I remember the constant kernel crashes and the fact that it was a poorly rebranded Windows 98, but does anyone remember other reasons why ME was so innefective?
I remember the constant kernel crashes and the fact that it was a poorly rebranded Windows 98, but does anyone remember other reasons why ME was so innefective?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/2utm7b/win...
2000/XP by contrast had strict user mode/kernel mode isolation, processes had their own virtual memory, and kernel address space was protected (making monkey-patching more difficult). In XP in particular they also started to adopt Driver Signature Enforcement, which at that time brought a cultural rather than technical shift (i.e. everyone knew it would eventually be mandatory, and so started to tighten processes).
Vista then made things even better with Mandatory Driver Signing (64-bit), PatchGuard + ASLR (i.e. no more monkey-patching the kernel), Code Integrity Checks (corruption detection), WDDM for more stable graphics drivers, and shifted some other drivers to user mode (soft failures instead of BSODs).
The official sales pitch of ME over 98 SE was: System Restore (new), System File Protection (technically ported from 2K, but new for the 9x line), faster boot (due to real-mode DOS being removed), Automatic Updates, Movie Maker, and improved home networking. It was a big upgrade for people coming from 98 and still a minor upgrade from 98 SE (which a lot of people skipped, even though it was a substantial improvement for just $20 upgrade cost).
PS - Vista moving to WDDM for graphics drivers, which everyone takes for granted today, is much of the reason why it was SO poorly received upon released. Vendors moved both to WDDM and in some cases to x64 for the first time, and it was a buggy mess there for at least a year -- which was blamed on Vista.
It was just fine.
I ran AutoCad Architectural Desktop on a Toshiba Satellite under it…
But my guess is that most people ran worse software, had less experience with computers, had lots of shovelware sludge running in the background…and less ram.
So in 98SE i can choose to boot in DOS and then type Win to run Windows or run some DOS game.
Also there was specific software that runs only on DOS like SoftICE.
Which wasn't the reality for most users of the patchworked systems common and available at the time.
SlowTao•6mo ago
alganet•6mo ago
SlowTao•6mo ago
More it was at the mercy of the software industry of the time. Development of complex utilities from video editing to web browsers being more than just HTML viewers and fighting over limited memory trying to manage a high stack of rapidly more complex drivers and ME just didn't handle it that greatly. The modem, printer, high end GPU's and audio systems all fighting to work together.
It just seems like the whole Windows system pre-NT was struggling to stay together. Cue the famous Win 98 demonstration crashing the system via a Plug and play scanner. Win 98 SE was in a bizarre stable state, ME wasn't and the differences under the hood could have been something that appeared fairly minor.
alganet•6mo ago
I used it (Windows ME, not Mandela Effects), but I wasn't knowledgeable enough to understand what caused the kernel crashes and instabilities. I couldn't say if it was some driver or something. Maybe it was Winamp, I honestly woudn't know.
Anyway, if there's any hope for a verifiable technical reason on more solid grounds than general statements, this would be the place to find it, don't you think? There are so many articles that go into rabbit-hole level detail about all sorts of things here.
Jtsummers•6mo ago