Talk:Windows Me

System Restore info bogus
The information on system restore is totally bogus!


 * 'System Restore caused a number of major problems' -- problems not major
 * 'performance, which some regard as never being a Windows strength in the first place, was noticeably reduced' -- performance not impacted; system restore activities only occur at specific times.
 * 'and because it automatically recreated previous system states on every reboot, it made it very difficult for the non-expert user to implement a desired change, even a necessary one such as removing a virus or an unwanted program.' -- Totally wrong. System Restore only restores things if the user selects it upon booting in Safe Mode or from the UI.

--- As someone who fixes computers for a living, I highly disagree with the above, and believe that whomever wrote that has never had to fix ME using SR (or in spite of it), and probably has has very little experience with ME in the first place. SR excels at restoring virii and problems; look on the web pages of Symantec and other AV companies where they explicitely instruct users on how to turn off SR. I definitely consider restoring a virus to a clean system to be a "major problem". Also, the "performance not impacted" claims depend on the SR activities happening only in idle times; this is, of course, an ideal that happens much less often then would be desired, and therefore adds to the the already painful slowness in the 9x series. This is without even mentioning the disk usage. The poster may have a point that SR should not be happening "automatically", but I've had calls where it seems to have done so (although I can't completely rule out user error) and therefore I, like all other professional IT techs, do not trust it.

The whole paragraph in question was worded too complicatedly and I couldn't make much sense of it. I rewrote it in a way which I hope is more NPOV. - Brian Kendig 20:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOV issue: Clearly negative article bias
Quote: "Windows Me was initially positively received, but it soon garnered a negative reception from users due to stability issues, and is now viewed by many as one of the worst operating systems Microsoft has ever produced." -- This is clearly introducing negative bias into the article. You could just as well write that is was viewed "by many" as the best OS ever produced. Who defines "many" and which group of people gets to showcase its personal opinion in the article, stated as fact? In my opinion Windows ME had a lot of good things going for it, as is reflected by the initial positive reception of ME at its time, i.e. by the people who actually used it on a daily basis when and in the 2-5 years after it came out, as opposed to internet kids today who only know it from hearsay or by installing it into an instable and mostly incompatible virtual machine ... So this should be fixed. You could also incorporate a section which explains why some people have a negative opinion of it, like the scarcity of drivers for some contemporary hardware or the lack of a true DOS-mode out of the box (important for retro gamers at the time). Wikipedia is not intended for voicing personal perceptions, but for stating the facts, and objectively ME was the most advanced and user friendly OS of the entire 9x series. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

MS DOS 8.0 redirects here ...
I think this is pretty senseless, since clearly MS DOS 8.0 is a fully functional version of MS DOS and a pretty remarkable one, too, as it is the very last version of it as well. The fact that it only came bundled with Windows ME does not justify negating it its own Wiki entry, as it can be used as a standalone OS as well. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

remove
can someone remove the windows 9x branch discontinued text? thank you. 174.27.3.169 (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)