Windows ME/2000

AgZed

Could anyone tell me what the differences between them are? I'm not to bothered about which is 'better' since it's purely for information reasons on my part, but I'm rather lost as to the difference between ME and 2K.
Thanks...

Karoma

ME was a continuation of the Windows 95/98 breed... 2000 was a continuation of NT...
ME was more focused @ home users.
...
TBH, www.microsoft.com and www.google.com

ntlbell

In simpler terms windows ME is a big bag of $****e.

Win2k is not.

woolymammoth

AgZed wrote:

I'm not to bothered about which is 'better'..

But you should be if you're going to use it. but i'm asuming from your post that you won't
be using either.

Put simply, ME is based on an older technology that is prone to many problems (like
crashing, and crashing often). Windows 2000 on the other hand is much more stable
and far less likely to crash, meaning you won't loose any imporant information. Windows
2000 is also more secure, and has better support for networking.

Basically, if you're relaying this to someone who has a choice between the two, the
advice is to go with Windows 2000.

Capt'n Midnight

Don't go with ME - go with windows 98 instead - seriously !

ME was a cynical marketing exercise as the end of the Windows 95 line, if you upgrade windows 95 OS release 2 to the latest patches and add internet explorer and media player to it, you have something not unlike 98 is many respects. ME was something similar for 98 but lots of things got broken too.

Windows 2000 is built on Windows NT,which had it's roots from a partnership with IBM and people headhunted from DEC so it's a totally different OS, as far as drivers are concerned, with application compatabiliy to DOS/Windows311/Windows95 added in most parts. Many very old devices don't have drivers for 2000. Also programs that like to talk directly to the hardware won't be able to see it in nt/2k/xp ( mostly done because the IBM BIOS routines in the 80's and later Microsoft routines in the 90's to talk to the hardware were so bad/slow as to be unusable. All those man hours lost reinventing the wheel. :rolleyes: )

If you choose CLASSIC for every menu in Windows XP it looks a lot like Windows 2000. Windows server 2003 uses those settings instead of the default XP interface designed by Fisher Price.

Licensing is the major factor in deciding which to use. ie. whatever came supplied with the PC.

Karoma

..sounded like a homework question, TBH. You're kinder than I.

pyramuid man

Win ME was a rushed through supposed upgrade from windows 98 that just never was. I have windows ME running on a system at home and it is to be quite honest terrible. The usb ports no longer accept mass storage devices and tends to crash and also hoggs alot of memory doing pretty simple tasks. Windows 2000 is probably the most stable of the microsoft operating systems to date and I think it performs alot better than any other microsoft operating systems. It has better memory management systems and has a more stable operating environment. It is like a stripped down version of windows xp professional to be honest. Is this good. Well yes it is because you get alot of the capabilities of winXP Pro without the memory hogging extras. Windows 2000 also uses the NTFS file system which is alot more secure than the Fat32 system used by Win ME. Also there is the compatibility aspects. Not many developers are making programs for windows ME, 9X anymore. They main devlopment is based on the 2000/XP operating environment. Windows 2000 has alot more compatibility with networking and also has alot more administrative options. So therefore if you have multiple users on one machine, you can set allowances and make almost skillsets for users to protect your system down to not allowing certain actions to take place such as accessing system folders or any folders for that matter. You can also stop registry changes on your machines which is a more secure way of adminstration. Of course all of the above does not matter if you cannot understand how to do this. So therefore, Windows Me is probably better for beginner users than 2000 due to its simplicity in certain aspects, but this is no longer a valid arguement as with the introduction of windows XP home edition (AKA PlaySkool Computing), you have an easier to use operating systems and is therefore better for all beginners. So Windows 2000 is better for people who want more control over their operating environment and know how to administer it. Windows Me is practically obsolete after only six years of issue. That is bad since there are still a few people who use Windows 98 which is a better choice at the end of the day.

IMO the best is Windows 2000 but thats just me.

SeanW

I remember from using Win 95/98, total crash prone piece of crap. I vowed if if I met bill gates I'd choke him :mad: to which I was once told "join the queue" fortunately the NT line of Windows is streets ahead of the Windows 3.x and 9x lines in every way, with particuar reference to 95/98/ME falling over itself every 5 minutes.

Gurgle

With Win98 Second Edition they accidentally provided a reasonably stable OS for the home market, with many of the features of the NT version. They quickly realised their mistakes and backtracked until they got a buggy crashy piece of shìt which was released as ME.
Where they were actually headed with 98SE was Win 2k, combining the best of NT and 95.

gamer

Cos ,win2k has high security, like nt, IT doesnt like direct hardware acess, it was not designed for home use. ie Theres lots of devices that do,nt have win2k drivers, get Win98se .Its fast, doesnt take up as much memory as Winxp, and you can get device drivers for everything,its got usb support .Its ideal if u are installing on p2 , or pentium 3 laptop, with restricted memory size or small hd, it runs fast on a p2 laptop i had on a 6gig hd,128meg ram.

**Timbuk2**

Put really simply:

Windows ME is just a (crap) continuation from Win98. Using WinME is alot like using Win98, the interface is the same and most things are similar

Windows 2000 however, has more of a Windows XP interface, and is much more stable than ME. You will find alot of similarities in the look off win2k that you would in winXP (but it doesn't have the XP 3D look though).

My advice: go with Win2K, much better than ME

SeanW

Put it this way:

Absolutely go for Windows 95/98/ME ... if you really like looking at frozen displays and blue screens ...

**Timbuk2**

SeanW wrote:

blue screens ...

BLUE SCREENS!!! :eek:

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Yeah if you like the BSOD (blue screen of death), then go for 95/98/ME

/I was thinking of hacking into windows and making that blue screen a more cheerful colour (like pink)

Gurgle

**Timbuk2** wrote:

Yeah if you like the BSOD (blue screen of death), then go for 95/98/ME

All wrong - the BSOD is a feature of NT/2K/XP. It actually contains some information which a few weeks of research could hypothetically trace back to the route cause of the problem :rolleyes:

In 95/98/ME, the PC just freezes up.

AgZed

Thanks folks! I was thinking that one of them was a continuation of the 9x line, and the other was based off NT, but I wasn't sure. And couldn't remember which was which. I'm a lot less befuddled now.

Capt'n Midnight

Gurgle wrote:

All wrong - the BSOD is a feature of NT/2K/XP. It actually contains some information which a few weeks of research could hypothetically trace back to the route cause of the problem :rolleyes:

In 95/98/ME, the PC just freezes up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_screen_of_death and the NT screen contains far more useful info than later versions.

Windows 9X Blue Screen

Gurgle

Ah yes, that BSOD.
I forgot about that one.