I’m considering purchasing a new computer for home, and I’d like some opinions on Windows 2000 v. Windows Me. I have Windows 2000 at work, and I like it. I haven’t seen Windows Me, but it seems to be the base operating system that most computers are sold with for home use.
Is Windows 2000 worth paying extra for? Does Windows Me have anything I should be excited about?
It really depends on what your needs are. Windows 2000 is primarily geared toward businesses with networking needs. Windows Me is definitely geared towards the home environment, the main reason I purchased the upgrade. You can’t network computers running Me, but you can set up a “home network” that allows your PCs to share devices like printers and scanners. Me is very media-oriented; it comes with basic video editing software, Windows Media Player (which is available separately as a free download), advanced support for scanners and digital cameras, etc. Me also features various PC Health tools, most notably System Restore. This feature essentially takes a “snapshot” of your system (saved files, settings, etc.) each day, and allows you to easily restore these settings in case of a major problem, such as a serious conflict from new software. (I’ve only had to use it once, but I was very impressed with the results.)
As far as stability…I haven’t used 2000 that much, so I can’t say anything about that. But Me is surprisingly stable in my experience. Haven’t seen a blue screen in ages .
Windows 2000 was originally going to be released as “Windows NT 5.0”.
Windows ME was originally not going to be released at all – it’s Windows 98 Second Edition with all (or at least most of) the new UI features of Windows 2000 added in. Windows 98, in turn, was Windows 95 with some other enhancements. Windows 95 was originally going to be released as “Windows 4.0”, as a 32-bit version of Windows 3.1.1. All products in the non-NT Windows line, including Windows ME, still run on top of 16-bit MS-DOS.
For the home user getting a new computer, Windows Me is better. It’s a fix on Windows 98, with a few new (and nice) bells and whistles.
Windows 2000 is more for use on a server, or in a computer lab. It may even be a bit much for a lot of corporate users. It’s the better system, but the average user is going to have problems with its complexity.
Interesting. I just got an e-mail on this topic today. It’s basically talking about the new “Whistler” OS that microsoft has been testing, but it does touch on the topic you bring up.
It’s a newsletter type deal and isn’t copyrighted. Besides, I’ve only cut and pasted the first two paragraphs.
Take it for whatever it’s worth. Personally, I’m still using Win98 and I’ll probably keep using it for a while.
I tried out ME for some time, and ended up switching back to 98. ME was not nearly as stable IMO. That, and the fact that it didn’t let you boot into DOS, which for me is a must because I tinker a lot with the system. I never noticed a difference in speed, had more crashes with ME tinkering while with 98 I never had any…
Whistler does sound like it may be worth a go, but I’ll let someone else figure that out for me first.
I have to say that I am very happy with Windows 2000 at work. I don’t think my computer has crashed once in the six months I’ve had it. My previous work computer (ignoring that brief detour on a Mac) was a Windows 98 machine and crashed regularly. My home computer is Windows 98 and almost never crashes.
I was actually surprised when Windows Me came out because I thought Windows 98 was the end of the line and that everyone would eventually move to the Windows 2000 line. Up until a month or so ago, I assumed a new computer I purchased would be a Windows 2000 machine.
I realize that Windows 2000 is positioned more for the corporate market and Windows Me is positioned for the home market. My gut feeling is to go with Windows 2000 anyway because: 1) I don’t mind the complexity; 2) Windows Me seems to be a link to the past; 3) I’m using Windows 2000 at work and like it; 4) the name Windows Me bugs me. So does anyone have any compelling arguments for Windows Me? I’m confident I can hook up my printer, scanner, and digital camera to Windows 2000, and I can download any media players I don’t have, so what does Me offer me?
Aside from all the media orientated bells and whistles previously mentioned, the only other meaningful addition in ME, IMHO, is the ‘system restore’ function. I believe this was only previously available on more non-home user orientated software (like NT).
In my experience, Win2000 does seem to be inherently more stable and robust than the Win95/98/ME line but if you do go with ME, System Restore allows you to ‘go back in time’ (to any point) and restore the O/S to the date of any previous system configuration. The system automatically reconfigures the comp to the settings of that particular day and the restore is simple and quick - extremely handy given the potential that line has for having funny turns.
Also, I kind of like the photo storing and viewing thing in ME, makes life easy, but that’s probably not a big issue for most people.
I’d say go with Windows 2000 unless you’re a heavy gamer. I’d be on Win2000 in an instant if I didn’t play tons of games, some of which are incompatible with Win2000 (not nearly as bad as NT 4, though). That’s really the only thing I can think of that would merit going to WinME over 2000. 2000 is far more stable, secure, and fast. I for one can’t wait for Whistler. NT stability with 9x support. Yummy.
My work machines are all Win2k, but my home machine is setup with a dual boot between Windows ME and win2k. Been running me for a while, no real problems.
Thanks again for all the input. I also found a good article at winmag.com on Whistler. Since I’m not a heavy gamer, I think I’ll probably go with Windows 2000 for now and plan to upgrade to Whistler when that comes out.