In just 2-days it will be the 5-month anniversary since Windows Vista was released to consumers. Lately buzz around the Web has been dubbing Windows Vista as Me2, which is an abbreviation for Millennium Edition 2. Having been a not-so-proud owner of Windows Me I can thankfully say that Vista is no where near the state that Me was in.
Windows Me crashed nearly every day when I ran it, and BSoD’s (Blue Screen of Death) had become almost second nature to me. I think it was with Windows Me that I learned to rest my hands on the Ctrl+S keys while typing so that my fingers would naturally save what I was working on. And hardware compatibility…you might have been able to get something to work, such as a webcam, but you were sure to do some cussing along the way.
In the 4-months that Ashley and I have been using Vista the results have been rather pleasant. Ashley received a BSoD 2-days ago which is the first that either of us have received when running a non-Beta version of Vista. I’ve only come across a very limited number of applications that I couldn’t get to work right on Vista, although I could disable the User Account Control (UAC) and everything would probably work smoothly. At times the UAC can be annoying, but I actually like having the added security protecting my computer. While testing Beta versions of Vista I would always turn it off, but now I actually find myself leaving it on, and in a day’s time I only receive a few prompts.
Ed Bott also agrees that Vista is not comparable to Windows Me, but instead should be looked at as Windows 95 + 12 years. Here’s why:
- Unachievable levels of hype – Windows 95 was hyped to be able to do all kinds of stuff, and so was Vista when it was still under the codename of Longhorn.
- A very long and public beta – Windows 95 was in a public Beta for nearly two years, and Vista had one that was 18-months.
- Initial compatibility, performance, and stability problems – The first thing you hear people complaining about with Vista is that they can’t get some piece of hardware working right…Windows 95 was the same way.
- A beginning, not an end – Windows 95 was a huge stepping stone into the 32-bit era, and Vista is finally starting to break ground with the 64-bit computing.
Ed then goes on to say:
Expect a major Vista update after three years. Between now and 2010, Microsoft has a chance to do for Vista what Windows 98 did for Windows 95.
…
If history repeats itself, Microsoft will release its next Vista update in 2009 or 2010, after a low-profile, secretive beta cycle, and it will be greeted as finally delivering on the promise of what Vista should have been all along.
So I wouldn’t go as far as to say that Vista is equivalent to Window Me because I suffered with that operating system for over a year. I think Ed Bott is right when he says that the next version of Windows will deliver everything we expected Vista to be.
So do we have any Windows Me users out there that can vouch for the horrendous operating system?
I can vouch for Vista. I’ve been running it as my primary OS since RC1 and have thoroughly enjoyed it. I prefer the UI over XP and love the instant search function as well as many other aspects of the way Vista works. I have had no compatibility problems since RTM and have also found the OS to be faster on my system than XP used to be. Everytime I read all the bad press about Vista I struggle to understand what others may be experiencing because I certainly haven’t had problems. Perhaps it is simply a matter of bad news spreading more readily than good news.
Regards
Johan
I installed Windows ME on my work computer and in less than a week I’d had enough and reinstalled Windows NT 4 Workstation.
How could you use ME for over a year? That’s crazy…
If people are going to compare Vista to an old operating system, I’d say it’s closer to what XP was to 2000.
As user of Windows ME also for a year. The BSOD was daily nearly so when that 20gb Hard drive gave up i got 80GB Hard Drive with Windows XP Home SP1 in a offer and though it was amazing no BSOD’s on Windows XP and still up to this day i aren’t had a single BOSD on either PC and the laptop which bought last year.
When i used Windows Vista RC1 and RC2 i though it was good but not worth the money and did nothing more then Windows XP can do, i will stay with XP till 2009 when free updates run out then move to Ubuntu hopefully
I thankfully skipped Windows Me, but I too can vouch for Vista. I have been running the Ultimate edition on my primary desktop for the last 2 months and everything has been running great, except for a minor issue with my sound card. I have no regrets about installing Vista.
I installed ME on my work computer also and it was a mess. There were problems with the network stack, hardware issues etc… I ran it a week or 2 and then went back to Win98.
I know a few people who bought PC’s with ME installed and I remember feeling sorry for them at the time.
I find hunashaman’s comment a little hard to digest coz everytime I’ve read a speed comparison between Vista & XP, XP seems to win – which makes sense coz it takes so much more just to fuel Vista’s UI.
I tried a Vista beta and it practically brought my otherwise fast PC to a standstill… I’m guessing mostly coz I didn’t go for a fresh install & upgraded XP. I’ll be sticking with XP till I get a new PC. By then Vista’ll hopefully be history.
I have Vista running on 2 computers. Ultimate on Desktop and Home Premium on my Toshiba Notebook. I have had no BSOD’s at all, and the experience has been great. I did have some hardware compatibility issues with the desktop early on, but that is always to be expected.
I used Windows ME and it was junk, I promptly went back to 98SE as it was a very stable and robust OS. I do expect Vista to be better when MS does update it.
Windows ME was a support nightmare when I was a computer service technician. I hated when people brought in a machine with ME on it!
Ha, it was a lot of “fun” to hear everyone’s horror stories of Windows Me here (and I just learned today that the “e” in Me is not supposed to be capitalized).
I haven’t actually benchmarked Vista vs. XP, but Vista definitely has some advantages over it. I believe that the Super Fetch runs applications faster by pre-accessing the programs you use the most. Then when you go to start them they popup very quickly. Overall I believe that Vista really is faster than XP, which is the way it should be even if it is more resource intensive on the graphics side of things…it’s all about better and faster.
I can’t vouch for Vista. It sucks for me. Absolute memory pig, too busy UI, slowness (i.e. copying files etc.) silly loss of features (i.e. toolbar buttons, up button etc.).
I went back to Xp after a few days. It bugged the hell out of me.
Terrible OS. Makes me really consider a Mac/Linux next time round (or when Xp support dies).
I have not experienced the issues The Slasher mentions, except for the slowness when copying files. It is really painfully slow and sits a long time calculating how long it will take.
As Ryan mentions in the article, I received my first BSOD a few days ago (and gave myself a nice reminder that I should always save frequently after I lost about an hours worth of work!), but prior to that I’ve had absolutely no problems with Vista. In fact, I’ve really enjoyed the experience thus far.
It’s amazing that two people can have a completely different experience with the same OS. Although, different hardware could also change whether you have a good experience or not.
I must be the only one, but I used windows me for a couple years and it was fine. I did a lot of intensive gamings and photoshop 6 on ME. I did remember having crashing issue but not everyday like some of you. I’m surprise
I did use Windows Me for about a year as well, that is until XP came out. I got Me on a new computer and as soon as I had the opportunity to ditch it I did.