IMO, new company laptop with Win 7 - horrible o/s.

[choro]

Maybe I should say, since I have been rudely hounded by some guy called
"choro", that I haven't actually seen newspaper, in the ten or so
chippies in the two cities I'VE been to, used anymore.

In fact, I just can't remember the last time I saw it used in a chippy
for wrapping-up.

When I was a kid in the 1970s, I remember, the inner one or two layers
were specially purchased "chippy paper" with a lot of the absorbent
qualities of newspaper but none of the print.. Then the outer layer was
always newspaper.

But I seriously don't know if anyone anywhere uses it anymore!?

I'll let "choro" take over the conversation since he has something to
say so badly.

You surely mean "so rudely!" rather than "so badly".

BTW, could the "chippie paper" you refer to mean newsprint which despite
the "print" in its name actually means UNprinted paper used in printing
newspapaers! You know, the type that comes in what looks like gigantic
toilet rolls!

Here, let's look it up on dictionary.com...

news·print   

[nooz-print, nyooz-] Show IPA
–noun
a low-grade, machine-finished paper made from wood pulp and a small
percentage of sulfite pulp, used chiefly for newspapers.<

BTW, I learned English as a foreign language in my teens and now
specialize in teaching proper English to English people, I myself
preferring to use Americanisms on the Internet and Usenet, hence the ZEE
in "specialiZe". ;-)

But not to worry. I can teach British English spellings too!

Can offer you cheaper rates to take the sting out of my "rude
interruption" despite the fact that it was I who introduced the chippie
stuff into this conversation in the first place before YOU butted in!

No hard feelings. This is just good hearted old banter!

And if you can't take the heat, please disregard this posting of mine!

 

[SC Tom]

I agree with allot [most] of what you say, and found it most insightful.

But I have noticed that there are more similarities between WinME and XP
than ME is generally given credit for.

For instance - I could NEVER EVER get a USB pen-drive, or memory-stick, to
be recognised under Win98SE but is a piece of cake under WinME! Likewise,
XP has no problems in successfully recognising a pen-drive.

And to give one more example of similarity, WinME had built-in Zip-Folder
management like XP has (courtesy of the [Zipfldr.dll] file in both OSes)
whereas Win98SE and Win2K does not have this feature.

I think that,despite the obvious differences in NT vs. DOS build between
ME and XP, I still believe they share allot more than people think.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

It was refreshing to read this. For the longest time, I thought that I was
the only one that liked WinME. I found it to be faster and more stable than
any previous version of Windows I had used (back to 3.1). When I first
installed XP, I disliked it so much I went back to ME for some time while I
researched why I was having problems with XP (slow, freezing up, BSOD, not
necessarily in that order). I found out there was a problem with the MB
(even though the manufacturer said it was compatible, no problem), so I put
XP back on, tweaked a number of things, and have been running and liking it
a lot ever since.
I think WinME unnecessarily got a bad name and it just stuck. Granted, it
wasn't around for very long, but I never saw any of the problems I read
about on line and in the trade magazines on my system, or on any of the ones
we had at work.

 

[Alias]

I think WinME unnecessarily got a bad name and it just stuck. Granted,
it wasn't around for very long, but I never saw any of the problems I
read about on line and in the trade magazines on my system, or on any of
the ones we had at work.

Win Me was OK except that it would run out of resources and require a
reboot all too often.

 

[Tim Meddick]

I was in a similar situation, having used and loved Win98SE for about five
years, I was given a much more powerful computer running XP Pro.

I too, preferred my Win98SE installation and computer against my new XP
one, and avoided replacing the new PC on my desk, continuing with the old
for some months longer.

However, I have since used a WinME PC belonging to a client, and come to
realize that it is so much better than Win98SE, sharing, as it does, many
features and capabilities with XP.

I would go as far as to say that I believe there is more similarity between
WinME and XP than there is between WinME and Win98SE *or* Win2K!!

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

I agree with allot [most] of what you say, and found it most insightful.

But I have noticed that there are more similarities between WinME and XP
than ME is generally given credit for.

For instance - I could NEVER EVER get a USB pen-drive, or memory-stick,
to be recognised under Win98SE but is a piece of cake under WinME!
Likewise, XP has no problems in successfully recognising a pen-drive.

And to give one more example of similarity, WinME had built-in
Zip-Folder management like XP has (courtesy of the [Zipfldr.dll] file in
both OSes) whereas Win98SE and Win2K does not have this feature.

I think that,despite the obvious differences in NT vs. DOS build between
ME and XP, I still believe they share allot more than people think.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

It was refreshing to read this. For the longest time, I thought that I
was the only one that liked WinME. I found it to be faster and more
stable than any previous version of Windows I had used (back to 3.1).
When I first installed XP, I disliked it so much I went back to ME for
some time while I researched why I was having problems with XP (slow,
freezing up, BSOD, not necessarily in that order). I found out there was
a problem with the MB (even though the manufacturer said it was
compatible, no problem), so I put XP back on, tweaked a number of things,
and have been running and liking it a lot ever since.
I think WinME unnecessarily got a bad name and it just stuck. Granted, it
wasn't around for very long, but I never saw any of the problems I read
about on line and in the trade magazines on my system, or on any of the
ones we had at work.

 

[choro]

I was in a similar situation, having used and loved Win98SE for about
five years, I was given a much more powerful computer running XP Pro.

I too, preferred my Win98SE installation and computer against my new XP
one, and avoided replacing the new PC on my desk, continuing with the
old for some months longer.

However, I have since used a WinME PC belonging to a client, and come to
realize that it is so much better than Win98SE, sharing, as it does,
many features and capabilities with XP.

I would go as far as to say that I believe there is more similarity
between WinME and XP than there is between WinME and Win98SE *or* Win2K!!

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

Win ME was in fact not looked upon as a good OS by real professionals.A
sort of a retrograde move from Windows 98/2nd Edition.

Then Win XP came along and was a big step forward on Win ME.

What clients are you talking about? Hope you are not one of those
"experts" who leave the clients laptop to download and install updates
when the client has in fact lost some very important user files on his
hard disk!!! And this right in front of the client's eyes. I couldn't
believe my eyes. Oh, and he, I mean this computer "whiz-kid" ;-) thought
that FAT was superior to NTFS.

You fond of beer or something? Only, you keep saying cheers! No, nothing
wrong with having a beer or two but not on the job whether the job is at
the counter, desk or in bed! Beer and any alcoholic drink is NOT
conducive either to clear thinking or getting it up, uP, and UP!

(ROFL)
--
choro
*****

I agree with allot [most] of what you say, and found it most insightful.

But I have noticed that there are more similarities between WinME and
XP than ME is generally given credit for.

For instance - I could NEVER EVER get a USB pen-drive, or
memory-stick, to be recognised under Win98SE but is a piece of cake
under WinME! Likewise, XP has no problems in successfully recognising
a pen-drive.

And to give one more example of similarity, WinME had built-in
Zip-Folder management like XP has (courtesy of the [Zipfldr.dll] file
in both OSes) whereas Win98SE and Win2K does not have this feature.

I think that,despite the obvious differences in NT vs. DOS build
between ME and XP, I still believe they share allot more than people
think.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

It was refreshing to read this. For the longest time, I thought that I
was the only one that liked WinME. I found it to be faster and more
stable than any previous version of Windows I had used (back to 3.1).
When I first installed XP, I disliked it so much I went back to ME for
some time while I researched why I was having problems with XP (slow,
freezing up, BSOD, not necessarily in that order). I found out there
was a problem with the MB (even though the manufacturer said it was
compatible, no problem), so I put XP back on, tweaked a number of
things, and have been running and liking it a lot ever since.
I think WinME unnecessarily got a bad name and it just stuck. Granted,
it wasn't around for very long, but I never saw any of the problems I
read about on line and in the trade magazines on my system, or on any
of the ones we had at work.

 

[SC Tom]

*** Reply in line

Win ME was in fact not looked upon as a good OS by real professionals.A
sort of a retrograde move from Windows 98/2nd Edition.

***
Having done this for a number of years, I considered myself a "real
professional," and I still stand by my opinion and first-hand experience
with WinME on numerous workstations. I know that some others disagree, but
for me and the company I worked for, it was great. I had Win98SE at home (we
went from Win95 to ME at work), and was happy enough with it, but thought
WinME was a great leap forward. I agree with Tim that the similarity between
ME and XP was greater than any other Windows OS at the time other than NT.

But, going back to the OP's topic, I went from Vista to Win7 on my laptop,
and I think that's a great leap forward also. I find Win7 to much more user
friendly than Vista, and found it to be about as intuitive as XP was (one I
got that MB issue taken care of). I still run XP on my desktop PC since I
don't feel like going through the steps to get to Win7, but that's the only
reason. If there was a direct upgrade route from XP to Win7, I'd have Win7
on it, too.

Different strokes for different folks! That's what makes the world go 'round

--
SC Tom

Then Win XP came along and was a big step forward on Win ME.

What clients are you talking about? Hope you are not one of those
"experts" who leave the clients laptop to download and install updates
when the client has in fact lost some very important user files on his
hard disk!!! And this right in front of the client's eyes. I couldn't
believe my eyes. Oh, and he, I mean this computer "whiz-kid" ;-) thought
that FAT was superior to NTFS.

You fond of beer or something? Only, you keep saying cheers! No, nothing
wrong with having a beer or two but not on the job whether the job is at
the counter, desk or in bed! Beer and any alcoholic drink is NOT conducive
either to clear thinking or getting it up, uP, and UP!

(ROFL)
--
choro
*****

I agree with allot [most] of what you say, and found it most
insightful.

But I have noticed that there are more similarities between WinME and
XP than ME is generally given credit for.

For instance - I could NEVER EVER get a USB pen-drive, or
memory-stick, to be recognised under Win98SE but is a piece of cake
under WinME! Likewise, XP has no problems in successfully recognising
a pen-drive.

And to give one more example of similarity, WinME had built-in
Zip-Folder management like XP has (courtesy of the [Zipfldr.dll] file
in both OSes) whereas Win98SE and Win2K does not have this feature.

I think that,despite the obvious differences in NT vs. DOS build
between ME and XP, I still believe they share allot more than people
think.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.


It was refreshing to read this. For the longest time, I thought that I
was the only one that liked WinME. I found it to be faster and more
stable than any previous version of Windows I had used (back to 3.1).
When I first installed XP, I disliked it so much I went back to ME for
some time while I researched why I was having problems with XP (slow,
freezing up, BSOD, not necessarily in that order). I found out there
was a problem with the MB (even though the manufacturer said it was
compatible, no problem), so I put XP back on, tweaked a number of
things, and have been running and liking it a lot ever since.
I think WinME unnecessarily got a bad name and it just stuck. Granted,
it wasn't around for very long, but I never saw any of the problems I
read about on line and in the trade magazines on my system, or on any
of the ones we had at work.

 

[Alias]

I was in a similar situation, having used and loved Win98SE for about
five years, I was given a much more powerful computer running XP Pro.

I too, preferred my Win98SE installation and computer against my new XP
one, and avoided replacing the new PC on my desk, continuing with the
old for some months longer.

However, I have since used a WinME PC belonging to a client, and come to
realize that it is so much better than Win98SE, sharing, as it does,
many features and capabilities with XP.

I would go as far as to say that I believe there is more similarity
between WinME and XP than there is between WinME and Win98SE *or* Win2K!!

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

And the Windows Me newsgroup was one of the most civil newsgroups around.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per N. Miller:

But it isn't much different from Vista, and isn't so difficult to get
accustomed to the changes from XP.

Which begs the question: how come Microsoft moves the furniture
around with each new release?

If it's just me spending a couple hours getting used to where
once-familiar functions have been moved to for no apparent
reason, that's one thing. But for a company with 12,000 people
using Windows, that seems like a significant cost.

I would have expected MS to have a review board. If a developer
wants to change a new Version's UI from the previous version
they'd have to justify it to the board.

Apparently not.... but why not?

 

[philo]

From the looks of it on the weather.com maps, you may very well be
through with W&P before the snow clears. Big fun in Chi-town, too; all
the poor people who had to abandon their vehicles on the roads are now
having them towed by the city. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Then, on the bright side (for me anyhow), it was 71 and mostly sunny
here today. Yet another reason I abandoned life in Detroit and Baltimore
years ago

Well It was back to work today...
the Wisconsin freeway and Illinois toll-roads were fine today...but
there were a lot of cars off in the ditches...
must have been a lot of idiots out yesterday

sheesh

 

[choro]

Per N. Miller:

Which begs the question: how come Microsoft moves the furniture
around with each new release?

If it's just me spending a couple hours getting used to where
once-familiar functions have been moved to for no apparent
reason, that's one thing. But for a company with 12,000 people
using Windows, that seems like a significant cost.

I would have expected MS to have a review board. If a developer
wants to change a new Version's UI from the previous version
they'd have to justify it to the board.

Apparently not.... but why not?

Don't you get it? In their minds they believe they have to "re-arrange
the furniture" as you put it to fool people into believing that they are
getting something MORE superior than it actually is.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per choro:

Don't you get it? In their minds they believe they have to "re-arrange
the furniture" as you put it to fool people into believing that they are
getting something MORE superior than it actually is.

Cynic that I see myself as, that was my first reaction.

But I can't imagine they're fooling the IT departments of large
corporations.

 

[choro]

Per choro:

Cynic that I see myself as, that was my first reaction.

But I can't imagine they're fooling the IT departments of large
corporations.

Ah but I am most probably a lot older than you and a lot more of a
cynic. Oft times acerbic too! It's good to be a cynic though. Who wants
to be a simpleton except simpletons?

 

[N. Miller]

Win Me was OK except that it would run out of resources and require a
reboot all too often.

In my experience, WinMe was better at recovering from resource depletion
than Win98SE (both shared that failing).

 

[choro]

Same here. Plus surly.


I'm not so sure, though.


LOL. Maybe it depends on who is happiest in life?? (Sometimes I
wonder if that would be the best blessing, no matter what the cost.

You know what? You might be just right!

No, I know you are damn well right!

Problem is, if you are not born a simpleton you can't take refuge in
simpletonland! Access denied!

But who is happier?

Ah! That's a different question.

 

[Alias]

In my experience, WinMe was better at recovering from resource depletion
than Win98SE (both shared that failing).

Ah, the good old days.

 

[N. Miller]

Didn't WinME also have the limited 64K heaps for resources like Win98 did?

Yes. But, with WinME, about half the time I could recover by closing
applications until a warm reboot would work, where Win98SE would just fall
over and require a forced cold boot.