I had ME and 2000, ME was just awful. I vaguely remember using both windows 3.1 and windows NT Workstation 4.0 as a kid.. but I didn't get into computers too much until Windows 98 (and really, xp)
I had ME and 2000, ME was just awful. I vaguely remember using both windows 3.1 and windows NT Workstation 4.0 as a kid.. but I didn't get into computers too much until Windows 98 (and really, xp)
I've been using the computer from quite a young age.. I still have 300 games for DOS and 300 Games for Windows 3.1 as well as The Microsoft Entertainment Pack!
I watched that video today at another site. (I had no innertubes the previous 24 hours. )
It was interesting. But what was more interesting was trying to guess the guys' nationality. He sounded like a mix between Swedish, Scots, and Brazilian.
And OMG GET A NEW DESKTOP! Hot pink. And a blistering red title bar. Can you imagine staring at that for 23 years? Ouch.
I noticed he didn't mention Windows ME, made me chuckle.
You can't upgrade from Windows 2000 to ME, or from ME to 2000, so it made more sense to use 2000 since it's got an NT codebase, therefore XP is it's big brother. It's mentioned quite a lot in the comments (Also the codebase for ME is 9x and 2000 is nt, which leads to some problems even if you do a side-grade)
Our first PC was second hand with Windows '95, bought cheap from a mate for my daughter to do her university stuff (times were hard).
I cannot find the appropriate words to describe how slow this machine was. You could press "print", go spend a few hours shopping, maybe have a meal, and when you got back it would still be initialising the printer.
Not the fault of Win'95, but the s**t computer this "ex" mate sold me.