Fine Mike, if you insist... I'll post some juicy excerpts from one example for you. This is my favorite:
<http://www.zdnet.com/special/stories/main/0,11415,2615110,00.html>
"Why Windows Me is not for me"
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Sm@rt Partner, says:
"With the heart of the safety system activated, ... the same machine would see its overall speed drop by more than 30 percent from one run to the next with little rhyme or reason."
"Worse still, ...even when Me was behaving, it still ran slower than Windows 98SE with Internet Explorer 5.5 on the same machine. Throw in that high-usage 30 percent ball and chain, and you're talking about a computing experience that's going to make you want to kick your monitor off the desk."
"...I found that despite all the safety padding, my systems were actually less stable with Me than they were with Windows 98SE. Talk about annoying! The problem is that while ME is supposed to be the newer, better desktop Windows, it has worse device support than Windows 98SE. That's compounded with what appears to be shoddy workmanship. The operating system is simply more prone to the blue screen of death and other less-annoying crashes."
"...With Me, ... Microsoft has reached a new low. Me was rushed to the market too soon." |
