Windows ME vs. 98 Question

[StitchInTime]

Somebody gave me an old PII laptop with windows ME on it.  It only has 64 MB of RAM, and I'm not sure whether I can upgrade that or not, since it's SDRAM PC-66.

 

My question is, is WIN ME better than WIN 98, as in more stable, for example?  Or, would it be better for me to go back to 98.  My impression is that there isn't that much of a difference, but as my other ancient machine has WIN 98 on it, I was just wondering, if those are my choices, which is better?

 

Incidentally, this is my first laptop; so, I'm quite happy to have it, and it comes with a nice little bubblejet printer, though I haven't tried that out yet.

[Megalith]

Win 98 is better than the crock of ball hooks known as ME tbh, tho if i was you i'd put 2000 on it as you cant get support for 98 anymore (i believe). ME has never done it for me and it has a lot of bugs. The worst thing tho is if you need to get into the command box or into DOS mode. as for more memory yes you can put a lot more on than 64M. you'd have to do the research on the model of laptop and the type of memory it can take tho but it should easy be able to handle 256M but you wont really need it if you go with 98.

[TFMF]

Although i've never tried ME, i've heard many problems about it. Windows 98 deffinetly seems to be the better choice. :)

[bones2097]

yeah win 98 all the way,,,, though maybe you should have a look at a linux distro... just a thought... though being a laptop (old) may pose driver issues...

[Amnot Borg]

Actually in the case of linux OS, older PC is sometimes better. Drivers will have been created if possible by someone that needed them. I ran Ubuntu Breezy Badger 5.10 with only 64MB of pc-100 ram. It wasn't great but it ran very well. Dapper required at least 256mb for me just to install it. Please, if you use dialup, just buy a serial 56k modem. 56k modems are the dinosaurs of online connnections and they do not get driver updates often enough in Linux.

 

AFAIK, pc-100/133 will work on a pc-66 machine. Backwards compatibility. Remember to look for laptop ram not desktop ram. They do NOT mix.

 

WinME was supposed to be the closest thing the older dos based windows could get to being a multimedia OS. It was known for BSOD, I liked it but I was/am a media hog. Win2K is nice but needs 4 service packs. WinXP was based on it. Win98 was great in its time but it has been cut off from Microsoft support as of June/July 2006.

 

******

IN a shorter version: win98 should be more stable than winME but getting updates will be a pain in the butt. Only a few mirror non-Microsoft sites will even have things you need. Win2K/winXP can both run on 64mb but they will run slowly.

******

 

As Megalith said, check your make and model of laptop for what you need. Some older laptops can usually hold as much as 256-512mb of ram.

[Guest c4evap]

Win 98 is better than the crock of ball hooks known as ME tbh, tho if i was you i'd put 2000 on it as you cant get support for 98 anymore (i believe). ME has never done it for me and it has a lot of bugs. The worst thing tho is if you need to get into the command box or into DOS mode. as for more memory yes you can put a lot more on than 64M. you'd have to do the research on the model of laptop and the type of memory it can take tho but it should easy be able to handle 256M but you wont really need it if you go with 98.

 

As for DOS mode on ME...there is a small program you can DL (FREE) that will let you access DOS from your desk top. It's called "Drop to DOS". I use it on XP but it should work on ME as well. Link below.

 

http://www.majorgeeks.com/Drop_To_DOS_d902.html

 

There's also a program written for ME that adds "Shutdown to DOS" (or something similar) to the ME log off box. I can't recall the name of that program at all. Haven't used ME in years now. I'm sure a search will turn it up.

 

B)

[StitchInTime]

Thanks for all the feedback.

 

I forgot to mention that it only has a 5 Gig hard drive on it.  What difference does that make to your recommendations, if any?

 

It's also got, if you can believe it, only a 33k modem on it, with no wireless card. 

 

The manual I found online seemed to say that 64 MB was the limit, but I'll do some more checking.

[Chiggy]

I would choose ME..........better hardware support and the most up to date drivers. It was marketed in 2000 as an enhanced media edition of 98. Although 98 and ME are only enhanced versions of 95. It features a Movie editor and DVD Movie player.

 

Minimum systems specs for ME are:

 

150 MHZ Pentium

32Mb RAM

320 MB HD

VGA Monitor

 

If your a complete cheap skate and your laptop has USB buy a USB ADSL Modem.......assuming you have a connection.

 

Its worrying that I have all the above committed to memory.

 

P.S. My PII runs Windows 2000 although it has a considerable amount of RAM installed. I run this OS because it is more secure than any version of Windows 9X.

[msg4real]

---

The manual I found online seemed to say that 64 MB was the limit, but I'll do some more checking.

 

you may wana try 128 it may work.

 

also you may wana find out if you can update the bios as updating it may allow you to have better h/w

[kyran]

I never had any probs with ME  but then I never actually used it myself

 

there is no longer a security issue with win 98  what kid knows about it ?

who's gonna spend time writing a bug for just a few machines?

win2000 is a much better os and will run ok on your laptop doesn't use much more harddrive than 98

 

Chiggy did you get windows vista free from your college?

I just got the business edition free too I think we are supposed to learn how to fix them lol

[Soval]

I recommend win98. It was much more stable than win95 and from what I learned it was much more stable than winME. I still use win98 and I actually prefer it to winXP. As for Vista, I don't think I'll be upgrading to that system for some time to come.

[StitchInTime]

My, my, what a diversity of opinion.  Decisions, decisions.

 

I already had WIN ME, though I don't have the CD for it, and so far, so good.  There's also other software on it that I don't have copies of; so, I'm not sure how I could ensure that I can keep that if I changed the OS.

[USWhoFan]

StitchInTime,

I have some memory that would work in that machine you could have if you want it, just let me know how many slots it's got (usually 2 in laptops) and what the machine can take in total memory. (or PM me the make and model and I'll look it up)

I know I've got 64Mb but may also have a couple 128's you could have.

[Megalith]

My, my, what a diversity of opinion.  Decisions, decisions.

 

I already had WIN ME, though I don't have the CD for it, and so far, so good.  There's also other software on it that I don't have copies of; so, I'm not sure how I could ensure that I can keep that if I changed the OS.

you need to back up the hard drive (most HD manufacturers can supply programs to copy a hard drive identically as well as commercial apps like norton ghost... be warned however! Ghost could lead to you losing ALL the data if somebody has used partition magic at some point in the past on the hard drive)

[feluxe]

Definitely w98.

Had many Problems with winME back in the days.

But I'm becoming quite nostalgic when thinking about it.

Those where times...

It was all just beginning...

[Tigerplayer]

Either go for 98 or 2k. ME was that little rushed unstable piece of sh*t that was rushed out of Microsoft when they decided not to launch project "Neptune" (Neptune was a predecessor of sorts of XP that introduced a lot of elements found in XP today.)

 

Seriously, I had a lot of bugs with ME back in the day, and being the only one who knew about computers at home then, it was a pain to have to fix my dad's computer all the time because of BSODs and drivers constantly going whacko.

 

ME was also the OS shipped with my oooooold laptop... As soon my dad gave it to me for use in college, i threw XP on the disk.

 

98 is good, but beware restart hell everytime you install a program.

 

Win2k is stable as a rock filled with diamonds, but can take up a lot of disk space... It takes about 1 gig AFAIK, but then again, you get an OS with support from MS, at least for some time to come. With the 4 servicepacks installed it takes about as much as XP (~1.5gigs). A definite plus is that you get NTFS

 

If you are of the more experienced Linux type, I would recommend Damn Small Linux. It takes no more than about 50-60 MB of harddisk space, and it still comes with office stuff and a browser as well as some miscellaneous programs.

 

If you aren't the experienced Linux type, instead go with Fluxbuntu it's essentially Ubuntu, but with the Fluxbox window manager. This system takes astoundingly few resources. As a basic user, the only thing you need to get familliar with is the apt-get and apt-cache commands in the terminal. Apt(itude) lets you download additional packages, eg. WINE that lets you run windows stuff.

 

The fluxbox window manager takes some getting used to at first, but once you get the hang of it, you'll LOVE it.

[msg4real]

98 all the time is flashy but extreamly unstable and .. I can rant on why but  many have so I will speare you the time

[dBLOOD]

I had WinMe, never had problems with it, but I would recommend Win2K, because that is more stable and secure as WinMe.

If you are lucky, the install files of WinMe are still on the HDD, WinMe copied all installation files onto HDD during install. Or pm me...

[bbbb]

Myself I'd go with Win98 because it's system requirements are low and you get good performance, even when compared to XP. As for Vista, it's really pretty but runs poorly for now. (it needs a service pack) The only problem with Win98 is as said above, it's no longer supported by MS and you have to download update after update to get it as secure as possible. Then again it depends what you're going to use it for. If you're just doing simple stuff like surfing and the occasional download, then it should be fine. If you're doing big stuff like online banking or game servers then Win98 may not be secure enough. Despite this I think I'd go with Win98.

 

At least that way you don't all those annoying popups when you try to download something, or the 'cancel or allow' messages as advertised on TV.

 

 

[dr_strekge]

In some systems I remember configuring a decent WINME but now Im fully 2000 follower, have DOS71 with 98 apart in other slice just in case I need to do DOS task, where is dos 8.0? I remember looking for a standalone version but I never found it. 98 is better because much late support was given, more drivers bugfixes and ME was an ugly attemp to mix NT with legacy I/O (programmer's headaches hell) and real DOS.

 

Regarding to linux  distros I use Kurumin is the easiest I ever found, but is in portuguese but you can customize the menu entries and use some us languague support.

 

But I remark I have the better of dos with the os2 part disk slice, and have a vpc 95 machine to make incursions to not safe sites or to test old software from my 2k machine. I even have vpc 2k or 98 inside os2 when I require offimatic apps or just in case if I need to download or see things form a win desktop inside OS2.

 

I installed also pc-bsd and is fine make things work but lacks with some others that linux is not, so I have deleted until a better realese comes out.

 

Multi OS system HOWTO info

 

If you want to look more at my disk configuration is as follow: One 40hd with eCS, 98 with dos 7.1 base and linux with lilo non mbr launching any of 4 systems I could install into it. but I have activated the partition of os2 and at 8am when I sit in my chair is OS2, then I reboot and in a second hard disk with 120gb I have my 2k system and 3 other big slices of about 34gb each one, and in a third SATA hdd, where you can install other systems too but i have not installed XP there for example: I have  3 big slices corresponding to the backup of things I can live without in a machine, the other contains data documents and things I dont want to delete, and the last slice for p2p backups and mostly MP3 (that is how is distributed the first 120hd, and the other the sata has 3 big slices also but I have there my star trek series and many isos movies and other thing, the only ntfs system I have is one slice of the size of a 4.7 dvd, 5.2 or less for making images or coping large dvd images before burning them. This ntfs slice is located right after my 2k system at the beginning of the disk, i highly reccomend you have pts bootwizard fdisk util somewhere, partition magic 6 and 8.2 and acronis partition expert programs installed, and stellar phoenix fat ntfs 2.11 if something goes wrong but I recommend only using *clean hard disks*, also the lilo remover dos util hddclear to clear your empthy disk from lilo, because leaving a machine multi os take some time and patience, always disconect your win2k hard drive, made separate clean instalations of each systems beggining in the first disk with eCS then dos/98, then linux. After that go install only the win2k or second disk sliceing it properly and install your windows there. I used to have win98 and win2k slices in the second hd but now I have leaved that way because some crashes in 98.

 

My machine actual specs: cheap 2.13mhz intel processor with a PM4 800 BIOSTAR mobo and 384ram, but if you want to install Mac OSX for intel you better search for a better biostar mobo or other that support it cause i wasn't able to install it :( only virtually using vpc I guess, and I like real multi operating systems not virtual boxes).

 

And last but not least remember use clean disk with information you don´t care if it's lost cause I can not be resposible for data loss when using the above described procedure. Take in consideration I can't give you every answer about how to fully configure your slices or hardware in those other operatiing systems that's up to you.