Hi ,
I have Windows ME on my laptop ( Sony Vaio) and it's really crappy. The number of problems is too long to list out.
Would it be possible to load WindowsXP over ME?
I am of course assuming WinXP IS really worth using. My desktop has Win98Se and its seems to be fine most of the time. Would XP be an improvement ?
I don't want to spend on another operating system unless it is really worth upgrading to it. I heard lots of good and bad things about XP. Can anyone give a suggestion?
Thanks.
I have Windows ME on my laptop ( Sony Vaio) and it's really crappy. The number of problems is too long to list out.
Would it be possible to load WindowsXP over ME?
I am of course assuming WinXP IS really worth using. My desktop has Win98Se and its seems to be fine most of the time. Would XP be an improvement ?
I don't want to spend on another operating system unless it is really worth upgrading to it. I heard lots of good and bad things about XP. Can anyone give a suggestion?
Thanks.
Banned
Joined 2002
Details
Hi JasonL,
The cpu on my Sony Vaio laptop is an AMD K2+ 550Mhz with 64Mb RAM and a 20 Gb hard drive. I will upgrade the RAM to 128Mb soon.
I checked on the Vaio web site where they said that I will have to upgrade the BIOS if I use XP or Win2000.
Can I just load the OS from the original CD and then upgrade the BIOS.
Thanks for all the help.
Hi JasonL,
The cpu on my Sony Vaio laptop is an AMD K2+ 550Mhz with 64Mb RAM and a 20 Gb hard drive. I will upgrade the RAM to 128Mb soon.
I checked on the Vaio web site where they said that I will have to upgrade the BIOS if I use XP or Win2000.
Can I just load the OS from the original CD and then upgrade the BIOS.
Thanks for all the help.
Make that 256 mb RAM if you want to install XP. Maybe Win 2000 is a better choice for your laptop since it is smaller and somewhat less memory-consuming. Win2000 is the best choice if you have a relative small harddisk. Whether it be Win2000 or it's more bloated brother XP ( which is practically the same underneath the hood ), you'll have a much more stable system than with Me that's still DOS based and rather buggy. Especially the memory bug in Me leads to instability when you use your laptop intensively.
Before you install please flash the BIOS. Make backups of files and mail. Boot from cd and partition the disk in at least 2 partitions. The primary partition should be at least 2.5 gb in the case of XP.
Format the primary partition NTFS and the other(s) FAT32. In case of failure you'll always be able to see ( NTFS is superior to FAT32 but is "invisible" for DOS ) and save your data and you enjoy the stability/security of NTFS. In the case you use Outlook Express make a folder on D:\ drive that's called Mail. Now change the path in Outlook Express under Extra-Options-Maintenance-Archive ( translated from dutch, might be somewhat different ) from c:\ etc. etc. to D:\Mail. Please copy your saved mail and adress book to this location after you've done these actions !
That way you'll always have your mail and adress book in case you have to reinstall after crash/virus etc. Futhermore make sure you'll save all other data on the D:\ disk instead of C:\. Your system will stay cleaner that way.
I really advise you to do a clean install instead of upgrading Me. You'll end up with a cleaner and faster system.
As a last advice: please run Windows update afterwards and install the available Service Packs. Always install an antivirus program and update it on weekly base. Download Adaware from www.lavasoft.de and scan your system once in the month for spyware and other nasty things as Bonzi buddy and Gator etc.
Before you install please flash the BIOS. Make backups of files and mail. Boot from cd and partition the disk in at least 2 partitions. The primary partition should be at least 2.5 gb in the case of XP.
Format the primary partition NTFS and the other(s) FAT32. In case of failure you'll always be able to see ( NTFS is superior to FAT32 but is "invisible" for DOS ) and save your data and you enjoy the stability/security of NTFS. In the case you use Outlook Express make a folder on D:\ drive that's called Mail. Now change the path in Outlook Express under Extra-Options-Maintenance-Archive ( translated from dutch, might be somewhat different ) from c:\ etc. etc. to D:\Mail. Please copy your saved mail and adress book to this location after you've done these actions !
That way you'll always have your mail and adress book in case you have to reinstall after crash/virus etc. Futhermore make sure you'll save all other data on the D:\ disk instead of C:\. Your system will stay cleaner that way.
I really advise you to do a clean install instead of upgrading Me. You'll end up with a cleaner and faster system.
As a last advice: please run Windows update afterwards and install the available Service Packs. Always install an antivirus program and update it on weekly base. Download Adaware from www.lavasoft.de and scan your system once in the month for spyware and other nasty things as Bonzi buddy and Gator etc.
No Trouble
FWIW, if you don't play games or use anything that wants Direct X or USB, i.e if you just want a rock solid, no nonsense platform and you want to stick with Microsoft, then my OS of choice is NT4 with service pack 6. I've had it for 18 months now and it almost never gets stuck. Well actually, it has about 2 or 3 times in that period. XP and '2000 are built on the NT kernel but with all the frilly doo-dads and add-ons reliability must suffer somewhat.
NT - straighforward, real 32 bit, reliable, not very hardware hungry. Not a gamer's OS though.
FWIW, if you don't play games or use anything that wants Direct X or USB, i.e if you just want a rock solid, no nonsense platform and you want to stick with Microsoft, then my OS of choice is NT4 with service pack 6. I've had it for 18 months now and it almost never gets stuck. Well actually, it has about 2 or 3 times in that period. XP and '2000 are built on the NT kernel but with all the frilly doo-dads and add-ons reliability must suffer somewhat.
NT - straighforward, real 32 bit, reliable, not very hardware hungry. Not a gamer's OS though.
Although you're right about the positive features of NT you're definitely wrong concerning reliability. W2K/XP are more stable and reliable with NT as a very good second. W98SE is OK but NOT to be compared with the NT variants. Windows Me really is worse than W98SE. Microsoft has admitted the memory bug and is not doing anything about it since the OS is obsolete now. When many programs are opened and closed again the memory is still claimed to be in use and the sytem will become slower and slower AND instable. W98SE does not suffer at all from these phenomenons, neither does any NT variant. NTFS file system is by far superior to FAT32 and gives more possibilities securing your system even on file level.
But concerning NT 4.0 : no USB/USB 2.0/Firewire support, no plug and play, no Dynamic DNS if you need that etc. Most important is that Microsoft stops making bugfixes, Service Packs and so on because thay want to sell XP. In other words: support will stop in the very near future or maybe they already stopped support.
NT has the disadvantage that buggy drivers can bring down the OS. The digital signing of drivers is a positive development in W2K/XP. And because of its age some features are missing like DirectX. It also does not like 2 of the same NIC's in the system etc. Small hardware errors cause blue screens whereas W2K/XP can withstand more. But NT lacks the Product Activation and the bloatware that comes with its modern brothers( positive ! ).
A lot of people are complaining of high system load in NT 4.0 ( a fact ! ) when harddisk is accessed. A tip: download the DMAcheck utility from Microsoft ( works from SP 5 ) and run it. Only running and enabling DMA access is enough. Every modern IDE/ATAPI harddisk is DMA ( Direct Memory Access, transfering data from HD to sytem without asking the CPU first ) capable and enabling this standard disabled feature will diminish CPU load@diskaccess from 70 % to less than 10 %. No cost, no disadvantages, no instability. With modern chipsets like Intel 810/815 etc. you can download Intel Application Accelerator instead. It'll do the same.
You'll be surprised if you try it.
Download of DMAcheck utility: http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...port/kb/articles/Q191/7/74.ASP&NoWebContent=1
Still run NT 4.0 Server with SP6a on my server and it'll stay there for many more years. I love the simplicity, speed and small size of this OS. Despite it's negative reputation it became pretty stable after SP5. But the damage was already done.
I want to add that NT 4.0 really is OK but lacks features that make working with laptops easier. It wasn't made for use on laptops after all !!
Always install the Power Management/ Docking Services/ PCMCIA support tools from the manufacturer when they have them for NT 4.0.
Example: plug out your cd rom drive and plug it in again. NT 4.0 won't recognize the thing without a restart ( and when support tools aren't installed ).
Power saving tools are not as mature as the built in Power saving tools in W2K/XP. Something you'll really want with a laptop...
Always install the Power Management/ Docking Services/ PCMCIA support tools from the manufacturer when they have them for NT 4.0.
Example: plug out your cd rom drive and plug it in again. NT 4.0 won't recognize the thing without a restart ( and when support tools aren't installed ).
Power saving tools are not as mature as the built in Power saving tools in W2K/XP. Something you'll really want with a laptop...
My first post 
All Windows versions from 95 up to ME use the 9x kernel. Unlike the NT kernel, which is used in Windows NT, 2000 and XP, this is not a fully 32-bit kernel. It needs to be compatible with 16-bit (DOS) applications, and as such it is far more likely to give you problems. I don't have experience with ME, but I've had many problems with both 95 and 98 because of the 16-bit compatibility, and from what I've heard, ME isn't any better.
However, even with NT, 2000 or XP you might experience weird behaviour in the long run. For example, some programs can refuse to run correctly. This is because Windows doesn't allow different versions of libraries to exist on the system (at least in the Windows folder). So an application can overwrite libraries which were installed by a different application. This leads to the so-called "dll-hell". Frankly, there's not much you can do about this if you want to use a Windows version. Linux, for example, does allow different library versions to co-exist (even in the same folder), because the version is part of the filename (and it's also a fully 32-bit kernel).
If you want to use Windows, I'd advice Windows 2000. XP will run with 128MB, but 2000 will run much more smoothly. I've worked with Windows NT as well, but I don't recommend it. It is more stable than 95/98, but it's outdated, support is decreasing, and it's less stable than 2000.
All Windows versions from 95 up to ME use the 9x kernel. Unlike the NT kernel, which is used in Windows NT, 2000 and XP, this is not a fully 32-bit kernel. It needs to be compatible with 16-bit (DOS) applications, and as such it is far more likely to give you problems. I don't have experience with ME, but I've had many problems with both 95 and 98 because of the 16-bit compatibility, and from what I've heard, ME isn't any better.
However, even with NT, 2000 or XP you might experience weird behaviour in the long run. For example, some programs can refuse to run correctly. This is because Windows doesn't allow different versions of libraries to exist on the system (at least in the Windows folder). So an application can overwrite libraries which were installed by a different application. This leads to the so-called "dll-hell". Frankly, there's not much you can do about this if you want to use a Windows version. Linux, for example, does allow different library versions to co-exist (even in the same folder), because the version is part of the filename (and it's also a fully 32-bit kernel).
If you want to use Windows, I'd advice Windows 2000. XP will run with 128MB, but 2000 will run much more smoothly. I've worked with Windows NT as well, but I don't recommend it. It is more stable than 95/98, but it's outdated, support is decreasing, and it's less stable than 2000.
Banned
Joined 2002
Last time I did a full install with NT it only took about 5 minutes or maybe 10 at the very most. That was with a 200Mhz machine too! (This one). By way of comparison, WinME takes over an hour.jean-paul said:
But... the most notable feature (or lack of) with NT is that during the installation procedure there are no stupid screens popping up promising you 'rich, life-enhancing experiences' etc. That alone would stop me going anywhere else.
/Circlotron - cynical about MS inferring you need their latest OS to have a worthwhile life.
In my experience, windows XP is better than all earlier together. I installed winxp on a friend´s notebook, its a k6 350 64mb and it is very usable . He is in medicine school and he went last year without a single problem.
In my machine I cant use any 9x based OS anymore, because when I start using it, it crashes
.
I would not suggest you to install XP on top of ME, save your files and do a fresh install. I think XP will install most of your hardware by itself.
. He is in medicine school and he went last year without a single problem.In my machine I cant use any 9x based OS anymore, because when I start using it, it crashes
.I would not suggest you to install XP on top of ME, save your files and do a fresh install. I think XP will install most of your hardware by itself.
Anything is better than ME. Even 98. Even 95.
We've had the best performance with Win2000 for audio computers.
XP has too much automatic "I'm trying to help you" garbage (which can be disabled).
And it's the ugliest OS around before turning off the crappy eye candy.
Important:
1 Clean install. DO NOT UPGRADE!!!!!
2. Use NTFS, not FAT32.
3. Disable all unneeded services and sharing.
Good luck!
We've had the best performance with Win2000 for audio computers.
XP has too much automatic "I'm trying to help you" garbage (which can be disabled).
And it's the ugliest OS around before turning off the crappy eye candy.
Important:
1 Clean install. DO NOT UPGRADE!!!!!
2. Use NTFS, not FAT32.
3. Disable all unneeded services and sharing.
Good luck!
Banned
Joined 2002
emorysmith are you talking out of experience or just talking>???
Being a senior programmer I seem to be able to keep my system quite stable on WIN ME.
Also WIN ME is just an upgrade for further hardware support from previous WIN OS`s........it is still quite stable in the DOS environment as I use it every day for assembly and compilation and all of my hardware is utilised .
People have problems because they DONT know how to use their computer properly.
I get aggravated when someone knocks Microsoft because of problems with their computer because if you can write the GUI that went into all that code you would be as rich as Bill Gates also
Being a senior programmer I seem to be able to keep my system quite stable on WIN ME.
Also WIN ME is just an upgrade for further hardware support from previous WIN OS`s........it is still quite stable in the DOS environment as I use it every day for assembly and compilation and all of my hardware is utilised .
People have problems because they DONT know how to use their computer properly.
I get aggravated when someone knocks Microsoft because of problems with their computer because if you can write the GUI that went into all that code you would be as rich as Bill Gates also
Banned
Joined 2002
Im sorry i have to say this But windows ME SUX A$$ all the way it is the worst written os and the worst os that Microsoft build and released. IT sux right down to the core. The only good thing about it is the CLOCK that is it NOTHING IS good about windows me. As far as Microsoft goes the only good os is WIN2K that is it other than that they all suck. i worked on Microsoft stuff day in and day out. i was a tech for tec-net and hp and seanix MUST i go on. Microsoft made there money long time ago and that is why there still around that is it. if i had to open a store i would not sell Microsoft. i would sell LINUX bsd red-hat or mandrake or any other type of os OTHER than windows. as far as im concerned Microsoft deserves every bit of BASH towards them.. and there training BLOWS waste of money they pay some BONE head to sit at the front of the class that reads his information out of a book WITCH he just gets paid to doo. must i say but i really dislike Microsoft and there crap os's. ( beside's win2k and server )
AND i can speak because i fixed it day in day out all day long and on night calls..
AND i can speak because i fixed it day in day out all day long and on night calls..
Thanks
Thanks everyone, for all your suggestions. It keeps coming back to the same thing ( by consensus) that it is possibly better to do a clean install of XP -- not because it is the best, but probably the best thing to do .
I also toyed with the idea of istalling Linux to get away from Microsoft but am worried about drivers for the hardware and the inability (?) to use some of my design software which works on Windows.
Any comments on this ?
Thanks.
Ashok.
Thanks everyone, for all your suggestions. It keeps coming back to the same thing ( by consensus) that it is possibly better to do a clean install of XP -- not because it is the best, but probably the best thing to do .
I also toyed with the idea of istalling Linux to get away from Microsoft but am worried about drivers for the hardware and the inability (?) to use some of my design software which works on Windows.
Any comments on this ?
Thanks.
Ashok.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.