😡🤬😡🤬😡🤬

i had me and i had no problems with it but that was i supp-es i new how to work with it and the one thing i fond out with all windows what ever the box sed on memory double it

Yeah, definitely not installing that garbage. You gotta do what you've gotta do though.

I don't blame you for accepting it you're just a small youtuber who need money but fuck raid shadow legends i'm tired of seeing their shitty game everywhere

I used ME for a good 5 years until I jumped ship and started using XP. Pretty quickly I jumped out off that boat and used Vista for so long I can't remember. I used it for so long I skipped clean over Windows 7 and jumped onboard Windows 8. Then 8.1 and then 10.. .

duh, can you imagine the chaos if every employee had to face the blue screen of death a few times a day? I know yall popped in and ran 9x when Age of Empires came out... NT4 was rock stable if you found hardware with NT drivers. Windows 2000 was the stability of NT, with the GUI of 9x, and the terribly slow boot times of ME...and almost no manufacturers had released drivers for it when it came out and few ever did after, and I totally blame MS for that--so 2000 was great if you work for a company that orders 10,000 computers at a time and can dictate driver development--then MS cut off 2000 like a bad sore the day XP came out (in my opinion to force online activation nightmares...the medieval MS era from 2001 to 2015, when I spent my non-gaming time in Slackware)

@@Doing_Time Hard to tell your tone/intent from your text, but you are right about a few things: 9x stability was part of the issue, but in our case it had far more to do with our machines having to be in a domain rather than stability. While you can join 9x boxes to domains, they lacked some of the central management features that ITG (the IT department-- the "most feared and loathed group") want to employ. NT4 was my favorite OS ever until Windows 7 came out. (Win7 still holds that title). NT4 was very stable, but lacked plug-and-play support out of the box (though you could hack it in), not to mention USB. Both of these things became very important very quickly in the time between the NT4 and W2K releases. W2K boot time was *really* *really* bad, but Me boot times IME were pretty good. MSFT did drop both Me and 2k when XP was released, but if you think about it, consumer-friendly act in itself or not, no longer bifurcating the consumer and business markets with different products was the right answer. The mistake was really in releasing Me and 2K at all, not in placing focus on XP. Also, for what it's worth, very few rank-and-file people in the company (which decidedly included me) saw online activation in any more favorable light than consumers in general. I remember raging against it at work, as unpolitic as that definitely was. (I was young, and never very good at politics.) The "medieval era" as you put it, was really the Steve Ballmer era. Let's put the blame for that time where it belongs. Everything the company did was about fulfilling Steve's edict of protecting the Office and Windows kingdoms, and several of my projects were sh--canned as a result. It's notable that the stock price was flat for his entire tenure as well. Gates was a thousand times the visionary Ballmer ever was, and Nadella a thousand times the business man. (Sorry Steve!)

And Jobs was a million times the visionary Gates was, and Woz a billion times the engineer of all four of these other names-- combined! :D

​@@msthalamus2172 I agree with almost all of that...NT4 was there for me as long as all I wanted to do was code or type documents...multimedia in general and directx specifically was pathetic. 2000 was my favorite of all time (until windows 8/.1/10), but I grew to resent how MS made a mockery of those of us who bought 5 copies of 2000 pro the day it came out and then left us in the dust. XP fixed the boot times, but other than being better/longer supported I thought it was just a lot of eye candy additions. Vista introduced slow computing the likes of which hadn't been seen since floppy booting. They did fix the uac and validation issues a little bit by the last service pack, they refer to it as Windows 7. I can't say enough glowing things about directx, multimedia playback, virtualization, and driver support in windows 10...and I've only seen blue screens when hardware actually failed. I've changed out motherboards, GPUs, memory, etc. without any need to validate windows messages (in the medieval era, I actually had to re-validate for things like a USB wifi adapters and once a game pad...and online validation didn't always work so I'm on the phone to MS at 3am in the morning talking to someone about why I should be validated (eventually they got smart and automated the phone validation))

@@msthalamus2172 oops, didn't see your second comment until now. Well, the apple guys certainly liked to party... More of an Amiga man myself--how could stupid commodore screw that up? Ahh well, I prefer blackberries too... often the best products fail because it's all about image=Apple. I programmed an Apple IIe for a week and have never again been tempted to touch another Apple product...no backspace!?!?! I have to retype the entire line of code to get back to the typo!?!?! Ahhhhhh

Yep same, my girlfriend during that time in 03 had an HP that came preinstalled with ME, and was always having trouble it. after the 4th time doing a fresh install, I just went back to Windows 98 SE, and called it a day till I upgraded her to a newer machine I built myself with Windows XP on it.

Same here. Back in 2000 I've Installed it a couple of times in 2 days, and ended up restoring "ghosted" win98se back. I guess it depended on hardware. At that time I've had Celeron @400-500MHz and 64MB of RAM. The machine in this video is way more powerful than that, and I had about whart was a mid-range for that time... So maybe it just worked better on newer and better hardware.

@@robertosswald5896 Yes that was about mid range for sure, and it was not only the higher hardware needed to run ME proper, but the lack of ME drivers for the hardware, and people want to say well that was not MS fault, but in a way it was because MS was still using the 9X kernel, and failed to make ME fully compatible with 98/SE drivers of which most hardware up to that point had drivers for. MS was just a cluster F all around for so many.

@@CommodoreFan64 Exactly. Could be that Dan had luck with the fact that he had all the right drivers and powerful hardware so that's why it worked for him (the advantages of hindsight :) ).

I just pirated Windows 2000

Tbh, most of the issues were down to bad/inappropriate drivers being used. Often, companies would repackage windows 98 drivers for ME and say "f**k it, that'll do". The problem with that was how the windows driver model had changed between 98 and ME. It was close enough that old drivers could work (in theory), but they were different enough that it would cause a lot of crashes and incompatibility. In your case, you probably had the right drivers!

I agree. We were all laughing at Windows ME back in 2000, too

@@10MARC Yep, it was considered absolutely buttock-clenchingly piss poor when it was new. I tested it out a few weeks after it was released, and I reinstalled 98SE very soon afterwards. :)

Didn't remember those jokes - it does describe my (limited) experience with it though =)

I've always thought the same. On both real hardware and VMs, I've had way more luck with Windows Me being stable than I've ever had with Windows 98 (either edition). Definitely my preferred way to run Win9x things.

My parents bought it for me when I was child in 2000. Still was better than 98 at least when it came to play games

Thanks for saying what I thought. It's absolute ok, if you get money from your sponsors. But just be honest about it. This whole "friends" thing with youtube sponsors is awful. He's certainly not the only Yotuber, who does it like that. I was about to stop the video and unsubscribe. Maybe i will next time.

I see nothing wrong with it.

same!

She probably made the mistake of buying one of those NetBust Celerons which were terrible and didn''t even run XP properly. I ran vista on a Core 2 Duo for 5 years and it was fine. Core 2 is the same basic architecture still used in intel CPUs today so Core 2 Duos and Quads still work pretty well for a basic Windows 10 PC even in 2022. Just don't expect to do much current gaming with them, though a Quad will run fortnite ok with a discrete GPU. Vista and 7 were/are great because you can run most XP era games and even a lot of Win95/98 games on them and you can't on any later version of Windows. I still have a PC running 7 for that purpose. I even ran Windows 10 on a late P4 with hyperthreading not too long ago from a SSD and it was pretty useable as long as you didn't open 6 apps and 23 browser tabs at once. But the Celerons based on them had a completely emasculated cache and would run at 100% just with light use even on XP. Basically just constantly shuffling data back and forth between cache, memory and storage because they usually had way too little of all of those.

Windows Me was more the Windows 'meh' uninspiring Stuff in it. But working for the Housewife and stable. I was fixing a lot of SE Machines where the User was the Problem, not Me. Vista had the Problem of the OEM. 512MB minimum Ram 800 Mhz CPU Clock. In a time when the Athlon XP 2000+ /Celeron 2000 with 1Gig or 2 Gig was the normal PC. The OEM had forced it on Microsoft for the Netbook, and 512MB on an XP Machine was already in its way out. My experience was on release on a decent PC (Said Athlon XP 2000+ and 1.5gig Ram): A little slower thanks to the bug with the small files. Vista SP1 when i sold my then Gaming PC 2007 (Athlon XP 3200+ with 3Gig of Ram and ATI X1650XT so a upper End 2006 Gaming PC): Vista SP1 was about 30% faster than Windows XP with Barton Core Mods etc. On my C2D Vista SP1 x64 was literally running Circles around XP. Had Dual boot for about 1 Month then i threw XP away. (it helped that i had a special Asus Vista Ready Motherboard with fast Ready Boost Flash installed, it reduced the small files Problem and cutt down the Boottime to 12 Seks WITH a HDD) So for Vista: Oem minimum PC worse, as Vista used twice as much Memory and CPU Time as XP. Decent 2000 Class PC with 1-2 Gig Ram here was the point of equilibrium. Especially after SP1 A faster PC with 3Gigs of Ram and a 3000 class or better Prozessor with modern Grafikscard: 30% faster in 32bit Mode. A 64 Bit Dualcore with 4 Gig of Ram about twice as fast. But Intel was still selling the Celeron D 2ghz especially the Celeron 310 without Intel 64 till 2007 with the lackluster 910-945 Chipsets. They had so many produced that they had to pair the Atom with them, to get them sold. And Calling a Celeron 310 on a 910 Chipset a 2000 Class Prozessor would be... a exaggeration. Of course those Systems only got 512MB of Ram and Vista.

It had some issues with certain drivers, but the OS itself wasn't that bad and many users would have a nice experience

The problem was ME came on a lot of very low end prebuilt machines, and they often did not bother to make ME specific device drivers for them, thus forcing Win 98/SE drivers to run under ME, which tended to cause all kind of problems, then the fact many of them did not come with enough ram to run ME proper. eMachines was one of the worst companies about doing this back in the day.

The issue here is that the hardware makers should be making the drivers. No OS should expect to need to do that. Most instabilities were driver related. That is not the fault of the OS.

@@0311Mushroom That is true, but in the case of ME, when the hardware you had did not have proper drivers, and it kept having issues it did make the OS unusable, so many times when I had to fix computers for others, and I knew there was Win 98SE drivers I just went back the 98SE, and called it day well at least before XP came out, and got out of it's early days.

@@CommodoreFan64 once again, the fault with the hardware makers, not the OS itself.

nice

Man's gotta eat

I don't think I ever used ME. I do remember using 98 on an old desktop though. I think my mom mentioned trying 2000 and not liking it though. I do remember XP though. I never owned a Vista machine myself but I did get a Windows 7 laptop as a birthday present in 2010. Sadly I nuked the hard drive on it in 2014, coincidentally around the time my mom gave me a Windows 8 laptop she had gotten the year before (she got a tablet and we have a couple spare MacBooks). I still have that old Windows 8 machine (though I later put Windows 10 and/or Linux on it) but I am getting a new laptop since she assumed I had already gotten one by now.

98 to XP to Win7 Beta. I was soo desperate to get rid of stock Windows Vista on my new powerful Laptop with Geforce Go7700 512mb. I resorted to daily driving Beta Windows 7 and it was still faster and more stable than Vista.

@@Neojhun Thankfully I got to skip over Vista.

@@EpicB It was stock on the Asus A8JS 512mb VRAM version. A beast of a laptop yet it still got bogged down and strained under the buggyness of Vista. Win7 Release To Manufacturer was the first time it realy flew and showed me what it was capable of. Even Beta was a little buggy.

@@Neojhun Windows 7 was definitely one of the best Windows releases. I used Vista on at least one other person's computer but otherwise I never really got to experience it first hand.

Yeah, Windows 10 hates Pentium 3s...

D T ich hab das Windows 10 natürlich nicht auf meinem Pensum drei sondern auf meinem Dell Laptop

​@@MiamiMillionaire ja, ich verstehe dich, aber windows 10 runs sehr gut auf meine 10 year old intel atom 1.8ghz, 10 year old amd e-350 1.6ghz, und 9 year old dell i7 laptops...as well as auf meine newer i5 desktop und i3 laptop...fast, secure, and never crashes. Windows Me war bloated und ran much more slowly als Windows 98SE, und war und sitting ente fur spyware/malware und blau screened regularly

D T also auf meinem Laptop läuft Windows 10 so schlecht das ich zu Windows 7 zurückkehren werde. Bei mir stürzen ständig Programme wie Microsoft Word Ab, hatte es eh nur installiert Da DELL die passenden Hardware Treiber für Windows 7 nicht mehr auf ihrer Webseite hatte (was nicht wirklich von gutem Service spricht).

@@MiamiMillionaire Ja, Dell only has windows 7 drivers fur meine laptop--lol. It does sound like eine bad driver oder bad hardware. Fortunately, Windows 10 has built in drivers fur alle meine hardware except video...I download that at amd.com/support. On one of my netbooks I have to download usb 3 driver from downloadcenter.intel.com, und on another I have to disable driver enforcement und install the windows 7 nvidia video driver.

or run it on a lowend base emachines with a Celeron with 1mb of video ram for the onboard GPU, and a low 64 - 128MB of system RAM, and it was just as bad at causing all kind of system instability.

I did the same but I was stupid and carried on using the OS believing I could fix my way through issues and it would get better. It didn't get better. The most miserable computing time ever was had using that OS. Win2k was like a religious revelation coming back to a stable machine that could run for weeks without a reboot. It was glorious haha

Office 2000 was relased in 1999 (pretty much alongside Windows 98 SE)

With all due respect to Office 4.0 which had the best version of Word ever made, Office 97 was the best version of MS Office ever made....it was less feature rich but more stable than word perfect suite and better integrated and documented than star office. By 2000 a variety of office suites began to surpass MS Office in utility and appearance and corel found some stability before disappearing shortly not long after staroffice opensourced, leading to the open source office revolution and eventually to the superior open document formats and ushering in support for a variety of database management systems, and google started fidgeting around with free online office features while MS started coming up with weird subscription and online activation ideas before it finally sank into the ribbons abyss that only government employees and contractors now find themselves buried in...

No it added tons of new features

@@stanleybowman-hood6194 SP's have added features before, like 98 SE and XP SP2

"It is I, Bonzi..I thank you for raising me from my grave. Allow me to make for you a memorable internet experience....." Ad Ad Ad Ad Ad Ad virus, permanent ie search redirect, malware, bsod... "There you are. You are welcome. "

@@devil8975 Hahaha so true :)

You're lucky if you weren't old enough to be using Vista as a corporate operating system at work. It's hands down the worst Windows ever released. I think many people spend at least the same time phoning the company's IT support than doing work. Even brand new machines just out of the box crashed in simple tasks like waking up from a screen saver.

@@blue_jm Vista RTM is really bad. SP1 was okay - my cousin has a descent HP PC running Vista and he never had a major issue. SP2 is as solid and stable as 7 RTM, but that was too late unfortunately. Similar as Me, most of the crashing issue is caused by outdated drivers, especially GPU.

XP on me hanged a lot because i had 256MB of RAM back in the day. It worked fine when i upgraded to 1.5GB.

i still use windows 8.1 lol its better than 10 imo

@@youtubesucks1111 8.1 is good, but i hated Windows 8.

I went from Windows 7 to 10. How bad was 8?

Sorry. As a PC Builder for the past 25 years, Vista was crap. If you dropped about $3000 on RAM, a fast hard drive and a fast video card, you could make a tolerable machine. But for 85% of the machines it was sold on, it was garbage. It honestly felt like running on a machine about 1/3 the speed of what you owned

@@10MARC not sure what you ran it on then. My dual core 64 bit system was way faster than it was under XP. It ran circles around XP, and let me run 64 bit code also. As I stated, I bet you experience was with older single core 32 bit systems. 25 years, how nice. I already had that much before it came out, and have joked I should get "debug g=c800:5" tattooed on my arm.

@@0311Mushroom you hit the nail on the heads you had a nice dual core system probably with 8 or 16 gigs of RAM. Try running it on the common single core, 2 GB RAM systems that were affordable then. It was being bundled on systems it had no business even trying to boot on. Trust me. I was there selling and supporting machines then

@@10MARC and did I not say at the start it was great on current systems, but not on legacy ones? I would never suggest it on anything not 64 bit as a minimum. And told many to not upgrade because it provided them no benefit over XP.

People forget what they do with their computer. Video editing, multitasking, running multimedia application, rapidly relaunching applications that physically access devices. They do this and blame the OS without understanding how it works.