On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 01:31:26 +0000, Paul Hopwood wrote:

>I wouldn't dispute it's better but it's *not* an upgrade in the true
>sense because Windows Me is newer than 2000 so you can't run Windows
>2000 as an upgrade and migrate from Me - you have to do a "clean"
>install.

We're quibbling. :-)

IMO, the release date has nothing to with it, unless you are in fact moving
to another version of the _same_ OS. If you move to something different and
better, you are "upgrading" in my book, regardless of the release dates of
the OSs involved. Moving from ME to 2K is moving to something different and
better (much better IMO.)

It doesn't matter that WinME is newer than Win 2000*. The two are completely
different OSs. Win ME is a DOS in fancy packaging**. Win2000 is something
else entirely - it's not a DOS at all. (It's an upgrade of WinNT4 ***, if you
want to technical about it.) Migrating from the DOS-based Windows to any
version of NT is an "upgrade" IMO, in the sense that you are moving from a
soso OS to something better.

But you're right - it's not possible to upgrade from ME to 2K in the usual
sense, but only because it it involves a change in OS architecture, not
because of their respective release dates.

* Win ME is really just Win98 with bugfixes.

** Both NT and OS/2 use DOS emulators to run DOS programs. Win3x/etc use the
DOS that underlies them to run DOS programs (but it's better to shut down
Win3/etc and run DOS programs from the command line or from DOSShell.) You
can't "shut down" NT or OS/2 and run a DOS program from the command line -
their command lines are simply not DOS, even though they look like DOS.

*** The NT series of OSs is an outgrowth of an MS-IBM alliance that was
supposed to produce a radically new OS for x86 CPU chips, one that would
enable true multi-tasking on a desktop machine. The result was OS/2 1.x. Then
there was a parting of the ways, but both MS and IBM retained rights to the
core code of OS/2. MS eventually developed WinNT (which was upgraded to
W2K/XP), and IBM developed OS/2 2.x (which was upgraded to OS/2 Warp.) Large
parts of the core code of both NT and OS/2 is owned by both MS and IBM, and
IBM also has rights to a large chunks of Win3x. Both WinNT and OS/2 are true
multitasking OSs unlike Win3x/9x/ME, which was little more than nice looking
menu system for DOS. NT and OS/2 have diverged so much that you can't run
apps designed for one on the other.

Hope this clarifies things.


--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll)

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 01:31:26 +0000, Paul Hopwood wrote:

>Windows 95 could hardly be described a version of Windows 3.x and Me
>is a Windows 9x variant, thus very different to Windows 3, in terms of
>structure and usability. Thought it's probably fair to say that Me
>was the *worst* revision of Windows 9x ever released! ;-)

Sorry, I disagree. Win9x/ME are still fundamentally versions of DOS. True,
there was an effort made to improve the "multitasking" of Win3.x, but
otherwise, they were essentially the same. There was reduction in DOS
capabilities in the move to the 9x series, and that IMO was Very Dumb Thing -
most of the woes of trying to use the 9x OSs for serious work are due to
their DOS limitations. The 32-bit capability was an add-on - at its core the
9x OS was still 16-bit. By contrast, NT was designed as a 32-bit OS from the
ground up (it retains some 16-bit code in its hardware layer, but that was
concession to the hardware available at the time.)


--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll)

On 10 Jan 2004 15:54:54 -0800, lzf wrote:

>My question has always been: How has MS avoided ME
>out-the-wazoo suits for as long as it has?

AFAICT, enterprise users did not get ME - home users did. (Enterprise users
were already on WinNT 3 or 4, the predecessor of 2K.). And most of those
home users got it bundled with a cheap machine that they bought at Wally's or
Best Buy or some such place. Thus, they didn't know they were getting crap,
not having anything better to compare it with, and they put their problems
down to their own inexperience. How do I know? Because that's what I heard
from people who needed help with their computers and thought I could provide
it. :-) You can't get a class action suit going unless you have c ritical
mass of people who not only believe they've been burned, but also have some
facts and experience on which to base that opinion.

BTW, I personally know not one person who upgraded from 98 to ME, but most
that I know who had 95 went to 98.


--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll)

(E-Mail Removed) (lzf) wrote:

>> This is not an Upgrade. Win 2k came out before Win ME. This is a downgrade.
>> Downgrades are performed by formatting and reinstalling.

>I can't help but add my two cents, here. Just because something is
>prior does not mean that it is inferior.

I doubt most people would disagree with you. I suspect Danny was
replying from a technical stand-point rather than being critical of
the operation system.

Windows Me to 2000 is NOT an Upgrade as far as Windows 2000 Setup is
concerned because 2000 was released prior to Me and SETUP is unable to
detect and perform an upgrade an existing Windows Me installation.

I would think that many people, depending on their requirements, will
agree that Windows 2000 is a superior OS to Windows Me but it's not an
"upgrade" in the technical sense of the word.

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

[ Mail: (E-Mail Removed) ]
[ WWW: http://www.hopwood.org.uk/ ]