G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:42933441.2023492@nntp.charter.net...
> With ANY version of Windows, if the chipset manufacturer does not provide
> the
> drivers required by that version, the system will simply not function at
> 100%.
> This is true for Windows ME or any other version of Windows. And for
> Linux, for
> that matter.
>
> Windows ME is either an aardvark or a platypus, depending on ones grasp of
> biology. It cannot be booted to the DOS command prompt like 95/98, IIRC.
> It
> introduces more 32-bit NT-ish stuff than Win 98, but still retains a lot
> of the
> DOS-based artifacts including inferior memory management, both program
> memory
> and the restricted Windows'-own memory (user, GDI).
>
> Of course, since I have not pried into Windows ME very much lately, my own
> memory management may be a little inferior and I can't recall all the
> differences between 98 and ME. I just know enough to avoid ME, a
> short-lived
> aberration, as even some Micro$ofties will attest... Ben Myers
>
I thought WinMe was the first Win9X to use the 'non-real' DOS (emulation)...
? (And that Win98 was the last to provide 'real' DOS).
A subject I don't fully understand to this day though I use whatever each
provides.....
Stew
<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:42933441.2023492@nntp.charter.net...
> With ANY version of Windows, if the chipset manufacturer does not provide
> the
> drivers required by that version, the system will simply not function at
> 100%.
> This is true for Windows ME or any other version of Windows. And for
> Linux, for
> that matter.
>
> Windows ME is either an aardvark or a platypus, depending on ones grasp of
> biology. It cannot be booted to the DOS command prompt like 95/98, IIRC.
> It
> introduces more 32-bit NT-ish stuff than Win 98, but still retains a lot
> of the
> DOS-based artifacts including inferior memory management, both program
> memory
> and the restricted Windows'-own memory (user, GDI).
>
> Of course, since I have not pried into Windows ME very much lately, my own
> memory management may be a little inferior and I can't recall all the
> differences between 98 and ME. I just know enough to avoid ME, a
> short-lived
> aberration, as even some Micro$ofties will attest... Ben Myers
>
I thought WinMe was the first Win9X to use the 'non-real' DOS (emulation)...
? (And that Win98 was the last to provide 'real' DOS).
A subject I don't fully understand to this day though I use whatever each
provides.....
Stew