Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mozek who wrote (49260)	9/14/2000 2:31:51 AM
From: JC Jaros	Respond to of 74651

Jeez mozek, I'm not even paying that much attention (as is anyone else), but there was something to that effect in an online Newsweek article and Dell was having big problems getting Windows ME to work with their machines. --- It wouldn't be in Encarta. You can use a search engine, right? --- Speaking of sidestepping questions, did you not know that C# was just re-named and re-worked and re-fried 'Cool'? -JCJ

To: mozek who wrote (49260)	9/14/2000 5:27:36 AM
From: Dave	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

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."

To: mozek who wrote (49260)	9/14/2000 5:39:49 AM
From: Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Mike, Here's another excerpt from a review of Windows ME: <http://www.byte.com/column/BYT20000801S0006> "Windows ME is Not for Me" By Andy Patrizio "After spending a month playing with the final code, I find myself back running Win 98 SE. Windows ME adds a lot of features that I had minimal or no use for, removed things I needed in my daily routine, and in general, was bloated, used more memory, and was actually more crash-prone." "The final kicker is the lack of stability. Not a day went by without a Kernel32.dll failure in third-party applications, and I was getting constant out-of-memory errors. The PC Health feature was no help at figuring out what was causing the failure. That was enough for me." Okay Mike, I did your homework for you. Now it's your turn. I challenge you to search the Net for a single review of Windows ME, not on a MSFT web page or paid for by MSFT, where the reviewer actually installed Windows ME, and likes it. Good luck!