| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 31088 | 2003-03-11 10:49:00 | Windows ME and XP | Mzee (158) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 127405 | 2003-03-12 03:42:00 | I too was going to ask a similar question after reading PC World page 28 last para. Me a dud??, no. I have run all Windows systems 95 to XP and find ME pretty robust. And presently run 98, Me and XP. Keep the temps cleaned out and flush the cookies periodically and the system runs fine all day. Even tolerates my click-happy XYL. OldEric |
OldEric (3062) | ||
| 127406 | 2003-03-12 04:24:00 | I've got ME and XP, though I haven't actually used ME since I put in my XP hard drive. I know a very very annoying person who thinks that ME is just like 98, but it's not. One reason Microsoft were held back for so long was because they wanted to keep backwards compatibility, so didn't change the core Windows shell. If they hadn't done this, they'd be far ahead of what little competition they have. And as for those people who nut off at Microsoft, saying that Apple did everything before them, I don't actually give a toss. IMHO, Apple sucks. They suck beyond belief. They look crap (who gives a toss about OS 10, it's based on Unix - they only *nix OS I support is Linux).MUAHAHAHAHAHAH. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Looks around one last time. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. |
agent (30) | ||
| 127407 | 2003-03-12 06:08:00 | I use Me (OEM), nothing wrong with it. Few flaws but there are many tweaks on the internet to fix these. XP has too many 'services' running in the backgroung (i know you can disable them but you lack stability). I've heard Me is just 98 with the service pack installed and a few extra apps. Probably just a rumor. |
Dylan (800) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||