Windows95 vs WindowsME
- Thread starter Stlr22
- Start date
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
95 was more unstable for me, but XP is a whole lot better than either of them for stability, mainly because if a program crashes, it very, very rarely has the ability to take the whole system down like it can under 95/98/ME.
95 is more unstable because it has none of the bugfixes of 98. ME is simply unstable because it adds even more crap to 98. So yeah, if you have to go 9x, go 98SE.
95 doesn't support USB.
Go with 98SE or Me.
Go with 98SE or Me.
95 isn't supported by ANYTHING these days. DirectX, drivers for graphics, sound, other hardware too, even games games; everything needs 98 or better.
Anyway, it was so long since I used 95 I don't remember how much it crashed (but I think it was quite a lot), and besides, I used totally different hardware then. Isn't a single component that remains common with my first system. When comparing 98 and ME however I have to say ME has more functionality and looks marginally better, but is vastly more unstable. It suffers incredibly from "windows entrophy" where stuff just decays and stops functioning properly after a couple months. This gets gradually worse until the system is completely unfixable and unusable and needs to be reinstalled.
XP is like, a MILLION times better than ME, even considering the 100 or so megabytes of updates and patches one needs to apply on a fresh install. Don't understand why I waited so long to upgrade, ME is SO bad in comparison!
The times I've ended up with an unusable box with XP can easily be counted on the fingers of one hand, and most of it is connected with games/the graphics driver crashing on me, probably due to overclocking.
Nobody should ever think of any other windows OS than XP, unless the hardware is woefully antiquidated.
Anyway, it was so long since I used 95 I don't remember how much it crashed (but I think it was quite a lot), and besides, I used totally different hardware then. Isn't a single component that remains common with my first system. When comparing 98 and ME however I have to say ME has more functionality and looks marginally better, but is vastly more unstable. It suffers incredibly from "windows entrophy" where stuff just decays and stops functioning properly after a couple months. This gets gradually worse until the system is completely unfixable and unusable and needs to be reinstalled.
XP is like, a MILLION times better than ME, even considering the 100 or so megabytes of updates and patches one needs to apply on a fresh install. Don't understand why I waited so long to upgrade, ME is SO bad in comparison!
The times I've ended up with an unusable box with XP can easily be counted on the fingers of one hand, and most of it is connected with games/the graphics driver crashing on me, probably due to overclocking.
Nobody should ever think of any other windows OS than XP, unless the hardware is woefully antiquidated.
Agreed. I'm currently using Win/2K with service pack 4. I've had BETTER overall compatibilty with 2K then with XP Pro. Several games have worked in 2K but didn't in XP Pro. The "updated" drivers for my cam for XP worked like crap. Also, there seems to be some other programs that keep "not responding" and I can't figure out which ones they are. I'm not advanced enough yet to read those files and understand them.
The layout it another issue with XP. I just couldn't do it. I'm so used to the "classic" view. The colors are terrible. Looks like a pathetic attempt to match Apple's O/S......but fell way short.
The layout it another issue with XP. I just couldn't do it. I'm so used to the "classic" view. The colors are terrible. Looks like a pathetic attempt to match Apple's O/S......but fell way short.
You won't find USB drivers for many products for Win95. Sigmatel only supports Win98SE, and forward. Win95 has yet another USB driver model than Win98, which has a different one than WinMe, which has a different one than Win2k/Xp.