Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Is Windows Vista Compared To Windows ME?  
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6537 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1809 times:

I was wondering, is there any particular reason why many people like to compare Windows Vista to Windows ME? Really, it isn't a fair comparison since ME was based on the outdated DOS-based Windows 9x platform, and was never intended to be a major release unlike Vista.

Really, Vista is more comparable to 2000 than ME. 2000 had similar driver issues when it was first released. However, since there wasn't a consumer version of Windows 2000, the media never felt it was worthwile to bash it like Vista. There actually was originally supposed to be a consumer version of Windows 2000 (codenamed Neptune), which was eventually scrapped in favor of the less ambitious Windows ME, which was only intended as a stopgap release until the release of XP. Vista, on the other hand, was designed to revolutionize the Windows OS, which was the same intention with Windows 2000.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinehka098 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1789 times:

Wow. I don't think Vista is as bad as ME, but it is far from MSFT's best OS. Vista needs an IT department to nurture and babysit it's every need. Vista in consumer hands has been a disaster.

User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1780 times:

ME was the devil come back to life! Vista was bad but not even close. Hell I got XP pro on one machine and 7 the other.

User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4626 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1780 times:

Me,200 and VISTA were all worthless for home users. Even windows 7 makes administration by a home user a PITA.

Apple is the way to go to avoid a lot of the BS and headaches that come with Windows upgrades, and general operations.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6537 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1776 times:

Basically, Windows 7 is a refined version of Vista, just as Windows XP is a refined version of 2000. Windows ME was part of a completely different family from XP (Windows 9x, not NT).


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinehka098 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 3):
Apple is the way to go to avoid a lot of the BS and headaches that come with Windows upgrades, and general operations.

Very true, but I think this is a Windows thread.

I have had the worst experiences with Windows XP, over all. 2000 was a dream to support and use, much more solid that XP, IMHO.


User currently offlineFlyKev From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 1382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1768 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

I must be the only person here mad enough to have found Windows Vista quite satisfactory. Sure; I am not going to go around singing praises about its speed, stability or go installing it on any other computer and granted after the long wait from XP, I am surprised something better was not produced - but it certainly wasn't the worst, and not in any way shape or form as bad as the hell that was Windows ME.

That OS needed a full reboot every hour and a full reinstall every 6 months if you were lucky. Windows 7 certainly knocks the socks off anything Microsoft has ever produced for the Windows family; and it made me start loving my laptop again after I got my iMac (which to be honest, OSX is starting to annoy me).

Kev.



The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only
User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1757 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 2):
ME was the devil come back to life! Vista was bad but not even close.

I wouldn't even call Vista bad, just not that much better than XP. Either way, Vista was usable. ME was crash after crash after crash.

Quoting FlyKev (Reply 6):
Windows 7 certainly knocks the socks off anything Microsoft has ever produced for the Windows family; and it made me start loving my laptop again after I got my iMac (which to be honest, OSX is starting to annoy me).

I agree with this

I've been a Mac user for about 8 years and find myself preferring to work on Win7 more and more. I use to justify the Mac "premium" because OS X was so much smoother than XP, but IMHO, that advantage is practically gone.  Wow!


User currently offlinehka098 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1757 times:

We had Vista in our classrooms for two years and I have had Vista in a certain lab for almost four years, with no major issues. IE7 caused us more headaches with our LoB apps, but that is not Vista's fault.

User currently offlineiflykpdx From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

They were comparable in the sense that ME did away with access to "Real DOS" mode, which subsequently created incompatibility between ME and lots of older windows programs that worked fine as of Windows 98. Vista, in the same sort of way came out with a new driver model, which meant lots of hardware that worked fine with Windows XP and below had problems or outright didn't work anymore. Both issues were subsequently resolved over time, but the initial problems overshadowed their later overall improvements (ME really wasn't around long enough before XP came out anyway). There were other issues each OS had that aren't as comparable.

That said, I used both OS's and never found them to be as terrible as they were made out to be. I will say both XP and 7 were more user friendly than their immediate predecessors.



Airport Management - UND
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1714 times:

Quoting FlyKev (Reply 6):
I must be the only person here mad enough to have found Windows Vista quite satisfactory.

On my personal desktop I like Vista. I got it because at the time (July 2008) I wanted a 64-bit OS and Vista promised to be better supported in the future than 64-bit XP. I didn't really have any problems with drivers although my HP printer lost some of its functionality (but that was HP's fault for not updating the drivers with all the options, not Vista's fault).

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 7):
I wouldn't even call Vista bad, just not that much better than XP. Either way, Vista was usable. ME was crash after crash after crash.

I like the option for extra-large icons, useful sometimes in picture folders. I don't think XP had those. Other than that...not much advantage, except for being 64-bit.

I have an upgrade to 7 Professional downloaded and saved on my computer but I haven't used it yet. Haven't really felt the need to, but since I got a student discount for it it was almost free.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6669 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1705 times:

In my memory I still view ME has horrible but I can't really remember why. I used 2000 and XP for ten years so I tend to forget how things were before. I remember that with 95, 98 and ME it was customary to reinstall the OS often, and BSODs were business as usual, but what made ME really worse ?

As for Vista, I never used it so I can't say, stuck to XP until I really wanted DX10 and more RAM, and by that time 7 was out, so now I have a DX11 video card and 12GB of RAM on 7 x64. I had to tweak it quite a bit to make it as I like but after that it's good.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1686 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 4):
Basically, Windows 7 is a refined version of Vista, just as Windows XP is a refined version of 2000. Windows ME was part of a completely different family from XP (Windows 9x, not NT).

I changed from Windows Vista and Office 2007 to a new PC with Windows 7 and Office 2010, and in my opinion it was a mistake. The new setup is far more unstable, and I crash pretty frequently. Vista was much more stable. I expect 7 will get better once they get SP1 out, but in the meantime, as a Windows user since version 2.11, I am extremely disappointed, especially after all the hype.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3599 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1675 times:

ME was the worst system ever. I now have Vista and it is slow as hell. A good 2nd lemon, but not as bad as ME.

Still the comparision is fair.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

I've never had issues with Vista, but I like Win7 better.

Vista had to be a major revision of the OS to keep up with the development of hardware and security. Win 7 is Vista fine tuned after a couple years of extensive beta testing to find what needed to be fixed.

Anyone up on the technology and the security issues with XP knew Vista had to make a major change, though many people still try to defeat the very safeguards that Vista addressed.

Win2000 was a great success, but it was a problem for many people who fall behind technology. The move away from DOS to NT required a major mental shift by the end user. A lot of people were too set in their ways to transition easily.

XP was just like Win 7 - an update after extensive testing.

None compare to ME in my opinion. ME tried to do things from the DOS based Win9x platform that neither the hardware nor the programming could handle. MS was up against the limits of DOS capability with Win98. ME was just too much.

Now, I should qualify my remarks. I worked in corporate IT as we moved from Win95 and some NT4 to Win2000, WinXP and Vista. But I've also worked with Mac's in that enviornment, and even a few old OS2 legacy systems. I was one of many people who left soon before Win7 was beta in the 2008 nationwide job cuts.

The company I worked with had Enterprise level MS support contracts, and part of my team occasionally went to Redmond to see new OS, Office, Exchange and Server developments. Including full-time MS on site account managers.

I've gone from having 45 Ghost images of Win95 builds to completely scripted builds of new computers (and rebuilds if necessary) with Vista OS, all basic apps, departmentally needed apps and transfer of user data from the old computer to a new one.

What took 6 to 8 hours to build a new computer and transfer user data in 1996 we reduced to less than 2 hours in 2008.

But every time MS made major technological leaps with an OS - folks want to stay behind the capabilities and future - and the new OS gets branded "A failure"


User currently offlineswissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1651 times:

That is a good question  and I do not know why... have worked for MS in the early 90's back home... I had more issues with win95... did not have 98, agree ME was a challenge , however no issues from 2000 up to win7 ... we have 3 stations at home and they run on xp, vista and win7... like vista the most, just get my head around win7...

We had hardly any issues other than issues created by users 

cheerios


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6537 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1643 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 13):
Still the comparision is fair.

No, it isn't. ME crashed randomly even when not in use. This was never a problem for Vista. Like 2000, Vista's driver model was completely rewritten; ME's driver model was basically the same as Windows 98.

I can understand why people say that the best versions of Windows were 98, XP, and 7, however, it makes absolutely no sense to compare Vista to ME since Microsoft had two completely different intentions for both. Microsoft's never intended ME to have a long shelf life; it was only a stopgap between 98 and XP. Vista, on the other hand, was intended to be Microsoft's "official" new OS, and had it hadn't recieved such negative press by the media, Windows 7 wouldn't have been released as quickly and would have been another complete overhaul of the codebase.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1634 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 16):
No, it isn't. ME crashed randomly even when not in use. This was never a problem for Vista. Like 2000, Vista's driver model was completely rewritten; ME's driver model was basically the same as Windows 98.

Yep. I had a notebook with ME and it crashed left and right so bad I had to toss it. It was simply the worst comp experience I have ever had.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6669 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

Now that I think of it, Win95 wasn't that great, at first. My parents bought the first computer for the family in 95 (we already had a donated 286), a nice Pentium 100 with the brand new Win95 vanilla, it wasn't very stable. And no windows update (nor internet for that matter) to have the bug fixed !


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1574 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 13):
ME was the worst system ever. I now have Vista and it is slow as hell. A good 2nd lemon, but not as bad as ME.

Still the comparision is fair.

Uhhhh no, not even close. I spent 15 minutes testing out the ME machine, and just by simple commands such as opening Notepad caused the system to crash. Seven crashes in 15 minutes was a STRONG indicator of not to buy this OS.

Vista, on the other hand, was stable, but was a huge resource hog, contributing to it being slow. Poorly written coding did not help the OS make it any speedier either.



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3380 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1549 times:

I have run Vista pretty much since it came out and I have to say its is far superior to XP as an OS. On my old system which was built in 2005 Vista ran better than XP when it came out, also Vista maintains your computer better than XP. So unless you get a virus the OS will last years without needing a reinstall.

I run the 64 bit now because I needed to replace my Motherboard and because of that I added a new processor and HDD and it runs great. I was too cheap to buy an ISO version of 7, but I did have to download the ISO for Vista 64bit ans use my license key.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 4):
Basically, Windows 7 is a refined version of Vista, just as Windows XP is a refined version of 2000. Windows ME was part of a completely different family from XP (Windows 9x, not NT).

7 IIRC is just a leaner Vista that uses far less resources and better driver support. Actually I prefer things like the quick launch in Vista from what I have seen but I haven't really played around with 7 all that much though and I'm sure there is a classic option.

ME had a lot of features that XP and onward have used such as System Restore and better network support than what 98 offered. It was basically 98 with another service pack that backfired horribly.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 19):
Vista, on the other hand, was stable, but was a huge resource hog, contributing to it being slow. Poorly written coding did not help the OS make it any speedier either.

The SP's really made a difference with how Vista runs now, the biggest issue was that MS underestimated how much RAM was needed to run it to the consumer. (It needs 2GB to do anything, MS recommended 1GB)



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinerichm From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 799 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

It might just be down to public perception. Neither of them were widely regarded as being "great operating systems" on the whole compared to other Windows operating systems. They were both widely criticized for various reasons. It may not be based on any similarities or flaws between the two. Though, it would be interesting to read the article(s) that you're referring to.

User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1838 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1515 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 3):
Apple is the way to go to avoid a lot of the BS and headaches that come with Windows upgrades, and general operations.

And they make you pay through the nose for the privilege.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6537 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1435 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 20):
ME had a lot of features that XP and onward have used such as System Restore and better network support than what 98 offered. It was basically 98 with another service pack that backfired horribly.

Yes, but ME was still based on the old Windows 9x DOS platform, while XP was based on the NT platform like 2000.

Quoting richm (Reply 21):
It might just be down to public perception. Neither of them were widely regarded as being "great operating systems" on the whole compared to other Windows operating systems. They were both widely criticized for various reasons. It may not be based on any similarities or flaws between the two. Though, it would be interesting to read the article(s) that you're referring to.

Well, the likely reason why Windows 2000 wasn't criticized much was because it wasn't marketed to consumers, only to businesses. 2000's driver model was very different from NT 4.0, just as Vista uses a different driver model from XP. XP helped fix some of those compatibility issues, just as 7 did for Vista.

In truth, XP was heavily crticized when it was first released to the consumer market, as it was a huge leap from 98/ME to XP due to the complete change in architecture (DOS for 98/ME, NT for XP). However, as time went by consumers simply got more used to it. Vista had a much shorter shelf life, and Apple's anti-Vista propaganda didn't help either.

Also, if you ever checked the version numbering of the different versions of Windows, you can see that XP and 7 (NT versions 5.1 and 6.1, respectively) were improved versions of 2000 and Vista (NT versions 5.0 and 6.0, respectively).



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineRobertNL070 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2003, 4532 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1411 times:

In Dutch, Windows ME attracted the dubious nickname Meer Ellende = More Misery. And indeed, nothing can compare to the misery of ME.

As others have already said, Windows Vista is nothing special. It may look prettier than XP, but it is really no better.



Youth is a gift of nature. Age is a work of art.
25 elbandgeek : Vista tried to cram too much into one release because they kept pushing it back and at least once they had to scrap development and start all over. Wh
26 Derico : I went from Win95 as a kid, to XP as a teen, to 7 as a young adult. The last two being my decision to skip ME and Vista. Smart guy.
27 rfields5421 : I think MS learned a lesson from Vista. The advertising for Win7 I saw did not focus as much on upgrading your computer as Vista did. Personally, for
28 RayChuang : Here's the big thing that hurt Windows Vista: it came out a time when the hardware that could really take advantage of what Vista could do was not wid
29 Revelation : I just follow what my company IT department does. They have a lot more experience in figuring out what OSes to avoid. And their migration path was Wi
30 1337Delta764 : Well, there is no way a corporate environment would use Windows ME, since it was designed to be a consumer OS unlike Win2K. XP and later versions tho
31 captaink : Vista was bad for people with slow machines. Try running W7 on the same machines and won´t notice any huge difference. I have a Vista on a machine an
32 Post contains images Silver1SWA : Sound a lot like that little flying game Microsoft makes. except, hardware catching up never helped. Heh. Anyway, I love windows 7. I got it last yea
33 Post contains images Revelation : Most of us did jump from XP to 7, which is making a big (but unspoken) comment on how we felt about Vista!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Is Malaysia's Flag Similar To The US? posted Wed Sep 15 2004 02:07:00 by Ual747
Is This Guy Trying To Give Me A Virus? posted Fri May 31 2002 06:23:52 by Ibizajet A330
Why Is Everyone So Mean To Matt D? posted Fri Mar 1 2002 00:33:36 by MJC777
Question About Windows Vista Versus Windows 7 posted Sat Sep 12 2009 11:20:41 by VarigB707
Is It OK To Pronounce Me-hi-co For Mexico? posted Thu May 7 2009 21:25:29 by Geekydude
Why Is Cair Allowed To Operate? posted Tue Dec 4 2007 12:29:12 by Slider
Windows XP To Windows Vista Help posted Mon Apr 9 2007 14:19:56 by PAHS200
Why Is Israel Important To The US? posted Tue Feb 27 2007 02:28:00 by Mbj-11
Why Is It Easier To Get Up When I Get Less Sleep? posted Sun Dec 17 2006 04:59:42 by FSPilot747
Why Is It Unfashionable To Be A "Liberal"? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 05:13:59 by Singapore_Air