disappointedly report no performance gains. The reason they see
no gains is that they weren't using what they already had to work with.

John

Exactly, but there is no one "magic number". XP runs perfectly smooth with
128 MB of RAM for the average user who does very little.
There are a number of bottlenecks. Adding more RAM will always make it
smoother, if you're actually doing processing that uses RAM (ie image/video
editing). 512MB is much more than needed if all you do is check email.
It's also too much if your PC is 400MHz, or you do a lot of processing which
has to do constant read/write to disk. For the average user, more RAM (at
least above 512MB) will probably not be their best upgrade option, but I
wouldn't necessarily call it a bad idea. I have 1 GB in this machine and
Windows reports quite a bit less than half of physical memory available.

To spend money wisely on upgrading, you'll want to start with the minimum
RAM (16MB for Win98/ME, 128MB for XP, 1GB for Vista), then make sure the CPU
is fast enough, then make sure the HD is big enough, then check the video
speed/memory, then at least double the minimum RAM, make sure the monitor is
big and clear enough, double the RAM again...
Of course if you're on the web much the first and biggest bottleneck is web
connection speed. The biggest baddest PC will always look pathetic on
dialup.


  #8  
Old June 30th 07, 02:10 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Ogg[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 55
Default gotta say.. so long ME

"KB" wrote in message ..
Be sure that your system's compatible with XP. Valuable information can
be found here = http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316639 You'll especially
find the Upgrade Advisor useful =
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...g/advisor.mspx


I tried the XP Advisor.. it "stalls" at about the 10% point. No hdd
activity... nothing. Meanwhile, I tested the various Linus offerings of
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Mepis. They behave really nice. I don't mind using
Linux replacements of several winapps. And for those winapps that I can't
stand to miss, I have another (4-yr old) XP machine.


Having been a strong advocate of ME for many years, I've not been
dissapointed with XP which took over a year to throw up an error message.
Note that I didn't upgrade but bought a new system due to hardware
incompatibility with the old system.


Ahh.. That's the key: new machine. I bought a new machine 4 years ago that
had XP installed too. Today, it still works fine. My main concern was the
upgrade/conversion process from ME to XP. From my basic research, that
upgrade path is not recommended. A clean install the better choice.


  #9  
Old July 1st 07, 10:31 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Ogg[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 55
Default gotta say.. so long ME

Just a modest follow-up. XP Advisor worked afterall. It just took a really
long time. When I ran the app, and when I assumed it "locked up", I took an
hour dinner-break. When I got back, the finished Advisor report was on the
screen.

However..I've made my decision.. it's far better to avoid further unecessary
expense and just move to Linux product. If I didn't need more resources and
stability for real productivity, I'd probably be happy sticking it out with
ME. But Linux seems to utilize the 768meg ram without complaint. So..
Linux is a far better choice, for me - and without all the added expense of
XP and without all the uncertainty of conversion from a DOS-based Windows to
a NT-based Windows.

Oh.. and I'm not a gamer, so staying with ME (or any Windows product) is not
important for me.


"Ogg" wrote..
I tried the XP Advisor.. it "stalls" at about the 10% point. No hdd
activity... nothing. Meanwhile, I tested the various Linus offerings of
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Mepis. They behave really nice. I don't mind using
Linux replacements of several winapps. And for those winapps that I can't
stand to miss, I have another (4-yr old) XP machine.



  #10  
Old July 2nd 07, 01:21 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
webster72n
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,526
Default gotta say.. so long ME


Just one more question before you leave, Ogg:
Did you install Ubuntu (and I assume that's what you did) all by itself, or
in combination with another OS?

Harry.

"Ogg" wrote in message
...
Just a modest follow-up. XP Advisor worked afterall. It just took a

really
long time. When I ran the app, and when I assumed it "locked up", I took

an
hour dinner-break. When I got back, the finished Advisor report was on

the
screen.

However..I've made my decision.. it's far better to avoid further

unecessary
expense and just move to Linux product. If I didn't need more resources

and
stability for real productivity, I'd probably be happy sticking it out

with
ME. But Linux seems to utilize the 768meg ram without complaint. So..
Linux is a far better choice, for me - and without all the added expense

of
XP and without all the uncertainty of conversion from a DOS-based Windows

to
a NT-based Windows.

Oh.. and I'm not a gamer, so staying with ME (or any Windows product) is

not
important for me.


"Ogg" wrote..
I tried the XP Advisor.. it "stalls" at about the 10% point. No hdd
activity... nothing. Meanwhile, I tested the various Linus offerings

of
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Mepis. They behave really nice. I don't mind

using
Linux replacements of several winapps. And for those winapps that I

can't
stand to miss, I have another (4-yr old) XP machine.





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Invalid long filename General 10 October 19th 05 07:11 AM
Long boot Dale General 11 July 28th 04 03:22 AM
A very long message ppoatt General 18 July 3rd 04 07:43 PM
Share name to long for ME Herb Networking 2 June 10th 04 04:41 PM
Long shut down Jim Y Improving Performance 0 May 6th 04 10:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.