4 ms·
I ran WinME in production on a generic White Box PC for 4 years during the era of its introduction, I found it reliable and performant, I've never quite gotten
by Aloha 5y ago
I ran WinME in production on a generic White Box PC for 4 years during the era of its introduction, I found it reliable and performant, I've never quite gotten the reputation it has. I guess my experience with it was a unicorn.
- user3939382 5y agoThe first release crashed out of the box. They released a huge update for it very soon after it came out that was roughly the size of the base OS that made it functional.
- theandrewbailey 5y agoI had a similar experience with Vista (64-bit). I always ran it on at least a dual-core CPU with lots of RAM, and it was more stable than XP and ran fast enough. All the hardware I wanted to use with it worked. The only awesome things about it were the start menu search bar and Aero, otherwise it was fine (boring, did what it needed to). I seem to be the only one with that opinion.
- RalfWausE 5y agoSame here... back in the day we had the theory that the faster the PC running ME was, the less stable the system got. Can anyone confirm this?
- MisterTea 5y agoMy then brand new Sony Vaio Pentium 3 laptop running Me would BSOD at least once or twice a week for no particular reason at all. Once it was available, I installed Win 2000 and had zero issues ruling out faulty hardware. Counter to this, I also ran Vista without issue on various AMD machines for a few years. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. I blame drivers...
- Mountain_Skies 5y agoThe particular bits of hardware in your PC likely played well with the default device drivers. Maybe they were even reference designs. OS upgrades, especially of that era, tended to be randomly problematic mostly due to device driver issues.
- ralphc 5y agoI had (have, I put Win98 on it for gaming) an eMachines that came with ME and it worked fine, but that meant they tested it and had all the drivers for it so ymmv.