Gary Tollefson brings up a VERY GOOD point!

Also, contrary to what you might have heard, Mike, (and anybody
else who's heard it), Windows ME does a very nice job on image
processing. It probably helps that I have 384 MB of RAM, but I've
found it to be solid and reliable. But then, of course, I found it
95 to be solid and reliable too (still run that on my proxy erver).
I often count in weeks between reboots. Personally, I think the
operator is what makes the difference - but that's just MHO.
Actually, I find that keeping the registry clean, hard drive clean
and organized, and eliminating unnecesary crap that most apps
install can make all the difference in the world.

I do also run an NT 4.0 partition (dual boot), and I'm getting
ready to upgrade that to XP since NT can't read my FAT32 data
partitions. I'll be happy to report the difference once I'm done

At any rate, I look forward to the interaction.

All of my Windows experience is with 3.1, 95, NT4.0, 2000, and XP. I
have no real experience with using ME, only what peoples have told
me. I asked a few of my MSCE friends today for there ME opinons and
they all said the same thing - "ME is... really pretty bad". So I
ask have you tried it - "Well...., NO". You will find the same rumor
mill if you search other special interest groups.

What if the ME rumor started with just one person with a corrupt
registery? Perhaps some other members of the group that really use
ME for image processing could jump in here and share there real
experience.

Thanks Gary

Mike

I've been using ME since it came out and have had no more than the normal share of MS problems. I like it and will
probably stay with it for some time since I don't care for the licensing agreement for XP. I hear that 2K doesn't do games
very well and that's another addiction.

Ken

I moved to ME from Windows 95 so of course I am happy with it! I
find IP runs just fine under ME in my Gateway 1.6 GHz with 256M RAM.
I occasionally have hangs and shut-down inconsistencies, but they are
not enough to cause me to upgrade. Perhaps if I had another recent
OS to compare it with I'd be less happy with it.

Dennis Persyk

--- In ImagesPlus@y..., "mlunsold" <mike@m...> wrote:

Gary Tollefson brings up a VERY GOOD point!

All of my Windows experience is with 3.1, 95, NT4.0, 2000, and XP.

I

have no real experience with using ME, only what peoples have told
me. I asked a few of my MSCE friends today for there ME opinons and
they all said the same thing - "ME is... really pretty bad". So I
ask have you tried it - "Well...., NO". You will find the same

rumor mill if you search other special interest groups.

What if the ME rumor started with just one person with a corrupt
registery? Perhaps some other members of the group that really use
ME for image processing could jump in here and share there real
experience.

Thanks Gary

Mike

One more thing about ME, it has had the least required updates I have seen on MS OS's.

Ken

I'm going back to a TRS-80...THFFFFPT!

New vid card has been ordered by distributor...no ETA....I'm going
through withdrawals!

Who knows...maybe I'll just turn on "classic mode" and stay with XP...

TD