SillyDog701

[Phoenix21692]

Actually, in my experience Windows Me was much slower than Windows 98 on my old 600MHz laptop, which doesn't even work anymore. The startup times were vastly different as well. If I remember, WinME would take 2 1/2, sometimes even 3, minutes to boot up, while Windows 98 took less than 1:15 minutes. :)

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514

[keith]

I have a machine with 98, freshly formatted and reinstalled hdd and i have 128 mb ram, 500 mhz pro. and its very slow starting up, and considerably slower then my ME os.

Keith

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90)

[Andrew T.]

I will add that Windows 95, in turn, is often faster than Windows 98 or ME due to the lack of "web integration." On a 600MHz Pentium III computer with 128MB of RAM, the shell application of Windows 95 often responds instantly in instances where Windows ME, 98, (or 95 with the IE 4+ "integrated" shell) takes seconds. It boots faster as well since Internet Explorer does not need to be loaded at startup and resident in memory. Additionally, features present in recent Windows versions such as menu animations cause sluggishness (especially in older systems) as well.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514

[Mandrake]

Yeah, but XP will run too slow cause of the lack of ram and processor, and 98 and 95 are slower inbgeneral then ME. I doin't like ME any more then anyone else, but its all i got.

On a 1Ghz Athlon with 256mb of ram? That will run XP fine.

Actually, in my experience Windows Me was much slower than Windows 98 on my old 600MHz laptop, which doesn't even work anymore. The startup times were vastly different as well. If I remember, WinME would take 2 1/2, sometimes even 3, minutes to boot up, while Windows 98 took less than 1:15 minutes.

Windows ME loads more quickly than Windows 95 or 98 due to the fact that heap of DOS support was removed (real-mode DOS drivers at bootup for example). Without this extra clutter to load, Windows ME will load in about half the time 98 does.

I will add that Windows 95, in turn, is often faster than Windows 98 or ME due to the lack of "web integration." On a 600MHz Pentium III computer with 128MB of RAM, the shell application of Windows 95 often responds instantly in instances where Windows ME, 98, (or 95 with the IE 4+ "integrated" shell) takes seconds. It boots faster as well since Internet Explorer does not need to be loaded at startup and resident in memory. Additionally, features present in recent Windows versions such as menu animations cause sluggishness (especially in older systems) as well.

Windows 95 without IE does load quickly, it doesn't start as quickly as Windows ME, but would be more responsive whilst actually using the OS.

My copy of Windows XP loads to the login screen ready to go in twenty seconds.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8a2) Gecko/20040523 Firefox/0.8.0+

[Don_HH2K]

If you want my opinion, if a computer can't run XP then you should put Win2000 on it. If it can't run that either put NT4 on it. If it can't run that either then get a new PC.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

[Phoenix21692]

I forgot to mention that the old laptop had a 5.5GB hard drive and only 64MB of RAM.

Aside from that, it seems that you might have to stick what works until you get a better PC. For a 500MHz PC with 128MB RAM, you should be able to use Windows NT, 2000 Pro, or even XP. How much RAM and hard drive space do you have on the one that had WindowsME again? What processor does it have? I don't recall if you posted that info anywhere. Sorry about this. If you want to do XP, you'll need 1.5GB of free space, at least.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

[Mandrake]

I forgot to mention that the old laptop had a 5.5GB hard drive and only 64MB of RAM.

Aside from that, it seems that you might have to stick what works until you get a better PC. For a 500MHz PC with 128MB RAM, you should be able to use Windows NT, 2000 Pro, or even XP. How much RAM and hard drive space do you have on the one that had WindowsME again? What processor does it have? I don't recall if you posted that info anywhere. Sorry about this. If you want to do XP, you'll need 1.5GB of free space, at least.

Minimum 256mb of ram for Windows 2000 or Windows XP Professional, 512mb reccommended. Running XP on a 500mhz with 128mb of ram would be painfully slow. Windows 2000 would run a little bit better, but certainly not that great. NT4 would run, but that OS is horrible to setup, bad hardware support and no PnP.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8a2) Gecko/20040523 Firefox/0.8.0+

[keith]

I have been on machines with 256 MB ram and a 1.5 ghz pro. and it runs rather slow once you've had it for a couple months. Plus i don't plan on putting money into this computer to put 2000 professional on it cause i might buy a new computer.
In a future post i will put the specs up of one i have in mind.
Keith

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90)