don't you remember the March spark? where some places reported
 
Windows Codenamed: Millennium has been cancelled
 
well, they were going to cancel it, then they saw that it was already too far to stop now. In my view, it was meant to be already installed, OEM preinstall on new machines, it was never meant to upgrade from 98/98SE.
 
Anyways, it's the last 9x OS anyways. And XP ain't gonna pull no stuff. Plus, every OS has security holes, Linux has just as much, if not more holes, they are just not make as public as MS. If Linux was the top dealing, every time a little hole showed up, it would be hyped up just like things are with MS now. XP - thee future. Screw the rest of the old windows os's.
 
[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 20 February 2001).]

You can choose what components you want in 2K. There is a file called... er.. s.. something .inf (sorry, not on a 2K machine atm so I cant check what its called).
 
You edit it, removing all the instances of the word 'hide', and then use Add/Remove Programs to remove (or add) the stuff you want.
 
I'll post the files name in here later if no one else has by then.
 
--Cynan.

If you want to add/remove components that Win2000 doesn't allow you then use the SEARCH function for this forum and find the answer.

X:/winnt/inf/sysoc.inf
-----------------
[Version]
Signature = "$Windows NT$"
DriverVer=11/14/1999,5.00.2183.1
 
[Components]
NtComponents=ntoc.dll,NtOcSetupProc,,4
Display=desk.cpl,DisplayOcSetupProc,,6
Fax=faxocm.dll,FaxOcmSetupProc,faxsetup.inf,hide,7
NetOC=netoc.dll,NetOcSetupProc,netoc.inf,,7
iis=iis.dll,OcEntry,iis.inf,,7
com=comsetup.dll,OcEntry,comnt5.inf,hide,7 ; temp fix for 64-bits
dtc=comsetup.dll,OcEntry,dtcnt5.inf,hide,7 ; temp fix for 64-bits
IndexSrv_System = setupqry.dll,IndexSrv,setupqry.inf,,7
msmq=msmqocm.dll,MsmqOcm,msmqocm.inf,,6 ; temp fix for 64-bits
ims=imsinsnt.dll,OcEntry,ims.inf,,7
fp_extensions=fp40ext.dll,FrontPage4Extensions,fp40ext.inf,,7 ; temp fix for 64-bits
iisdbg=iisdbg.dll,ScrptDbg,iisdbg.inf,,7 ; temp fix for 64-bits
imagevue=ockodak.dll,ImagingOcEntry,imagevue.inf,hide,7 ; temp fix for 64-bits
 
; old base components
Games=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,games.inf,HIDE,7
AccessUtil=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,accessor.inf,HIDE,7
CommApps=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,communic.inf,HIDE,7
media_clips=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,mmopt.inf,HIDE,7
MultiM=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,multimed.inf,HIDE,7
AccessOpt=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,optional.inf,HIDE,7
Pinball=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,pinball.inf,HIDE,7
MSWordPad=ocgen.dll,OcEntry,wordpad.inf,HIDE,7
 
 
[Global]
WindowTitle=%WindowTitle%
WindowTitle.StandAlone=%WindowTitle_Standalone%
 
 
[strings]
WindowTitle=Windows 2000 Professional Setup
WindowTitle_Standalone=Windows Components Wizard
------------------------------
Remove all of the "HIDE"'s and save

windows me has to many bugs in it

Windows Me is just one big bug. I think its a nasty operating system, you may aswell call it a virus, thats a better description of Windows Me.

A virus huh? I wasn't aware that virus' have platforms that enable users to run apps, play games, surf the net, route dsl/cable modems, set up LANs, do graphics, program, and etc. etc.....
 
Sounds to me like it is an OS, not a virus.
 
ME does not suck. If you don't like it, then don't run it. Its as simple as that. I use it for my games. Its a great gaming OS, therefore, to me, it has a very good purpose. Quit bashing it if you don't know what you are talking about. Give MS a little credit....geez. Why don't you just install linux and see how far you get with that....then maybe you guys will appreciate ME and MS in general.

Here's my theory to why ME has ticked off so many people:Its "improved" stability is a problem, because its not totally free of dos, but doesnt have enough of a footing in dos. WinME will be a little faster than Win2k because of the cores the OSs are based on. Reportedly, ME has had more problems in the first 3 months than 98se did in its first year. I personally had more problems with ME than any other version of Windows. I had more crashing specifically a problem. I am in the process of testing it on my test computer, but I am still wary of this OS. I had my doubts about Win2k, but now IMO it is a very capable OS as far as gaming. Yes, there are problems, but the most excellent networking, stablility and absence of the bloated Media Player 7 and Movie Maker are reasons enough to stay with Win2k. Unless you really need dos, there is no reason to go to ME if your gonna upgrade from 98. Either stick with 98 or go to 2000.
Unless the requirements for XP drop, I doubt I'll jump to that when It comes out. There is no reason why you cannot run an OS on 128 megs of ram or less. The NT core is heftier than the 98 core, but still that is no excuse to bog down the OS. Just because we have hardware to push around an OS, doesnt mean that the OS has to require a heavier hardware requirement. ME is bad, mainly because of the sheer number of programs that had to be updated just to work properly. That is unacceptable for users to have to deal with. Its like buying a car and having to "upgrade" you garage to accomodate it. ME does suck, and MS shouldnt have released it until they worked out more of these compatiblity bugs.

Haru.
you seem like an ignorant 'weak user'
as opposed to a power user. Anyone who has tried to get something decent from ME has suffered freezes, desktop dumps, bsod etc etc. It sucks. 98se was better for games. ME is a resource hog for such a crap OS. If you can call it that. It is in my opinion, as bad as 95.

HarU - if you don't agree with the thread, then don't post.

Quote:<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cardinal:
Haru.
you seem like an ignorant 'weak user'
as opposed to a power user. Anyone who has tried to get something decent from ME has suffered freezes, desktop dumps, bsod etc etc. It sucks. 98se was better for games. ME is a resource hog for such a crap OS. If you can call it that. It is in my opinion, as bad as 95.</font>

Aahh, newbies. Mabye learn how to correctly install an OS then becuase I can fire up my PIV system up to 1700MHz+, frag away at UT, edit photos, make custom objects for games in 3dmax, update my website all day long and not have a single crash in WinMe. And as for 'weak users' vs 'power users'- just beat my 10,127 WinMe 3dmark score in Win2k and then tell me about 'weak users' vs 'power users'.

And as for a "resource" hog- Mabye if you had just the slightest clue on how to tune the OS to give back resources after closing down programs:



After not being rebooted all day. Nuff said.

Hey, watch it pal! After all this site is more about Win2k than ME. ME has some major issues that should have been worked out before MS released it. The 9x line is different than the the NT/2000 line, with the latter much more stable and better at using memory. And remember, 3dmark is ONE benchmark. I will say though, because the 9x line is geared more towards gaming in the first place, thats the only reason you would be able to get a score that high. Now see what you get with the POS P4 in Win2k. I hope you know that the current P4 will be incompatible with the next version of the P4 due to a different socket layout. Sayanora, sucker!
You are some lucky SOB, because ME has given me nothing but hell. Plus, I noticed a speed drop under ME from 98.

Cardinal.....a weak user??? What the hell are you talking about???
 
Don't even go there....ive given a lot of advice and helped a lot of people on this board since dec. of 99. What have you done? I think you need to shut your mouth cuz you don't know what you are talking about. Did you not even read my post? Did you just decide to flame the first person that showed indifference from the "complaining horde" of people here? I hate when newbies like yourself get on these boards and act like they are so godly at computers. Why don't you read my post again dumba$$. Eddie, you should read my post again too. Maybe you misunderstood it. I did not say i didn't agree with the post. The topic of this post by brian was a question asking others what they thought. I just expressed my feelings of the OS, which is what was desired judging by the title and the posts of this topic. So, you really sound stupid when you make comments like that. (don't reply with something like "yeah, well you're a blah blah blah" like you usually do cuz i don't feel like getting into a 20 post argument with you AGAIN!
 
WinMe (just like 98) has its uses. And according to cardinal, "everyone that uses winme has problems," but, thats funny, since EVERYONE does, why don't Questionairre and I have them?? You shouldn't make generalizations like that. You sound stupid after them.
 
Questionairre, thank you for supporting what i said....seems someone else here isn't just one-minded on what OS to use. I am getting so sick of all these people that won't use any other OS than Win2k. Frankly, its just stupid. I have a Red Hat 7 box, 2 win2k boxes, and 1 winme box. Now, why would you flame someone like me?? When i support and use the same OS that all of you use!!! I am just here to enlighten all of you "pack followers" that there are other options and other OSes that are useful for certain things. I guess thats it.....for now.....

It may be a good idea to point out that this site is NTcompatible, not MEcompatible. Ive found that there are problems with any OS, but Win2k has less of them in comparison with ME. The OS should do a fairly decent job of resource management right out of the box without any tweaks. I like to suck out performance from an OS, but there are some things that should already be ready to go.
ME had compatability issues which hurt it more than anything else. Personally, you shouldnt have to upgrade every bit of software you own just so you can run the software.
You two are obviously well knowledged in the area of the Win9x line. I wish that tech support like what is put on the help menus, would be more intelligent.
You have your OS, I have mine.
 
BTW, dont forget about Linux, cuz its MS #1 enemy right now...according to Steve Ballmer.

"It may be a good idea to point out that this site is NTcompatible, not MEcompatible."
 
Except for this particular forum where we get to talk about the pros and cons of the Win9x line. That is why you posted this thread right???
 
"Ive found that there are problems with any OS, but Win2k has less of them in comparison with ME."
 
You are probably in the same boat as a lot of people there brian. But does that make Win2k better than WinME in all aspects??? No, it doesn't. Win2k is extremely useful in the business place and pretty useful at home, depending on what you are using it for. WinMe, on the other hand, is good for fewer things, but its still useful. I use it for game compatibility and speed. Other people use it for usefel aspects such as Internet Connection Sharing for home networks (cuz not all people are good enough with the NT kernal to set up domains and such). There are good things with all OS'es, like i said before. I use Linux for webserving and firewalls because of stability. But, it is not as good as Win2k in other aspects. You see my point here?
 
"ME had compatability issues which hurt it more than anything else. Personally, you shouldnt have to upgrade every bit of software you own just so you can run the software."
 
I don't know how you set up your OS or what software you are using, but this statement is a little absurd. WinMe's compatibility, just like win98's, is precisely the reason i use it, along with many other people.
 
Well, maybe this next paragraph will shed some light on my opinions and valid points.
 
I work every day configuring Win2k Pro, Server and Advance Server, along with Solaris 7 primarily, and many distributions of linux. I love win2k at work. I administer a domain of about 120 users. A complete Win2k domain. It runs great. It is very easy to work with, its fairly simple for the end users, and it is stable enough to run a company. I would NEVER EVER in my life plague my domain with a WinMe or a Win98 box. It just means more work for me. Also, like i said earlier, i have two win2k boxes at home running a home network of about 4 machines. (workin on a game server right now to be fifth.) But, I do have my gaming machine which consists of WinMe. Anyways, my point is....OSes have certain uses. There are benefits to OSes that most of the people on these boards won't ever find out because they are too closed-minded. It was the same way when Win2k first came out and everyone said it sucked for games, when in fact it did not suck, it just wasn't fully compatible yet. When people make posts like this, i like to support the "underdog" because no one else will. The reason for that is because they haven't experienced it enough to find the benefits it has, even if the benefits are inconsequential to most people. Unfortunately, when i do this, i always get the little kids that start "flaming" me because they think i am bashing win2k. I would never bash win2k, but i also would never give up on an OS without finding its benefits first. I hope that helps clear my points/opinions up for you guys.
 
-HarU

The only problems i had with WinME were when it was first released, and that was due to driver related problems. After ME compatible drivers came out I had no problems with WinME. Recently I have ditched winME for the XP beta, not because winME sux but because XP appeals to me more.

Did I also mention that there are 4 computers where I live. ME has given me the worst time as far as networking. However, the Win9x line wasnt really directed at networking.
One OS is good for some people, but for others its not.
I have had significantly less problems with Win2k and 98 than in comparison with ME.
I, and the rest of the people here, are not weak users just because we got fed up with ME. I would rather run 98 than ME, and I tell people not to upgrade to ME, and if they are I tell them to go to Windows 2000, unless they have a bunch of DOS apps, in that case I tell them to stay put.
 
Let me make this clear:
USING ONE OS OVER ANOTHER DOES NOT MAKE SOMEONE SUPERIOR TO ANOTHER USING A DIFFERENT OS, NOR DOES IT MAKE ONE PERSON A POWER USER AND THE OTHER ONE NOT.
 
Remember: one size does not fit all.
 
I had very big doubts about Win2k: it was a completely different thing than 98. Placement of things were different, some apps like MSConfig were nonexistant. But I eventually started liking what it was.
I am not sticking up for any OS just because its the underdog. I like Linux, but to get anything to run with a lot of new stuff is a problem. Linux is a stable OS, but it has a long way to go until it can really even begin to compete with Windows on anything other than a server setting.
Windows 2000 simply had a much better system for what I was doing.
The right OS for you is not necessarily the right one for me. I had a bad experience with ME, so I switched.
You would do well to remember that this is based on opinions, and not what you or I want to hear.
This topic isnt to p*ss off people, but to let me see how many people were turned off by ME.
ME is probably better for the home user in almost everything. It was designed for gaming, Win2k was not. I have found that things run just as well on it.
The choice of OS is a personal choice: go with whatever suits your taste. Im not gonna force feed people an OS they dont want.

Still, my favorite build of win9x was first edition(4.10.1998.6), fav beta build was 4.10.1691 RC0, yea it had a few bugs, but i used it for a long time until i got the final version.

Quote:<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Brian Frank:
I bought the promo upgrade to ME from Win98 only. TONS of problems. Tried a clean install, still problems. More crashes than 98, more blue screens. When I found out that Win2k supported all my apps except for a few dos games, I jumped ship.
Another thing that irritated me was that stupid movie maker-which I have no use for and could not uninstall. Microsoft sure has some balls to force stuff on that you cant uninstall. That and the countless problems. Did I mention problems were rampant...I dont remember since its been a while since I converted to 2000. I know you cant pick and choose 2000 components, but with ME considering it was an upgrade to the 9x line, I foolishly thought that Microsuck would allow you to pick and choose what you wanted on YOUR COMPUTER. Maybe Im wrong here, but personally I dont need this company "...anticipating consumers needs." If MS pulls this sort of BS on WinXP, Linux may get a jump on MS.
One thing I dont like already is MS .NET strategy dealing with subscription based OSes. I personally think that a one time fee ought to be enough. For some people, this may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but this could cause some major issues. Just look at the security patches MS is dealing out like cards. Little mistakes like this could be even greater with the .NET strategy.
Im not happy with MS right now. Win2k is the best OS theyve put out, but the way theyre going support for it is gonna be dropped in 2 years or less. </font>

Nah, no problems here! Do this and no issues. Update all of your BIOS' be it motherboard and video card etc., have updated drivers ready for everything. FDISK then format the drive after backup. Install Win 98. Then fully update Win 98 via Windows update @ microsoft.com. Load your "new" drivers up too for everything including your mobo chipset drivers the latest ones. Do not install any applications yet. After doing all that. It takes awhile, then upgrade to Win ME. After it updates, then go back and reapply Win Me updates via microsoft.com WIndows update. Clean all temp files etc. out of C:\Windows\Temp. Defrag after done. Now reboot and then start installing your applications. After you finish you should defrag again. Voila! You are ready to rock and roll! Everything fully updated and Win Me is rock solid and fully stable. You can't just go in sticking this and that wherever man. What do you think your CPU is a freaking calculator? LOL! ANyway, try it I bet it works. Lots of work, but well worth it. Good luck. Never just stick in and upgrade. You should know that by now. Always do a clean install whenever possible after backing and and preparing for it.

Clean install regardless, it still sucks. While it is a little faster than 98 in the bootup, everything else was slower. Plus games were not as stable, crap like Movie Maker and Media Player 7 were not optional, unless you want to hack the registry. There's nothing worth going to ME for. Wait for something like XP, if you're really going to upgrade. Unless you need DOS to function, go to Windows2000 for now or stick with 98. ME was not all MS said it was ed up to be.
With Win2k I have had to install drivers for two internal devices: my video card and my Promise ATA100 controller. I foolishly thought that ME, being a new version of Windows would have even better support than Win2k. No way. With a Voodoo3, Win2k didnt need drivers until you wanted to play games. With ME, I had to install almost everything except my sound card to get it run. You should not have to slave over an OS just to get it to run stable. Plus, like 98, the Defragger on ME is horrible...close down just about everything in the background, turn off screensaver, run defrag. The defragger on Win2k is much better.
The Windows ME CD is best used as a coaster.
What good is speed if you crash all the time?
I had more game crashes in ME than 98. The only time my games have hosed up on me in 2k was when I overclocked too high.
ME is a living hell to network to any Win2k box. I dont know if MS thought that Win2k would never ever in a million years be used by someone at home.
Just because you know a zillion tweaks for this and that does not and should not be a basis for power user. A power user is some one that uses a particular OS and refines it and maintains it.
MS didnt seem to consider Win2k as a home OS. It was designed off the NT core, which was targeted at businesses and not at the home market.
I am not a weak user just because I dont go along in the registry. I have ventured into the registry, but thats not something I do for every little thing.
YOU use the OS that suits YOU best. ME was a bad release and should have had incompatibilites worked out before it shipped. Isnt it a little odd that many apps that worked under 98 had to be upgraded to run under ME.
Let me put it this way: When you buy a brand in' new car, dont you want everything, like the engine, oil filter, steering wheel, and such to properly work? Its kinda like that with an OS, as you shouldnt have to fix a bunch of problems right off the bat. It should work with minimal beating around the bush. I can get my Win2k system up and running faster than I can with ME or any of the 9x line with the same amount of hardware and programs.
Also, power user does not necessarily mean Overclocker. Take IT guys for example, they're not overclocking the company's PCs, but they have to know a bit to make sure everything is running smoothly.
What fun is playing games if you have to hit reset every ten minutes because your OS cant manage resources well without you changing a ton of settings? Win2k has much better memory management than ME. On the same machine, right after finishing boot up, Win2k has more unused ram than ME does...no tweaks.