windows me

first, I am NOT recommendimg them as a purchase. I think most AV software is pretty good. I own Panda, McAfee, CA, and Norton but I do NOT install them on my system The footprint upon the system resources is too great in my opinion. All of the ones I own except Norton have a FREE online scan. I have had 1 virus in many many years get onto my system.

If you clean your system and then become more vigilant in what emails you open, what sites you go to, what add on software packages you add, and keep your software including the OS up to date with patches, etc you will find that you really do not need to have AV software installed onto your system.

I do use System Suite (originally from Ontrack) from v-com.com to help keep my registry and HD cleaned up. It also has a registry defrag that works extremely well. I also prefer using Disk Keeper Lite (FREE) to defrag the HD rather tham using MS defrag, since MS product runs as a batch file.

hopefully this answers your question.
 
Yes, thank you.

The person I spoke to did mention that Norton does use up alot of resources. I believe that was one of the main reasons he mentioned Panda - especially for use on a laptop.
 
Windows ME bites !


Get your self a better computer with 2000 or XP and call it the day.

If you do it right, you can build yourself a better computer at a little less price and have what you want.


This is what I use :

2.8 Intel chip

Intel MotherBoard

1 Gig of RAM

40 GIG Harddrive

Matrox dual monitor video card (and two monitors)

Omega 750 ZIP for storing data and other stuff

One CD

One CD R+W

One Floppy


And it runs like a scalded dawg ! :cool:
 
one thing i learned a long time ago...it is not this OS is better or worse than another OS..it is quite simply how good of care you take of your system. A few years ago I had a wager with a good IT/IS friend as to whether or not a dos platform (Win 3x, win 9x, win me) could perform as well as a so called better platform. We chose to use ZD Net's testing suite after each of us set up a system, needless to say i "volunteered" to setup the dos platform. The net result was there was very little difference between the systems in performance when setup properly.

If you system works for you with what it does, then keep it. If however your system does not perform as you require then replace it but definitely do not go with DELL. Have a local computer shop build you a custom unit, you will be much happier.

you might want to read the press release from microsoft I placed in the forum under wall street news...the thread title is 800 pound gorilla.
 
Quote from da-net:

one thing i learned a long time ago...it is not this OS is better or worse than another OS..it is quite simply how good of care you take of your system. A few years ago I had a wager with a good IT/IS friend as to whether or not a dos platform (Win 3x, win 9x, win me) could perform as well as a so called better platform. We chose to use ZD Net's testing suite after each of us set up a system, needless to say i "volunteered" to setup the dos platform. The net result was there was very little difference between the systems in performance when setup properly.

If you system works for you with what it does, then keep it. If however your system does not perform as you require then replace it but definitely do not go with DELL. Have a local computer shop build you a custom unit, you will be much happier.

you might want to read the press release from microsoft I placed in the forum under wall street news...the thread title is 800 pound gorilla.
More...

I think you're wrong all over the place.

1. Microsoft has done extensive tests comparing W98, ME, and Win2K/XP... and W98/ME is like 20 times more likely to crash and/or be corrupted through access over the net.

2. Dells are great for the money... one of the best values going. My last 4 computers have been Dell and no failures except had to replace a CD-RW under warranty.
 
gnome ...

I think you're wrong all over the place.

1. Microsoft has done extensive tests comparing W98, ME, and Win2K/XP... and W98/ME is like 20 times more likely to crash and/or be corrupted through access over the net.

2. Dells are great for the money... one of the best values going. My last 4 computers have been Dell and no failures except had to replace a CD-RW under warranty.



I second that opinion too.

Dell sells excellent computers.

And again, yes, windows Me just plain suxx.

BTW, you can do a bit more with XP Pro than you can with 2000 ... even though 2000 is a very stable platform, the strength of 2000 is for servers.

I can do more performance tweak issues with XP Pro through gpedit.msc and its administrations. 2000 doesn't go that far.

I wouldn't bother with XP Home, that's a watered down version of Pro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top