What is wrong with WinME?

  • Thread starter Thread starter letterman@invalid.com
  • Start date Start date
Re: What is wrong with WinME?

Regarding mulibooting, I've never ventured in that direction (except for a
bad experience with Ubuntu) - although I did once try (not too successfully)
to run VM on XP Home. (Its incompatible!). Nor do I have SATA/RAID, so can't
really comment on those aspects.

> btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original thread,

Perhaps Shane, perhaps not. My view was even with the first of only three
posts by the OP in this thread, LM had come in 'rant' rather than 'reason'
mode. And judging by the amount of flack he's left behind him, I was
probably right. (Seems he's doing similar things in the Win98 groups)

I guess your final paragraph sums it all up. Even your expression 'Common
Sense' was applied in a not too dissimilar context elsewhere.

Mart


"Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:%23o799vdBJHA.1228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I just had "system32\ntoskrnl.exe not found". This is because I made
>another attempt to install Win2K, the way I do everything else, i.e. so
>that my boot manager can then add it and the new OS successfully boot that
>way.
>
> This time I tried adding Win2K by deleting XP then reinstalling it - and
> the boot manager - after Win2K was set up. But it did not work, again, so
> I deleted it, again, and restored XP - and the OS next to it, which I had
> also deleted.
>
> Only this time the 2nd OS got the ID 'partition(1'), which XP had been
> before. However that happened I do not know but this is a regular problem
> in restoring, multibooting - or disk management where you want the SATA
> disk listed before the PATA disk: the way the bios enumerates them is not
> the same as the way XP does, i.e. the bios (probably dependent on the make
> I suppose) lists them in the order they were created, while XP lists them
> in the order they are physically allocated.
>
> XP was 'partition(1)' and the other OS was 'partition(2)', but following
> the restore those were reversed in the bios, but not in the restored
> boot.ini, so I had to edit it to read 'partition(2)' instead of
> 'partition(1)'. Restarted and it booted right away no problem.
>
> The NT6.x partition booted from the off, despite also being reversed.
>
> btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original thread,
> since the OP states a good deal about XP being terrible and a reason to
> stick with 9x, apparently based on misunderstood first impressions or
> perhaps 'Common Sense' - which is usually shorthand for 'Completely Wrong
> On Account Of Believing What It Takes To Believe To Shore Up One's
> Comforting Delusions Rather Than What Can Be Seen Clear As Day When You
> Don't Make An Effort To Avoid Doing So'. It is easy to see why the
> shorthand is preferred - unfortunately the original meaning has been lost
> in the mists of living in the past.
>
> P.
>
> Mart wrote:
>> Thanks S - I appreciate your suggestion which sounds like a d**m good
>> idea. (Although in my case it was a failed HDD rather than just a
>> missing file) But I suppose I've veered a bit OT and we are in danger
>> of highjacking LM's thread.
>>
>> Mart
>>
>>
>> "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%239tlc4RBJHA.4368@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> My own experience of an XP box (catastrophically) failing to boot
>>>> was when the HDD died - so can't really blame it on XP. But have to
>>>> admit that trying to recover data from an NTFS HDD was "difficult"
>>>> - Soon learnt to use a backup regime after that!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The one most people run into like into a brick wall is the failing
>>> to boot due to the HCL or autochk or NTDETECT or similar not being
>>> found and, usually, in my experience, that is due to an incorrect
>>> boot.ini. And apart from the fact you can correct that via booting
>>> with a BartPE disc - though that is quite a lot of effort to make in
>>> the first place - you can edit boot.ini via BootItNG (unregistered).
>>> Burn one to cd (especially since odds are you won't have a floppy
>>> drive anymore!) and there is no need to update it. With SATA and
>>> RAID (and NT6.x as well as NT5.x) I still use a BING cd from 2006,
>>> and it can be a godsend. Of course, if you make a copy of boot.ini
>>> and leave it in the root you don't even need to edit, just rename.
>>>
>>>
>>> P.
>
>
 
Re: What is wrong with WinME?

Mart wrote:
> Regarding mulibooting, I've never ventured in that direction (except
> for a bad experience with Ubuntu) - although I did once try (not too
> successfully) to run VM on XP Home. (Its incompatible!). Nor do I
> have SATA/RAID, so can't really comment on those aspects.

I don't recall how widely I publicised this before but over the years I've
been periodically trialing Linux distros, culminating in last summer when I
ran something like 8 simultaneously. I have concluded that the only one that
seriously challenges Windows is SUSE/openSUSE. Yet it too had too many
errors or too serious a bug and I deleted 10.3. This May's openSUSE 11.0 was
a great improvement - but it is still hampered by the boot
management/partition management that they all are. I just deleted it last
weekend. Because I'm sick of it insisting a Primary partition is an
Extended, Logical partition - and changing it to such if you don't stop it -
and proposing - entirely unnecessarily - to resize an actual Logical
partition that whether FAT32 or NTFS, is in use and I have already set up
where and how large I want and do not want resized! And if you allow it to
auto-install, it *will* resize that partition without consulting you.
Because like a true Linux type it knows best and cannot even comprehend
that, well, just *maybe* it does not?

Even this, the best of the distros is a pita to install - or to restore from
a backup - to a multiboot system to co-exist with Windows. Microsoft systems
are good at this; Linux is awful at it - yet the vast army of Linux
apologists think Windows is the problem.

Anyway - if you want to try Linux again, try openSUSE. Possibly it is better
for being produced these days by Novell, who as we know have been in the
business a long time and not as amateurs. They are derided for the deal made
with MS - possibly rightly so. But the problem with the Linux apologists is
what matters to them is drowning out criticism.

Debian and it's derivatives (notably *buntu) are the worse at installing on
a multiboot system. Fedora and Mandriva are lots better, but Mandriva still
has too many bugs though certainly no more than *buntu (all the distros have
lists of bugs in the 'latest release' that run into thousands).

*buntu and Fedora limit far too much what you can do; Fedora because it is
derived from a server system (Red Hat) and *buntu because it is aimed at the
inexpert user, so they are no good for a 'power user' - in the same way that
XP Pro is more suited than XP Home.

>
>> btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original
>> thread,
>
> Perhaps Shane, perhaps not. My view was even with the first of only
> three posts by the OP in this thread, LM had come in 'rant' rather
> than 'reason' mode. And judging by the amount of flack he's left
> behind him, I was probably right. (Seems he's doing similar things in
> the Win98 groups)

Oh, really.

Well, I do feel such ill-informed diatribes need to be corrected for the
sake of others who have heard something like it and would possibly take it
as the reinforcement that finally tips their scales.

> I guess your final paragraph sums it all up. Even your expression
> 'Common Sense' was applied in a not too dissimilar context elsewhere.

I'm well used to the notion of 'Common Sense' being more of an effort
to defend long-held misconceptions than to arrive at any sort of truth. It
is something of a hobbyhorse. Probably began when reading Quantum Physics
and dropping acid.

P.
 
Re: What is wrong with WinME?

I did <g> if you remember I put XP on that WinME machine I have and was
multibooting quite happily for quite a while.
The only reason it didn't last is that I don't like anyone touching my
machine so wanted one all to myself <g> I can't help being selfish <g>
It's a good job as John is very good at screwing up the machines so at least
he can't do it to mine <g>
I kept that XP machine going for years without problems or nasties getting
in John has it a couple of weeks and gets hit with Antivirus 2008, just
after that conversation Mike where he said he was working on it, do you
remember <vbg>

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

"Mart" <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:uVewHfeBJHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Regarding mulibooting, I've never ventured in that direction (except for a
> bad experience with Ubuntu) - although I did once try (not too
> successfully) to run VM on XP Home. (Its incompatible!). Nor do I have
> SATA/RAID, so can't really comment on those aspects.
>
 
Re: What is wrong with WinME?

On Aug 22, 2:20�am, letter...@invalid.com wrote:
> I have been running Win98SE since 1998. �I have a WinME Cd. �I tried
> it in a spare harddrive. �I saw no problems with it, but I only played
> around with the OS. �Never ran any real applications. �I have
> considered upgrading to WinME many times. �I strongly dislike Win2000,
> and XP. �Not to mention that my computer is likely too slow to run XP.
> I am fully satisfied with Win98, so I see no reason to upgrade.
> However, I know that ME has better USB support and a few other
> improvements. �Yet, I have had many people tell me to avoid WinME..
> They say it's buggy.
>
> What is really wrong with ME? �Where are the bugs?
>
> Thanks

No Real-DOS mode, if you need it.
But I think there are patches for that.

Claude
 
Re: What is wrong with WinME?


It just may sound complicated or confusing only to me and my remark was
aimed at a simpler solution, that's all.
As you explained, your given details were meant for advanced or expert users
and I am neither one of those.
Therefore I shall respectfully resign.
Hopefully letterman encountered the information needed to solve his problem.

Harry.


"Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:e5bPoxbBJHA.5316@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> webster72n wrote:
> > Pogle:
> >
> > This sounds a bit complicated, if not to say 'confusing', to me.
> > Does it have to be that way?
> >
>
> No doubt it is a little confusing in that I did not finish a sentence, and
> recommended making a 6T (which is a pre-unit Thunderbird) partition. But
> probably what I was going to add is obvious - if by the time you get to
the
> end of the diversion-in-parentheses you can remember how it started! I am
> not a great communicator, though I can signal my disdain quite well if I
do
> say so myself. And as I do say so myself it doesn't really count.
>
> Otherwise I am basically responding to what M. Letterman has to say and
much
> of what I mean requires a knowledge of computers consistent with making
> value-judgement comparisons of operating systems and isn't meant to be
> accessible to all (which is not to say that it is deliberately meant to be
> opaque).
>
> Having said that - and I have, so I'll continue - if you could be more
> specific, i.e. *what* sounds a bit complicated and confusing and does
*what*
> have to be that way (if I haven't already addressed this above?)
>
> P.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23eawp7VBJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >>> would not even boot. Drives formatted with that NTFS format are
> >>> near helpless once the OS cant be booted. With a FAT partition I
> >>> can always boot to dos and save data. Win2000 seems to work ok
> >>> with a FAT32 format, but not XP. I hear vista is even worse. I
> >>> wont trust
> >>
> >> NTFS is not a problem with a BartPE CD. Meanwhile XP does install on
> >> FAT32 - you can even first install Windows 95/98 or ME (with a DOS
> >> hack) then delete all but the DOS files, then install XP to that
> >> partition and you have a dual boot with MS-DOS 7.10 (or 8.00 if
> >> using hacked ME). I finally stopped doing this because with a BART
> >> CD and a BING CD (and Partition Magic, which you can use to browse
> >> XP from if you have another compatible OS to install it in - and
> >> here's the best tip: make a 6142G partition and install XP to that.
> >> Then make another, larger partition and install XP to that too. Use
> >> the latter on a daily basis and keep the first for booting to access
> >> the main one from. Apart from the fact once you have XP set up
> >> properly the chances of your being unable to boot it ever again are
> >> infinitessimal, but if you can't this is a far superior way to fix
> >> it or save stuff - though most worth saving should be on another
> >> partition anyway - this is a very good way to scan the main OS for
> >> malware, so long as this first drive is hidden, if not actually
> >> disabled - i.e. on a seperate IDE channel - great use for an old
> >> PATA drive! - in normal use).
> >>
> >>
> >>> my data to an OS that relies on the actual OS having to boot in
> >>> order to access data. With Win9x and earlier, it's easy to use a
> >>> boot floppy to get the data saved.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No. Used to be, but not anymore. Bart Lagerweij took care of that
> >> (despite MS lawyers making it as hard as they could for him). And
> >> you can believe me, because I did until recently run XP on FAT32
> >> with a DOS boot option. And before that I ran Win ME with a Real
> >> Mode DOS hack (and in fact still have the resultant MS-DOS 8.00 on a
> >> bootable USB stick).
> >>
> >>> What really irks me too, is that everytime a faster computer is
> >>> developed, MS slows it down with more of their bloat. Thus we never
> >>> get any faster. It's like this: I can go grocery shopping with my
> >>> old chevy or I can buy a limosene with all the bells and whistles.
> >>> Both will get me to the store and back just as fast, but the limo
> >>> costs 25 times more and uses 3 times more gas. I'll still
> >>> encounter the same traffic jams, and pay the same for my groceries,
> >>> and since I'm driving, I wont be able to enjoy the bells and
> >>> whistles anyhow.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I agree with you in part. No, in going from an 850 Athlon with 256M
> >> RAM to a 2200 Athlon with 1024M RAM, drive imaging is three times as
> >> fast as it was. On the old machine twice the RAM would have made a
> >> big difference with XP. Vista likes 2G or more. But the RAM is
> >> cheaper now, and faster. Your analogy is picturesque, but
> >> inaccurate. Modern computers are much faster and much more enjoyable
> >> for it. XP on 256M RAM is for most operations faster than any 9x
> >> system on the same box. With 1G of RAM XP blows 9x into the weeds.
> >> Once you've got it set up properly - which applies to 95, 98, ME,
> >> XP, Vista. Though even with default configuration XP is not slowed
> >> on a modern machine to the sort of crawl of a 9x machine of 8 +
> >> years ago where, if all else is equal, resource handling/stability
> >> shows through.
> >>
> >> Incidently, my XP installations look like 9x. I despise 'Luna'.
> >>
> >>> MS seems to think we need all this bloat, when in the end, we all
> >>> see the same websites, type and print a document the same way, and
> >>> nothing else changes, except the new computer will cost more to run
> >>> for both purchasing and electric usage, as well as taking more time
> >>> to use
> >>
> >> No. Well, possibly. Possibly not. Old components become increasingly
> >> inefficient - I mean, apart from the fact of most of this stuff
> >> evolving with more efficient design anyway. Use your motor car
> >> analogy. As electrical components age they create more heat running,
> >> which requires more energy input, right up until the point at which
> >> they burn out. Older car engines run richer and create more exhaust
> >> pollutants; newer cars are - mostly - much more energy efficient.
> >>
> >>> because there are too many unneeded functions getting in the way.
> >>
> >> Not when you've pruned them - which applies to 9x too.
> >>
> >> P.
>
>
 
Re: What is wrong with WinME?

Should have known, sorry about that, Pogle.

Harry.


"Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:ulJW4ubBJHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> webster72n wrote:
> > How about trying this link:
> >
> >
http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Utilities/Misc__Utilities/Acronis_True_Image.html
> >
> > It says 'free download', but I didn't test it myself.
> > Let us know either way, please.
> >
>
> It says "Shareware / $49.50"
>
>
> P.
>
>
 
Re: What is wrong with WinME?

webster72n wrote:
> It just may sound complicated or confusing only to me and my remark
> was aimed at a simpler solution, that's all.

But what I want to know is 'a simpler solution' to what? What is it you want
to do?

> As you explained, your given details were meant for advanced or
> expert users and I am neither one of those.

Rather it was meant for the person who was making claims verging on the
wildly inaccurate. To be so comprehensively wrong after seven years in which
to learn some facts, does not auger at all well for the chances of getting
an informed dialogue.

> Therefore I shall respectfully resign.
> Hopefully letterman encountered the information needed to solve his
> problem.
>
Well, as I understood it, he wanted to know what was wrong with WinME, if
anything. Then he made a series of statements about XP and Vista and modern
computers, whose only virtue that I could see was an impressive level of
intolerance. But my response was, as I tend to respond to posts that imply
that if proven wrong the author will take another chance on whatever it is
he or she has been rubbishing, tending towards tips and suggestions - in
this case for running XP.


P.
 
Re: What is wrong with WinME?


"Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:uOwUMLlBJHA.1228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> webster72n wrote:
> > It just may sound complicated or confusing only to me and my remark
> > was aimed at a simpler solution, that's all.
>
> But what I want to know is 'a simpler solution' to what? What is it you
want
> to do?

I was referring to your layout and the actions involved.
This guy doesn't want to do anything too complicated on his machine.
I like it the way it's running and whenever changes have to be made, they
must be plausible to me - and safe. Along the way I'm always trying to
learn.
Otherwise: no hard feelings. <H>.

>
> > As you explained, your given details were meant for advanced or
> > expert users and I am neither one of those.
>
> Rather it was meant for the person who was making claims verging on the
> wildly inaccurate. To be so comprehensively wrong after seven years in
which
> to learn some facts, does not auger at all well for the chances of getting
> an informed dialogue.
>
> > Therefore I shall respectfully resign.
> > Hopefully letterman encountered the information needed to solve his
> > problem.
> >
> Well, as I understood it, he wanted to know what was wrong with WinME, if
> anything. Then he made a series of statements about XP and Vista and
modern
> computers, whose only virtue that I could see was an impressive level of
> intolerance. But my response was, as I tend to respond to posts that imply
> that if proven wrong the author will take another chance on whatever it is
> he or she has been rubbishing, tending towards tips and suggestions - in
> this case for running XP.
>
>
> P.
>
>
 
Re: What is wrong with WinME?

BobAT286 wrote:
> Pogle;
>
> Regarding "backups" -- can you recommend a (free) backup program
> that will run under ME? Can i use msbackup from Win98(NOT)SE? If
> so, anybody know which CAB file it's in on the 98 CD?
> --- Thanks!
> Bob - who still misses DOS
>


If you want a copy of DriveImage that runs from DOS, email me.

P.
 
Re: What is wrong with WinME?

Hi Shane, with reference to your comments (and miles OT), re the Linux
family, I had previously never really felt the need to dabble until both you
and (I think) Alias 'publicised' Ubunto (in particular) some time last year
which resulted in my bad experience. However, I have since taken the
occasional look at some of the various Linux sites - but not in any great
depth.

I did also try OpenOffice (for Windows) and found it reasonably close to MS
Office to be of very good value for money. However (and there's nearly
always a however in my posts) the major thing that puts me off Linux is the
vast number of sub-families (Linux, Red Hat, Ubunto, SUSE, SLED, ad
infinitum, not to mention a whole menagerie of species) and their subsequent
issue numbers.

Now I can just about get my head around the concept of the MS DOS, 3.xx,
Win9x series and then XP and now Vista but just can't see in which direction
Linux is going - or more particularly, which family/version/issue is the
best for me. Even Wikipedia leaves me bemused. And, why so many 'new
releases'? Are these the equivalent of MS WU's or SP's?

> ... have lists of bugs in the 'latest release' that
> run into thousands).

Hmm .. I suppose that might explain it then. Not a very good selling point.

These days, I just want an operating system that works (for me and my
computing friends) - and currently MS fulfil that requirement - I don't want
to have to re-learn a whole new method of running a word processor or
checking my bank account, or have to re-write reports in a different format
because nobody else's OS can read them. I'm used to the Windows way, it
works for me (without too much discomfort) though why Works and Office don't
talk to each other is beyond my ken. To have to start worrying whether I
should have installed Samba or Zimbrain, or version 8.04 LTS or version
3.079. I don't think I'm a Luddite.but it just seems too much for my brain
to handle. My head hurts! Never did do the acid test and probably far to old
and sensible by now but then I don't remember too much of the 60's either.
I'm off to lie down in a darkened room.

Mart



"Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:%23BD45NfBJHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Mart wrote:
>> Regarding mulibooting, I've never ventured in that direction (except
>> for a bad experience with Ubuntu) - although I did once try (not too
>> successfully) to run VM on XP Home. (Its incompatible!). Nor do I
>> have SATA/RAID, so can't really comment on those aspects.
>
> I don't recall how widely I publicised this before but over the years I've
> been periodically trialing Linux distros, culminating in last summer when
> I
> ran something like 8 simultaneously. I have concluded that the only one
> that
> seriously challenges Windows is SUSE/openSUSE. Yet it too had too many
> errors or too serious a bug and I deleted 10.3. This May's openSUSE 11.0
> was
> a great improvement - but it is still hampered by the boot
> management/partition management that they all are. I just deleted it last
> weekend. Because I'm sick of it insisting a Primary partition is an
> Extended, Logical partition - and changing it to such if you don't stop
> it -
> and proposing - entirely unnecessarily - to resize an actual Logical
> partition that whether FAT32 or NTFS, is in use and I have already set up
> where and how large I want and do not want resized! And if you allow it to
> auto-install, it *will* resize that partition without consulting you.
> Because like a true Linux type it knows best and cannot even comprehend
> that, well, just *maybe* it does not?
>
> Even this, the best of the distros is a pita to install - or to restore
> from
> a backup - to a multiboot system to co-exist with Windows. Microsoft
> systems
> are good at this; Linux is awful at it - yet the vast army of Linux
> apologists think Windows is the problem.
>
> Anyway - if you want to try Linux again, try openSUSE. Possibly it is
> better
> for being produced these days by Novell, who as we know have been in the
> business a long time and not as amateurs. They are derided for the deal
> made
> with MS - possibly rightly so. But the problem with the Linux apologists
> is
> what matters to them is drowning out criticism.
>
> Debian and it's derivatives (notably *buntu) are the worse at installing
> on
> a multiboot system. Fedora and Mandriva are lots better, but Mandriva
> still
> has too many bugs though certainly no more than *buntu (all the distros
> have
> lists of bugs in the 'latest release' that run into thousands).
>
> *buntu and Fedora limit far too much what you can do; Fedora because it is
> derived from a server system (Red Hat) and *buntu because it is aimed at
> the
> inexpert user, so they are no good for a 'power user' - in the same way
> that
> XP Pro is more suited than XP Home.
>
>>
>>> btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original
>>> thread,
>>
>> Perhaps Shane, perhaps not. My view was even with the first of only
>> three posts by the OP in this thread, LM had come in 'rant' rather
>> than 'reason' mode. And judging by the amount of flack he's left
>> behind him, I was probably right. (Seems he's doing similar things in
>> the Win98 groups)
>
> Oh, really.
>
> Well, I do feel such ill-informed diatribes need to be corrected for the
> sake of others who have heard something like it and would possibly take it
> as the reinforcement that finally tips their scales.
>
>> I guess your final paragraph sums it all up. Even your expression
>> 'Common Sense' was applied in a not too dissimilar context elsewhere.
>
> I'm well used to the notion of 'Common Sense' being more of an effort
> to defend long-held misconceptions than to arrive at any sort of truth. It
> is something of a hobbyhorse. Probably began when reading Quantum Physics
> and dropping acid.
>
> P.
>
>
>
>
 
Re: What is wrong with WinME?

Ha!

I'll do more than just skim, tomorrow. Just a couple of comments for now.

Mart wrote:
> Hi Shane, with reference to your comments (and miles OT), re the Linux
> family, I had previously never really felt the need to dabble until
> both you and (I think) Alias 'publicised' Ubunto (in particular) some

Yes, well, I was 'anti' (and still am!). I'm the one who suggested FDISK
/MBR!

> bemused. And, why so many 'new releases'? Are these the equivalent
> of MS WU's or SP's?

Kind of like SPs, yes. Not WU, as they just keep coming every other day or
three throughout the life of the build (for most of the main distros there's
a new build every 6 months)!

> though why Works and Office don't talk to each other is beyond my
> ken.

Indeed. At least there is a viewer/converter! Very useful when some poor old
duffer has used Works Word Processor (when he does have Word!) to save
important documents meant to be read on *any* computer! I don't think MS
make clear enough that Works is for your own use only, not for anything
meant to be shared!

Hey, on the subject of modern computers not being any faster because XP (and
Vista) is so bloated - I was going to upload a screenshot I took earlier
(but it wouldn't go - not like the old days when people used to upload
binaries!). I was installing 98SE and Millennium simultaneously in two VPC
sessions, while listening to music in WMP10, with Word 2000 open. I wonder
if there's anyone around who'd like to argue that you could do that in any
9x version.


P.
 
Re: What is wrong with WinME?

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:35:57 +0100, Mart wrote:

> Are these the equivalent of MS WU's or SP's?

More like what would happen if everyone, and his brother, had access to the
source code for Windows, and created their own variants. What you see is the
result of "Open Source", and even you can modify the Linux source code to
suit your taste, then compile it.

It is probably akin to people building their own computers from components
off the shelves of the local electronics emporium, instead of buying Dell,
or HP, or IBM, or whatever.

--
Norman
~Shine, bright morning light,
~now in the air the spring is coming.
~Sweet, blowing wind,
~singing down the hills and valleys.
 
Re: What is wrong with WinME?

What's Shane doing in Amsterdam??? <H>.


"Mart" <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:ut2wHktBJHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi Shane, with reference to your comments (and miles OT), re the Linux
> family, I had previously never really felt the need to dabble until both
you
> and (I think) Alias 'publicised' Ubunto (in particular) some time last
year
> which resulted in my bad experience. However, I have since taken the
> occasional look at some of the various Linux sites - but not in any great
> depth.
>
> I did also try OpenOffice (for Windows) and found it reasonably close to
MS
> Office to be of very good value for money. However (and there's nearly
> always a however in my posts) the major thing that puts me off Linux is
the
> vast number of sub-families (Linux, Red Hat, Ubunto, SUSE, SLED, ad
> infinitum, not to mention a whole menagerie of species) and their
subsequent
> issue numbers.
>
> Now I can just about get my head around the concept of the MS DOS, 3.xx,
> Win9x series and then XP and now Vista but just can't see in which
direction
> Linux is going - or more particularly, which family/version/issue is the
> best for me. Even Wikipedia leaves me bemused. And, why so many 'new
> releases'? Are these the equivalent of MS WU's or SP's?
>
> > ... have lists of bugs in the 'latest release' that
> > run into thousands).
>
> Hmm .. I suppose that might explain it then. Not a very good selling
point.
>
> These days, I just want an operating system that works (for me and my
> computing friends) - and currently MS fulfil that requirement - I don't
want
> to have to re-learn a whole new method of running a word processor or
> checking my bank account, or have to re-write reports in a different
format
> because nobody else's OS can read them. I'm used to the Windows way, it
> works for me (without too much discomfort) though why Works and Office
don't
> talk to each other is beyond my ken. To have to start worrying whether I
> should have installed Samba or Zimbrain, or version 8.04 LTS or version
> 3.079. I don't think I'm a Luddite.but it just seems too much for my brain
> to handle. My head hurts! Never did do the acid test and probably far to
old
> and sensible by now but then I don't remember too much of the 60's either.
> I'm off to lie down in a darkened room.
>
> Mart
>
>
>
> "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23BD45NfBJHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > Mart wrote:
> >> Regarding mulibooting, I've never ventured in that direction (except
> >> for a bad experience with Ubuntu) - although I did once try (not too
> >> successfully) to run VM on XP Home. (Its incompatible!). Nor do I
> >> have SATA/RAID, so can't really comment on those aspects.
> >
> > I don't recall how widely I publicised this before but over the years
I've
> > been periodically trialing Linux distros, culminating in last summer
when
> > I
> > ran something like 8 simultaneously. I have concluded that the only one
> > that
> > seriously challenges Windows is SUSE/openSUSE. Yet it too had too many
> > errors or too serious a bug and I deleted 10.3. This May's openSUSE 11.0
> > was
> > a great improvement - but it is still hampered by the boot
> > management/partition management that they all are. I just deleted it
last
> > weekend. Because I'm sick of it insisting a Primary partition is an
> > Extended, Logical partition - and changing it to such if you don't stop
> > it -
> > and proposing - entirely unnecessarily - to resize an actual Logical
> > partition that whether FAT32 or NTFS, is in use and I have already set
up
> > where and how large I want and do not want resized! And if you allow it
to
> > auto-install, it *will* resize that partition without consulting you.
> > Because like a true Linux type it knows best and cannot even comprehend
> > that, well, just *maybe* it does not?
> >
> > Even this, the best of the distros is a pita to install - or to restore
> > from
> > a backup - to a multiboot system to co-exist with Windows. Microsoft
> > systems
> > are good at this; Linux is awful at it - yet the vast army of Linux
> > apologists think Windows is the problem.
> >
> > Anyway - if you want to try Linux again, try openSUSE. Possibly it is
> > better
> > for being produced these days by Novell, who as we know have been in the
> > business a long time and not as amateurs. They are derided for the deal
> > made
> > with MS - possibly rightly so. But the problem with the Linux apologists
> > is
> > what matters to them is drowning out criticism.
> >
> > Debian and it's derivatives (notably *buntu) are the worse at installing
> > on
> > a multiboot system. Fedora and Mandriva are lots better, but Mandriva
> > still
> > has too many bugs though certainly no more than *buntu (all the distros
> > have
> > lists of bugs in the 'latest release' that run into thousands).
> >
> > *buntu and Fedora limit far too much what you can do; Fedora because it
is
> > derived from a server system (Red Hat) and *buntu because it is aimed at
> > the
> > inexpert user, so they are no good for a 'power user' - in the same way
> > that
> > XP Pro is more suited than XP Home.
> >
> >>
> >>> btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original
> >>> thread,
> >>
> >> Perhaps Shane, perhaps not. My view was even with the first of only
> >> three posts by the OP in this thread, LM had come in 'rant' rather
> >> than 'reason' mode. And judging by the amount of flack he's left
> >> behind him, I was probably right. (Seems he's doing similar things in
> >> the Win98 groups)
> >
> > Oh, really.
> >
> > Well, I do feel such ill-informed diatribes need to be corrected for the
> > sake of others who have heard something like it and would possibly take
it
> > as the reinforcement that finally tips their scales.
> >
> >> I guess your final paragraph sums it all up. Even your expression
> >> 'Common Sense' was applied in a not too dissimilar context elsewhere.
> >
> > I'm well used to the notion of 'Common Sense' being more of an effort
> > to defend long-held misconceptions than to arrive at any sort of truth.
It
> > is something of a hobbyhorse. Probably began when reading Quantum
Physics
> > and dropping acid.
> >
> > P.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
 
Re: What is wrong with WinME?

webster72n wrote:
> What's Shane doing in Amsterdam??? <H>.
>
If he's anything like me he'd come for the coffee.

P.


>
> "Mart" <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:ut2wHktBJHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Hi Shane, with reference to your comments (and miles OT), re the
>> Linux family, I had previously never really felt the need to dabble
>> until both you and (I think) Alias 'publicised' Ubunto (in
>> particular) some time last year which resulted in my bad experience.
>> However, I have since taken the occasional look at some of the
>> various Linux sites - but not in any great depth.
>>
>> I did also try OpenOffice (for Windows) and found it reasonably
>> close to MS Office to be of very good value for money. However (and
>> there's nearly always a however in my posts) the major thing that
>> puts me off Linux is the vast number of sub-families (Linux, Red
>> Hat, Ubunto, SUSE, SLED, ad infinitum, not to mention a whole
>> menagerie of species) and their subsequent issue numbers.
>>
>> Now I can just about get my head around the concept of the MS DOS,
>> 3.xx, Win9x series and then XP and now Vista but just can't see in
>> which direction Linux is going - or more particularly, which
>> family/version/issue is the best for me. Even Wikipedia leaves me
>> bemused. And, why so many 'new releases'? Are these the equivalent
>> of MS WU's or SP's?
>>
>>> ... have lists of bugs in the 'latest release' that
>>> run into thousands).
>>
>> Hmm .. I suppose that might explain it then. Not a very good selling
>> point.
>>
>> These days, I just want an operating system that works (for me and my
>> computing friends) - and currently MS fulfil that requirement - I
>> don't want to have to re-learn a whole new method of running a word
>> processor or checking my bank account, or have to re-write reports
>> in a different format because nobody else's OS can read them. I'm
>> used to the Windows way, it works for me (without too much
>> discomfort) though why Works and Office don't talk to each other is
>> beyond my ken. To have to start worrying whether I should have
>> installed Samba or Zimbrain, or version 8.04 LTS or version
>> 3.079. I don't think I'm a Luddite.but it just seems too much for my
>> brain to handle. My head hurts! Never did do the acid test and
>> probably far to old and sensible by now but then I don't remember
>> too much of the 60's either. I'm off to lie down in a darkened room.
>>
>> Mart
>>
>>
>>
>> "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23BD45NfBJHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Mart wrote:
>>>> Regarding mulibooting, I've never ventured in that direction
>>>> (except for a bad experience with Ubuntu) - although I did once
>>>> try (not too successfully) to run VM on XP Home. (Its
>>>> incompatible!). Nor do I have SATA/RAID, so can't really comment
>>>> on those aspects.
>>>
>>> I don't recall how widely I publicised this before but over the
>>> years I've been periodically trialing Linux distros, culminating in
>>> last summer when I
>>> ran something like 8 simultaneously. I have concluded that the only
>>> one that
>>> seriously challenges Windows is SUSE/openSUSE. Yet it too had too
>>> many errors or too serious a bug and I deleted 10.3. This May's
>>> openSUSE 11.0 was
>>> a great improvement - but it is still hampered by the boot
>>> management/partition management that they all are. I just deleted
>>> it last weekend. Because I'm sick of it insisting a Primary
>>> partition is an Extended, Logical partition - and changing it to
>>> such if you don't stop it -
>>> and proposing - entirely unnecessarily - to resize an actual Logical
>>> partition that whether FAT32 or NTFS, is in use and I have already
>>> set up where and how large I want and do not want resized! And if
>>> you allow it to auto-install, it *will* resize that partition
>>> without consulting you. Because like a true Linux type it knows
>>> best and cannot even comprehend that, well, just *maybe* it does
>>> not?
>>>
>>> Even this, the best of the distros is a pita to install - or to
>>> restore from
>>> a backup - to a multiboot system to co-exist with Windows. Microsoft
>>> systems
>>> are good at this; Linux is awful at it - yet the vast army of Linux
>>> apologists think Windows is the problem.
>>>
>>> Anyway - if you want to try Linux again, try openSUSE. Possibly it
>>> is better
>>> for being produced these days by Novell, who as we know have been
>>> in the business a long time and not as amateurs. They are derided
>>> for the deal made
>>> with MS - possibly rightly so. But the problem with the Linux
>>> apologists is
>>> what matters to them is drowning out criticism.
>>>
>>> Debian and it's derivatives (notably *buntu) are the worse at
>>> installing on
>>> a multiboot system. Fedora and Mandriva are lots better, but
>>> Mandriva still
>>> has too many bugs though certainly no more than *buntu (all the
>>> distros have
>>> lists of bugs in the 'latest release' that run into thousands).
>>>
>>> *buntu and Fedora limit far too much what you can do; Fedora
>>> because it is derived from a server system (Red Hat) and *buntu
>>> because it is aimed at the
>>> inexpert user, so they are no good for a 'power user' - in the same
>>> way that
>>> XP Pro is more suited than XP Home.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original
>>>>> thread,
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps Shane, perhaps not. My view was even with the first of only
>>>> three posts by the OP in this thread, LM had come in 'rant' rather
>>>> than 'reason' mode. And judging by the amount of flack he's left
>>>> behind him, I was probably right. (Seems he's doing similar things
>>>> in the Win98 groups)
>>>
>>> Oh, really.
>>>
>>> Well, I do feel such ill-informed diatribes need to be corrected
>>> for the sake of others who have heard something like it and would
>>> possibly take it as the reinforcement that finally tips their
>>> scales.
>>>
>>>> I guess your final paragraph sums it all up. Even your expression
>>>> 'Common Sense' was applied in a not too dissimilar context
>>>> elsewhere.
>>>
>>> I'm well used to the notion of 'Common Sense' being more of an
>>> effort to defend long-held misconceptions than to arrive at any
>>> sort of truth. It is something of a hobbyhorse. Probably began when
>>> reading Quantum Physics and dropping acid.
>>>
>>> P.
 
Re: What is wrong with WinME?


Sounds like an acceptable offer.
I take mine with cream for sure and a little sugar, if present.
All that's left to do is, making some time......
Meanwhile,
Cheers. <H>.


"Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:eZJz1t5BJHA.2480@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> webster72n wrote:
> > What's Shane doing in Amsterdam??? <H>.
> >
> If he's anything like me he'd come for the coffee.
>
> P.
>
>
> >
> > "Mart" <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> > news:ut2wHktBJHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >> Hi Shane, with reference to your comments (and miles OT), re the
> >> Linux family, I had previously never really felt the need to dabble
> >> until both you and (I think) Alias 'publicised' Ubunto (in
> >> particular) some time last year which resulted in my bad experience.
> >> However, I have since taken the occasional look at some of the
> >> various Linux sites - but not in any great depth.
> >>
> >> I did also try OpenOffice (for Windows) and found it reasonably
> >> close to MS Office to be of very good value for money. However (and
> >> there's nearly always a however in my posts) the major thing that
> >> puts me off Linux is the vast number of sub-families (Linux, Red
> >> Hat, Ubunto, SUSE, SLED, ad infinitum, not to mention a whole
> >> menagerie of species) and their subsequent issue numbers.
> >>
> >> Now I can just about get my head around the concept of the MS DOS,
> >> 3.xx, Win9x series and then XP and now Vista but just can't see in
> >> which direction Linux is going - or more particularly, which
> >> family/version/issue is the best for me. Even Wikipedia leaves me
> >> bemused. And, why so many 'new releases'? Are these the equivalent
> >> of MS WU's or SP's?
> >>
> >>> ... have lists of bugs in the 'latest release' that
> >>> run into thousands).
> >>
> >> Hmm .. I suppose that might explain it then. Not a very good selling
> >> point.
> >>
> >> These days, I just want an operating system that works (for me and my
> >> computing friends) - and currently MS fulfil that requirement - I
> >> don't want to have to re-learn a whole new method of running a word
> >> processor or checking my bank account, or have to re-write reports
> >> in a different format because nobody else's OS can read them. I'm
> >> used to the Windows way, it works for me (without too much
> >> discomfort) though why Works and Office don't talk to each other is
> >> beyond my ken. To have to start worrying whether I should have
> >> installed Samba or Zimbrain, or version 8.04 LTS or version
> >> 3.079. I don't think I'm a Luddite.but it just seems too much for my
> >> brain to handle. My head hurts! Never did do the acid test and
> >> probably far to old and sensible by now but then I don't remember
> >> too much of the 60's either. I'm off to lie down in a darkened room.
> >>
> >> Mart
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Pogle S. Wood" <wood.pogle@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:%23BD45NfBJHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>> Mart wrote:
> >>>> Regarding mulibooting, I've never ventured in that direction
> >>>> (except for a bad experience with Ubuntu) - although I did once
> >>>> try (not too successfully) to run VM on XP Home. (Its
> >>>> incompatible!). Nor do I have SATA/RAID, so can't really comment
> >>>> on those aspects.
> >>>
> >>> I don't recall how widely I publicised this before but over the
> >>> years I've been periodically trialing Linux distros, culminating in
> >>> last summer when I
> >>> ran something like 8 simultaneously. I have concluded that the only
> >>> one that
> >>> seriously challenges Windows is SUSE/openSUSE. Yet it too had too
> >>> many errors or too serious a bug and I deleted 10.3. This May's
> >>> openSUSE 11.0 was
> >>> a great improvement - but it is still hampered by the boot
> >>> management/partition management that they all are. I just deleted
> >>> it last weekend. Because I'm sick of it insisting a Primary
> >>> partition is an Extended, Logical partition - and changing it to
> >>> such if you don't stop it -
> >>> and proposing - entirely unnecessarily - to resize an actual Logical
> >>> partition that whether FAT32 or NTFS, is in use and I have already
> >>> set up where and how large I want and do not want resized! And if
> >>> you allow it to auto-install, it *will* resize that partition
> >>> without consulting you. Because like a true Linux type it knows
> >>> best and cannot even comprehend that, well, just *maybe* it does
> >>> not?
> >>>
> >>> Even this, the best of the distros is a pita to install - or to
> >>> restore from
> >>> a backup - to a multiboot system to co-exist with Windows. Microsoft
> >>> systems
> >>> are good at this; Linux is awful at it - yet the vast army of Linux
> >>> apologists think Windows is the problem.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway - if you want to try Linux again, try openSUSE. Possibly it
> >>> is better
> >>> for being produced these days by Novell, who as we know have been
> >>> in the business a long time and not as amateurs. They are derided
> >>> for the deal made
> >>> with MS - possibly rightly so. But the problem with the Linux
> >>> apologists is
> >>> what matters to them is drowning out criticism.
> >>>
> >>> Debian and it's derivatives (notably *buntu) are the worse at
> >>> installing on
> >>> a multiboot system. Fedora and Mandriva are lots better, but
> >>> Mandriva still
> >>> has too many bugs though certainly no more than *buntu (all the
> >>> distros have
> >>> lists of bugs in the 'latest release' that run into thousands).
> >>>
> >>> *buntu and Fedora limit far too much what you can do; Fedora
> >>> because it is derived from a server system (Red Hat) and *buntu
> >>> because it is aimed at the
> >>> inexpert user, so they are no good for a 'power user' - in the same
> >>> way that
> >>> XP Pro is more suited than XP Home.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> btw Mart, I feel this is a legitimate offshoot of the original
> >>>>> thread,
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps Shane, perhaps not. My view was even with the first of only
> >>>> three posts by the OP in this thread, LM had come in 'rant' rather
> >>>> than 'reason' mode. And judging by the amount of flack he's left
> >>>> behind him, I was probably right. (Seems he's doing similar things
> >>>> in the Win98 groups)
> >>>
> >>> Oh, really.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I do feel such ill-informed diatribes need to be corrected
> >>> for the sake of others who have heard something like it and would
> >>> possibly take it as the reinforcement that finally tips their
> >>> scales.
> >>>
> >>>> I guess your final paragraph sums it all up. Even your expression
> >>>> 'Common Sense' was applied in a not too dissimilar context
> >>>> elsewhere.
> >>>
> >>> I'm well used to the notion of 'Common Sense' being more of an
> >>> effort to defend long-held misconceptions than to arrive at any
> >>> sort of truth. It is something of a hobbyhorse. Probably began when
> >>> reading Quantum Physics and dropping acid.
> >>>
> >>> P.
>
>
 

Similar threads

M
Finally, an indoor fly trap that works – 30,000 Amazon shoppers can’t be wrong
Replies
0
Views
136
Maren Estrada
M
T
What is wrong with the Microsoft Safety Scanner status information and logging?
Replies
0
Views
152
The Victim
T
M
NASA now knows what went wrong with its Mars helicopter
Replies
0
Views
70
Mike Wehner
M
C
Apple iPhone 13 review: Better where it matters
Replies
0
Views
88
Christian de Looper
C
C
Android 12: Everything there is to know about Google’s next mobile OS
Replies
0
Views
122
Christian de Looper
C
Back
Top