Just wondering....

pantherman13 · 08-10-2005, 04:37 PM

Whats the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows ME?

I know ME is garbage....

But why did they make a Windows Millenium Edition and a 2000 edition?

fat elvis · 08-10-2005, 04:44 PM

Windows ME was basically 98 with rhinoplasty, it was based off the 9X version of Windows. Windows 2000 was based off NT, so it had a great advantage over the 95/98/ME builds.

pantherman13 · 08-10-2005, 05:13 PM

I see......

Makoto · 08-10-2005, 08:25 PM

(shrugs) I thought ME was supposed to have been an attempt to bridge 9X and NT in an effort to 'prepare' Windows users for the upcoming XP?

Not that it WORKED that way, but... eh.

pantherman13 · 08-10-2005, 10:01 PM

ME was a joke.

CAlvarez · 08-11-2005, 05:22 AM

NT, 2000, and 2003 are server operating systems, with a version of NT and 2000 for professional workstation use. All of them have been very stable and robust, with better security. XP was based from the NT/2000 underpinnings with a new UI. 2003 has an even newer UI, but not substantially so. It's just more 3D and "soft," not any more productive. 95/98/ME were all still based on DOS under the hood to a great extent. ME...I really don't know what that was supposed to be, but it was just horrible, should never be used for anything.

hitsuzen · 08-11-2005, 06:21 AM

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the removal of the DOS layer one of the
selling points of ME? I've never really used ME myself so I don't
know much about it, but looks identical to 98.

CAlvarez · 08-11-2005, 06:37 AM

I think that was something that was touted for 95, but it simply isn't quite true. Let's say that DOS was more hidden in 95 and up. I really am not an expert on ME, other than knowing that any machine with ME needs to be changed to another OS. The companies I work for never used it, and it was well known in IT that you just don't deploy ME machines. I think I have touched ME just once, in a store demo.

XP is based on a real 32 bit kernel that originate with NT. ME is still the old kernel, highly modified to make it unstable while acquiring none of the power or security of NT.

Raven · 08-11-2005, 08:50 AM

Around here people called ME "Windows 98 third edition, with extra bugs".
As fort the system itself, I have sadly had to work with it, and its basically 98 with a couple of add-ons that on average reduce reliability.
Windows 200 on the other hand is a very solid OS (yes I can actually say that about an MS product) as it rarely crashes and is highly configurable... for thos ewho know the system extensively.

pantherman13 · 08-11-2005, 09:21 AM

Was there any practical reason for releasing ME?

Raven · 08-11-2005, 09:29 AM

One: Money... Plus MS could not go for more than two years without getting a new Windows version out... Which makes you smile when you think of Vista nowadays

08-10-2005, 04:37 PM	#1
pantherman13 All Star Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 558	Just wondering.... Whats the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows ME? I know ME is garbage.... But why did they make a Windows Millenium Edition and a 2000 edition? __________________ "Well, my name's Jim. But most people call me... Jim."

08-10-2005, 04:44 PM	#2
fat elvis MVP Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: New York Posts: 1,506	Windows ME was basically 98 with rhinoplasty, it was based off the 9X version of Windows. Windows 2000 was based off NT, so it had a great advantage over the 95/98/ME builds. __________________ “If more police, more prisons and more prosecutors was a solution to safer streets, the United States and China would be the safest countries on the planet, and they’re not..." -Jane Sterk

08-10-2005, 05:13 PM	#3
pantherman13 All Star Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 558	I see...... __________________ "Well, my name's Jim. But most people call me... Jim."

08-10-2005, 08:25 PM	#4
Makoto Major Leaguer Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 283	(shrugs) I thought ME was supposed to have been an attempt to bridge 9X and NT in an effort to 'prepare' Windows users for the upcoming XP? Not that it WORKED that way, but... eh. __________________ Surviving for years on little sleep and a mere diet of cup ramen and soda...

08-10-2005, 10:01 PM	#5
pantherman13 All Star Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 558	ME was a joke. __________________ "Well, my name's Jim. But most people call me... Jim."

08-11-2005, 05:22 AM	#6
CAlvarez Hall of Famer Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 4,975	NT, 2000, and 2003 are server operating systems, with a version of NT and 2000 for professional workstation use. All of them have been very stable and robust, with better security. XP was based from the NT/2000 underpinnings with a new UI. 2003 has an even newer UI, but not substantially so. It's just more 3D and "soft," not any more productive. 95/98/ME were all still based on DOS under the hood to a great extent. ME...I really don't know what that was supposed to be, but it was just horrible, should never be used for anything. __________________ -- Carlos Alvarez, Phoenix, AZ "MacBook Nano" (Lenovo S10) Atom 1.6/2GB/160GB Mac OS X 10.5.6 Gigabyte Quad Core 2.83GHz Hackintosh 4GB/500GB Mac OS X 10.6 MacBook Air 1.8/2GB/64GB SSD http://www.televolve.com

08-11-2005, 06:21 AM	#7
hitsuzen Triple-A Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 107	If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the removal of the DOS layer one of the selling points of ME? I've never really used ME myself so I don't know much about it, but looks identical to 98.

08-11-2005, 06:37 AM	#8
CAlvarez Hall of Famer Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 4,975	I think that was something that was touted for 95, but it simply isn't quite true. Let's say that DOS was more hidden in 95 and up. I really am not an expert on ME, other than knowing that any machine with ME needs to be changed to another OS. The companies I work for never used it, and it was well known in IT that you just don't deploy ME machines. I think I have touched ME just once, in a store demo. XP is based on a real 32 bit kernel that originate with NT. ME is still the old kernel, highly modified to make it unstable while acquiring none of the power or security of NT. __________________ -- Carlos Alvarez, Phoenix, AZ "MacBook Nano" (Lenovo S10) Atom 1.6/2GB/160GB Mac OS X 10.5.6 Gigabyte Quad Core 2.83GHz Hackintosh 4GB/500GB Mac OS X 10.6 MacBook Air 1.8/2GB/64GB SSD http://www.televolve.com

08-11-2005, 08:50 AM	#9
Raven Hall of Famer Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montreal Posts: 4,782	Around here people called ME "Windows 98 third edition, with extra bugs". As fort the system itself, I have sadly had to work with it, and its basically 98 with a couple of add-ons that on average reduce reliability. Windows 200 on the other hand is a very solid OS (yes I can actually say that about an MS product) as it rarely crashes and is highly configurable... for thos ewho know the system extensively. __________________ Waffled foreheads are a symptom of broken keyboards and inexperienced users

08-11-2005, 09:21 AM	#10
pantherman13 All Star Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 558	Was there any practical reason for releasing ME? __________________ "Well, my name's Jim. But most people call me... Jim."

08-11-2005, 09:29 AM	#11
Raven Hall of Famer Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montreal Posts: 4,782	One: Money... Plus MS could not go for more than two years without getting a new Windows version out... Which makes you smile when you think of Vista nowadays __________________ Waffled foreheads are a symptom of broken keyboards and inexperienced users

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: