Talk:Windows ME/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

The top logo actually says 'Windows Millenium Edition' -- with one one 'n'. Hahaha. How embarassing. User:Maestrosync not logged in ( 13:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

I am suspicious about this. The logo is taken from a Russian site that hosts a lot of logos. It claims that they are free, but it reminds me of those sites that have lyrics which are also "free", in the sense that although you can download them from the hosting site for free they are nonetheless still copyright material. Microsoft's own website spells it correctly. [1]Lupine Proletariat 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Pentium 4 / 512 MB RAM comment

However, some enthusiasts feel, from personal experience, that Windows ME has been judged harshly and that it runs well on relatively "powerful" PCs e.g Pentium 4 systems with plenty of RAM e.g. 512MB. (see - forums).

Should it be mentioned that the Pentium 4 was released 2 months after Windows ME? --R'nway 19:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Windows ME doesn't run well on relatively "powerful" PCs such as P4s, it merely runs faster. The majority of software technicians make the point that Windows ME is crippled and technically inept, and shows signs of having been rushed out as a stop-gap before Windows XP (yes, hard to believe that XP was the complete product!) is not the right place to go for an objective or neutral POV.

My own technical experience aligns with others' opinions that ME:
  • has compatibility problems
  • was designed to use cut-down drivers for cheaper components - e.g. software modems
  • contains features that obviously don't work, e.g. system restore
  • often needs reinstalling, and is difficult to reinstall successfully
  • was purposely designed in collaboration with PC manufacturers to make upgrade to another OS difficult

Centrepull 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Shouldn't the article be at Windows ME not Windows Me?

--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 07:16, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

I thought so too. However Microsoft seem to think different: AlistairMcMillan 13:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Microsoft seems to like spell it "Me" and not "ME". The logical abbreviation would be ME, but the official one seems to be Me. I'll change the article to the proper spelling according to Microsoft, now that I've read this. --Mike 00:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Isn't the official name of it "Windows Me: Millennium Edition"? That's what the logo looks like... -BocoROTH 03:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


I have removed a large amount of unsourced comments as they violate NPOV policy and citation policy. If anyone wants to re-add it, please make sure it is correctly attributed/referenced.-Localzuk(talk) 10:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Restoring. Will try to find what citations I can. These may be unsourced but I have heard them a lot before. -- Dgies 04:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but our policies regarding this are quite firm and clear. Unsourced information should not be added. Only restore if you can include citations for all claims, ensuring that they are from reliable verifiable [WP:CITE|sources]].-Localzuk(talk) 09:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the criticism section, which I feel was properly modified by other editors to reflect the concerns stated above, and was inappropriately removed by another editor for the somewhat invalid reason "I've had my crashes too, but that is not a reliable source. Please feel free to introduce discussion on any flaws of Me that can be reliably sourced.)" The criticism section did not specifically discuss technical problems with Windows ME, rather, it referenced the widespread popular criticism of the operating system among members of the media and the general public, and was properly referenced and linked. In my opinion, a single editor should not be able to unilaterally declare a source reliable or unreliable. -WGW August 29 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgw2024 (talkcontribs) 21:22, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Insulting Nicknames

I agree that these names should be cited. The problem is that for slang names only used informally or in discussion groups, the only citation possible is those discussion groups. How does the citation policy deal with other slang terms or pop culture which may be widespread but has not been noted in a reputable source? --Dgies 06:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

By not writing it. We have to have reputable sources of names else we could end up with people inserting all sorts of nonsense in the article. We go by the 'if it is common enough then it will have been covered by the media' mantra I believe.-Localzuk(talk) 15:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


I thought some of you might find it entertaining to know that this article has been cited at least once on a Microsoft internal discussion list. 23:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Relations to other Windows releases - Windows XP against Windows 2000 SP4

This article states Windows Me lacks the Compatibility Mode which Windows XP does have. However, Windows 2000 SP4 also contains the Compatibility Mode. A few other statements are also incorrectly pointed to XP as first solution while Windows 2000 SP4 does contain them too. I think we should honour Windows 2000 and correct this information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deresser (talkcontribs) 09:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

As Windows XP was released 2 years before Windows 2000 SP4 I would say that XP is the first OS to have these features. (XP was released 25th Oct 01, SP4 was released June 26th 2003).-Localzuk(talk) 16:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Last DOS-based Windows

"Windows XP, which is NT based, became the successor to Windows ME. It also closed the gap between MS-DOS and NT."

What exactly is this gap and how did Windows XP close it? Windows NT/XP is still completly different from MS-DOS. Josh 23:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The gap is the gap between server and network oriented OS and desktop/client OS. Windows NT was designed spacifically around the concept of networks. Windows 9x/ME was designed around providing the best experience to an end user, and providing multimedia capabilities to them. Those multimedia capabilities were much less available in NT. XP took the network part of NT and the multimedia part of 9x and merged them - resulting in the removal of the need for 2 lines of OS production. That was a gap closed.-Localzuk(talk) 11:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah, basically games + consumer hardware vs business and security

e.g win95 - plug "n" play and ran everyones games vs NT4 which ran hardly any games and didnt have PnP but was amazing for networking.

Erroneous relation to 2000?

"If the Windows 2000 Installation CD is inserted, it erroneously states: 'The version of Windows you are running is older than the one on this CD. Would you like to upgrade?' Windows Me was actually released several months after Windows 2000." So, if ME is newer than 2000, so, the CD notes this incorrectly, because newer ME is called as older than 2000. Wikinger 10:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Windows Me cannot upgrade Windows 2000. SchmuckyTheCat

yes, only nt4 (maybe nt3?) can do an upgrade

Release date is wrong

That's Windows 2000's release date, ME was actually released on September 14 2000. Here [2] is your citation and you're on your way. -- 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Both the Win 2000 page and the ME page says that they where the last system requiring activation.

They lacks this requirement, not demands it. Wikinger 13:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Real DOS 8.00 without hacks

I added unique method of creating separate real DOS 8.00 without using any hacks. I discovered it myself, and this method is not published on Internet anywhere. Let's try it if you don't believe - it works!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Removed as original research. It's also not that unique, as most methods available generally use a different version of IO.SYS than the stock version installed on the HDD. --Sigma 7 16:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Better method that uses only Microsoft files, but with only one single-byte hack is here: Windows Me boot and Windows 2000 boot 12:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Abovementioned WikiBooks article now provides too unique method of adding separate real DOS 8.00 option to Windows Me. Wikinger (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Higly POV

This article is rather negative towards Windows Me. It's POV. 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only second that. I still have Windows ME running on five different machines, ranging from 266MHz up to 2,2GHz. I never encountered any of the described problems, though I should have run across some of them if they were there, given the wide variety of my hardware. I also installed and uninstalled various cards and adapters in my PCs, and upgraded them with more RAM etc. Never had any problems there, either. Generally I got the impression that it is more stable than Windows 95 OSR C, which I ran prior to Me.

And it is no POV to state that Me runs on machines way slower than the official minimum requirement. If you ain't got much money or simply like the old stuff, Windows Me is the way to run an OS on an old machine that's got most of the important features that make life easier: UPnP, USB, DirectX, SystemRestore, you name it.

So far I have not seen any reason to buy XP, much less Vista, cause I can do anything with Me.

But I'm afraid there are some Microsoft employees editing this site to promote sales of their later OSes by denouncing Me the way they do.

Please keep your personal opinions to yourself as they constitute original research. If there is anything in the article that is, in your opinion, POV please inform us about it. However, wide ranging and sweeping comments saying 'this article is POV' do not help as it doesn't do much to narrow down to the problems. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
What should he include? Unoriginal research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Verifiable information. Josh (talk | contribs) 16:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

ISA support

"Microsoft's removal of legacy ISA support led to further confusion when older ISA based modems, soundcards and network cards failed to work."

Somebody made this up. It is in fact NOT the case that ISA cards are unsupported by Windows ME.

  • I think that is sourced from this ...but that article is from before ME was released, and other sources seems to suggest that ISA support has been carried all the way through to XP. The line will be deleted. Gsham 22:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

yeah its wrong, i regularly use ISA Network Cards on ME.

ISA support was only removed in VISTA —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Real mode DOS finally free of any hacks and cracks

The overview section contains the claim, "Windows Me is a continuation of the Windows 9x model, but with access to real mode MS-DOS restricted in order to speed up system boot time." The opening of Removal of Real Mode DOS states "One of the most publicized changes in Windows Me, was that it no longer included real mode MS-DOS" while the opening of the trivia section states "Windows Me was the last version of Windows to include a real-mode MS-DOS subsystem, although access to it was restricted". It either did or didn't have real mode DOS. The three claims need claification to avoid confusion. I've also added {{Fact}} tags to all claims. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Inside TOOLS\NETTOOLS\FAC\LTOOLS.DTA cabinet file (extractable by EXTRACT.EXE), which is placed on Windows Me OEM bootable CD, are provided real-mode DOS boot files such as IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS and COMMAND.COM, which are supporting booting from hard disk primary partition into real-mode DOS. They must be copied in above order to freshly formatted primary partition to provide boot to real-mode DOS prompt. To have both Windows and DOS modes on the same PC, two primary partitions must be created. (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Memory Eater

User:AlistairMcMillan and I are having a little revert war over this phrase and I would like to get a consensus on the talk page. The fundamental question is should we include mention of the fact that WinMe has been nicknamed "memory eater" over problems with memory leaks. I would say that we should because:

  1. This phrase was in common usage, and we have some citation of that
  2. Windows Me has memory leaks and we have citation of that
  3. Notability criteria applies for subjects as a whole. (WP:NOTE)
  4. Guidelines in WP:TRIVIA section 2 seems to support inclusion: "The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them." A major documented flaw deserves at least one line of mention.

What are other people's opinions on this subject? --Dgies 20:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That source sucks and doesn't read like a bug at all. User expectations of "free physical memory" have nothing to do with what the OS actually does. I see no collaboration that the phrase was in common use as asserted by your first point. SchmuckyTheCat 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? This is official Microsoft bug report: --Dgies 21:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
And the source does use the term 'memory eater' and is a reliable source according to our policies. I would say that you should stop rv warring Schmucky.-Localzuk(talk) 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The site is part of the PCMag network - which is a notable and reliable source. As it stands now (I have removed the mistake edition thing), it complies with our policies regarding sourcing.-Localzuk(talk) 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The atmuni source is a documented bug. The extremetech article is NOT going on about the atmuni bug. The ATMUNI bug is also present in Windows 98, 98SE, and Windows 2000. As atmuni controls Asynchronous Transfer Mode NICs, the number of affected home users running WinMe is very close to zero.
The extremetech link is quote ONE SINGLE USER about some other "percieved" bug from one user who wrote the site and that ONE SINGLE USER refers to ME as Memory Eater. Microsoft doesn't acknowledge it as a bug and anyone familiar with Windows memory management would immediately recognize this is not a bug. You can't extrapolate that many users call it memory eater based on ONE SINGLE USER.
Lots of things appear on extremetech that aren't reliable. Just fyi, that article also says that WinMe was supposed to use the NT kernel, which is plainly false.
Googling "memory eater" "winme" on google gets me 352 hits, total, with large numbers of them being archives of old versions of Wikipedia, or people quoting Wikipedia.
SchmuckyTheCat 02:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems very inappropriate to revert again and claim "per talk" when this is under active discussion and there is no consensus. Please do not engage in revert warring. --Dgies 06:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Less inappropriate than adding and reverting to unsourced negative criticism. SchmuckyTheCat 07:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It is sourced, you just don't think the source is reputable enough. --Dgies 07:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear on this: our cited source has one person, Matt Vlasaty, using the phrase "Memory Eater". Our second source only proves WinMe had a memory leak, it doesn't back up any expansion of the letters "Me" in Windows Me. If we had a source clearly stating that "Memory Eater" was in common usage I wouldn't be disputing this.

We follow this up with "This also prompted the creation of a memetic character among the Japanese known as ME-tan", except every version of Windows has an whatever-tan, so how can you say this one was "prompted" by the "perceived failure" of Windows Me. Given that all marginally notable operating systems now have whatever-tans, are you saying all operating systems are "perceived failures"? AlistairMcMillan 05:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I would agree that the Me-tan was misplaced in the article, but Localzuk fixed that before being reverted. --Dgies 06:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If we had a source clearly stating that "Memory Eater" was in common usage I wouldn't be disputing this. Exactly. SchmuckyTheCat 07:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The source is a reputable one - it is published by the PCMag network - which is a very notable organisation. The fact that they published it makes it notable enough for inclusion. Maybe we should reword it to reflect who is saying this (ie. Matt Vlasaty of ExtremeTech or whatever).-Localzuk(talk) 12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
A local paper might be a reputable source. It's letters to the editor section are not. The editors responding to it's letters (even in support) are not. That is what this is. The author of the statement is a reader of the website not a writer for the website. SchmuckyTheCat 15:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is whether we take a phrase used by one person in an email to the website as notable enough to mention in the article. We are not questioning the reliability of the website, the people who work on the website or anything at all to do with the website.

Would the editors commenting on this issue please read the cited source before commenting. AlistairMcMillan 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to RFC:
I don't think it's notable in the form of a quotation, however it may be valid as a criticism. The adding of a disparaging description by some user would not be notable unless this was a common description that the product became well known for. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. There are only a little over 1000 hits on the google test for "memory eater" "windows ME". Thats a small number compared to the user base, not enough to warrant a claim it was "known as" that. In addition there's this little problem with a claim that windows ME was "known as" that:
Version Link to
No. of
Windows 98 link 968
Windows XP link 1380
Windows 2000 link 750
Windows ME link 1280
and even:
Link 2540
Overall it looks like there is validity to saying that as with some other popular operating systems, memory leaks in drivers were a reported source of user annoyance[CITE] (if that's the case), but I don't think a claim that it was "known as memory eater" is notable or even especially well supported. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I know this is a very old discussion, but all the Win9x OSes suffered from the same memory leak. Picking out Me is unwarranted. -- Elaich talk 09:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It is actually a memory eater. Anyone can test it: open 4-5 Internet Explorer windows, browse, close 2 of them, open 2 others, close 2 of them, open 2 others.. soon you will run out of memory and a whole system freeze happen because of a memory hole (first, things will go white and than blue screen) (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Please no original research. This claim is not sourced. It isn't relevant to the actual discussion-please read the initial comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Windows Me IS stable, after a few tweaks...

System Restore, overall, just isn't needed. Ive used it once in the past, and it worked, but I didn't really accomplish anything in the process as the computer continued to crash. I'm typing this from Me, running an Athlon 1.15GHz and 512 DDR RAM. Ive had to edit the VCACHE because Windows Me, and Windows 9x in general has problems with anything over 511.9999999. I am monitoring the RAM and where its going to. Currently, I am running Mozilla's Firefox, AOL Instant Messenger, Nullsoft Winamp, and MemMAX, System Resources are 30% and its showing no signs of crashing.

Granted, When first installed, Me wasnt stable at all. There are a few quintessential tasks you must complete to get Me to be stable. 1.Disable System Restore 2.Either Disable Virtual Memory or Handle it yourself, give it plenty of room for the Swap File. 3.Disable Scheduled Tasks

Overall, I am pleased with Millennium, and I'm going to continue running it, regardless of Microsoft support. ~~User:SufferWell1396 11:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for Me not being stable was that computer manufacturers and hardware suppliers had little time to adapt to it. The most then-new computers were intended for Windows 98 SE or Windows 2000, and then, Windows Me was released. Computer hardware manufacturers had only a year to adapt to Me, but most of them never did, because of the XP hype. (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That should be included, it is true, I guess. It would be better if Microsoft didn't release Windows Me, since they didn't care about its users.

A possible reason for the hardware-related problems was that computer manufacturers and hardware suppliers had little time to adapt to Windows Me, as most of the then-new computers were intended for Windows 98 SE and/or Windows 2000. Computer hardware manufacturers had only a year to adapt to Me, but most of them never did due to poor advertising and the release of Windows XP the next year. (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Lilisot

WP:Original research.

In some cases you couldn't even install Windows ME on the same hardware that ran Windows 98 or Windows 2000 without any problems. I'm quite sure it worked just fine on some hardware configurations but you can't dispute its poor quality just because you were among the lucky few: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Windows ME was codenamed "Georgia"

Windows ME was codenamed Georgia 

I cited three or four sources to prove that, and if you google "Windows me" + "codename georgia" you will get hundreds more. Pick one to your liking, but please don't keep people dumb. Tell them the truth. It was codenamed Georgia, and I wonder what's wrong with that in your opinion ? All my edits to include this codename in the article were reverted by vandals, so I put this into the discussion section and maybe someone else interested in the truth will pick this issue up and fight the vandals.

That the codename was Georgia can also be read in the French Wikipedia:

... and the German Wikipedia:

Both articles concur with me on this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Other Wikipedias can't be used as references. Find a reliable source for this assertion, preferably a major publication, or Microsoft itself. That's the only way we can be reasonably assured that it's actually correct. -/- Warren 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It isn't at all correct. I don't recall 98SE or ME having designated or well-used codenames. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"I don't recall 98SE or ME having designated or well-used codenames. SchmuckyTheCat"

That may be because you didn't work for Microsoft in these days.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Please do not make accusations without evidence and even then only if you can show that these affiliations are causing a problem.-Localzuk(talk) 18:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be, at that time Microsoft used city names for codenames like Chicago for Windows 95 and Cairo. I will investigate if this could be corroborated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Maximum Hard Drive size???

The article notes that the maximum RAM that WinME recognizes is 1.5GB, but does anybody know the maximum hard drive size that it will recognize??? Thanks in advance to anybody that knows (also, it might be appropriate to put it in the Maximum RAM section, and rename it "Maximum RAM and Hard Drive ....." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talkcontribs) 10:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If this is a tech support question, then it is misplaced, as Wikipedia isn't a forum. The maximum hard disk size depends on the file system used. The section title you suggested would not follow our manual of style.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The maximum hard drive size (not partition size) was limited to 128 GiB because 48-bit LBA addressing format wasn't implemented in the disk controller driver. If required by the controller or motherboard, a different driver could be installed that was unaffected by this limitation (notably by VIA, which provided extended Win9x support for its hardware). An 3rd party hack exists to bypass this limitation on standard IDE controllers. -- J7n (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Page moving

Ranunculoid moved page Windows Me to Microsoft Windows ME Millennium Edition: Full name, proper capitalisation.

I posted a message to the older talk page, but only after it was re-moved. It was asking why the page was moved to a longer title, when we have similar titles like Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows 8 etc. ~ihaveamac [talk|contribs] 02:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Windows ME Mike Cline (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Windows MeWindows ME – Ranunculoid is right, the market stylization is not the common name. Here are the recent sources using ME [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and Me [11] Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, but only this part of Ranunculoid's title.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Windows Me? No, me (talk). In any case, aren't those two letters an abbreviation for "Millenium Edition"? (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is just an acronym with fancy styling. In this page in Microsoft website they use "Me" in the running text but "ME" in the product requirement list [12]. Wired uses ME more often[13]. This stylization does not have widespread acceptation, compare with iMac or iPhone where the stylization has been widely accepted by all reliable sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, because it's pronounced "emm ee". Powers T 22:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, the ME is an acronym for Milennium Edition and is used as such in both common usage and commonly on Microsoft's own site. NULL talk
    01:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Windows ME is not a "successor" to Windows 2000!

Please see this comment. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

We all know this, just the 109.7xx troll doesn't want to acknowledge this (or it's just pure vandalism). --Denniss (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not just that IP. We get a spate of these every so often. Might be the same person, might not. But in the hopes that it actually is someone acting in good faith (but is mistaken), the explanation might get through where an edit comment won't. Jeh (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

About System Restore and the criticism section

From the criticism section:

"The System Restore feature sometimes ended up restoring malware which the user had previously removed, since its method of keeping track of changes is fairly simplistic."

I don't see how that's a fair criticism in any form or shape. Yes, System Restore can restore malware, but that's because the malware existed in the computer in the first place, not because SR produced the infection (which it can't do). It can also be used for getting rid of malware by restoring a restore point created before the machine was infected. Moreover, the point of SR is bringing back the system to a previous state, not being an antivirus. So the application being potentially capable of restoring malware isn't exactly a design flaw nor has anything to do with its "method of keeping track of changes being fairly simplistic" like the article claims, as dealing with malware was never part of its scope. Cleaning infected files is the job of your antivirus, not System Restore. Under the same logic, one could criticize any backup or disk imaging software such as Time Machine or Acronis TrueImage for being capable of bringing back malware in the same way if the user restores a backup that contains infected files. Heck, you could complain about the file copy feature of any OS as well, as it can duplicate infected files.

Moreover, the article that sentence uses as a reference isn't criticizing the application for being able of restoring malware; it's merely explaining how to delete restore points that contain infected files. - (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I also agree that the sentence must no be there, as it is a blatant instance of WP:SYNTH. This sentence, even with a source, is a fact; one that the original contributor has regarded as "bad". But to write it in the criticism section, we need a source that offers a critical commentary on this fact.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Succeeded by: Windows 2000!

WTF? After Windows ME came Windows 2000! Only then came Windows XP!

Yes, 2000 came out only shortly after ME. Because ME was such a piece of shit, that they feared to lose everyone if they not quickly offer something better.

Sorry, that's incorrect. It can't be, because Windows 2000 was released in February 2000, and Windows Me was released later in September 2000. The two were sold at the same time because Me (like its predecessors 95 and 98) was the home version and 2000 (like its predescessor NT) was the professional version. Me's lower quality may have caused some home users to turn to 2000, however. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No this is not correct. Windows 2000 was out before ME. They were sold at the same time. 2000 was the upgrade for NT users, businesses, and ME was an upgrade for Windows 98, consumers. Windows XP was not the succeeded by it. Windows ME was the last release of 9.x platform. Windows XP was the successor to Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0. This needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"Succeed" means the same thing as "replace." Windows XP replaced Windows Me, even though it was not based on the same code. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
There were two separate product lines from two different development groups, with completely separate source code. One was the 95/98/ME line, sold to home users and bundled with inexpensive PCs; the other the NT/2K/XP line. In calendar order (not going all the way back) these would be 95/NT4/98/2K/ME/XP. It is true that the 9x line of development ended with ME; no subsequent OS from Microsoft was developed in that line. But XP replaced ME in the product line. To say that ME was not succeeded by XP is to say that Microsoft stopped marketing an operating system for the home user. Jeh (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
As user Jeh above noted, Windows Me was the last installment of the consumer-oriented DOS-based Windows 9x line (95, 98, 98 SE, ME) whereas Windows 2000 was the last installment of the business-targetting professional NT-based OS line. Windows 2000 was released prior to Windows ME, but that's of no relevance here. Both 2000 and ME share the very same GUI, though technically i.e. "under the hood" they're completely different. Starting with Windows XP, there were no more separate consumer and business versions. Both Windows xp Home Ed. and Prof. Ed. share the same NT-OS 5.1 kernel. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How is it pronounced?

Is it supposed to be pronounced like the word "Me" or are the letters pronounced individually? --Kuroki Mio 2006 19:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This [[14]] suggests the IPA would be [em.i], and I am changing the main page accordingly --Slp1 03:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I pronounce it "millenium" but... SchmuckyTheCat 03:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, according to [15] the current is correct. EM MEE :). RN 04:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to the person who put the IPA thing in too :). RN 04:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Its supposed to be pronounced like "Me" not "emm-EE" ~Heather
Thanks for your opinion, Heather, but it would be better if you could find some evidence to support this. --Slp1 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No one else remembers this product being marketted as "Get to know ME"? Google the phrase along with windows ME. ~dan

There's how Microsoft's marketing department wanted it pronounced, and then there's how people actually pronounced it. In my experience, it was emm-EE about 90% of the time. --Dgies 05:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added the other sourced pronunciation so that both are there Slp1 17:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is supposed to be "Meeee" but everyone called it "Emm Eee" - same with XP - XP stands for explore but no-one pronoinces it "exp" do they? no! its "Ex Pee" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a contemporary news article from when ME came out saying that Microsoft said to prounounce it like the pronoun, not the initialism:,24330,10956,00.html Also given how the logo says "Me," not "ME" further lends credence to that pronunciation. Polpo (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually both arguments are valid - you may pronounce it "ME" since it obviously is the initials of the official designation "Millennium Edition", or you may pronounce it "Me", since that is the official way Microsoft writes it (e.g. on the packages and the logos on the start screen et cetera). So there is no wrong way to pronounce it, it is only a matter of personal preference. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

KernelEx should be mentioned

There is no other Operating System that I have used on my Dell Inspiron 8000/900 Mhz/256 MB RAM, licensed for Windows ME that works as well as Windows ME. Windows 2000 and the several versions of Linux do not operate as well considering the technology of the laptop. Windows ME is remarkably fast on this Laptop, the operating system has great multimedia features, and is very fast on the Internet. Microsoft makes good operating systems, even if other people are critical of Windows ME!

There are separate articles on the Internet called KernelEx Wiki, a compatibility layer developed by xeno68. The project has been discontinued with the last version being KernelEx 4.5.2.

With KernelEx 4.5.2 one can put some pretty amazing web browsers on their computer with Windows ME. The usual version of Windows ME allows one only to go up to Flash Player 9, and YouTube, (for example), requires Flash Player 10 to operate, with KernelEx I am able to go up to Flash Player on my Inspiron. IE 6 is not an acceptable web browser in today's world. Without KernelEx one can only get Mozilla Firefox 2.0, Sea Monkey 1.19, though with KernelEx I have Firefox 3.6, 4, 5, 9 on my laptop. Firefox 5 and above are browsers that are still supported by YouTube. Opera 9, with KernelEx I can run Opera 11.64, and 12.02. Songbird browser, Nightingale, (2014 browser). SeaMonkey 1.19 without KernelEx, and with KernelEX I can run 2.0.14, and SeaMonkey 2.0.14 works the best that I have found.

I think that this should be included if anyone wants to have a decent Internet experience one needs to use KernelEx with Windows ME, or fast text-only Browser OffByOne, (1 MB). (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, but articles on Wikipedia aren't meant to communicate fixes, workarounds, or suggestions for modding, unless the content has been widely reported in reputable sources giving it due weight. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles in an encyclopedia are summaries that contain the most important aspects on each subject, not all aspects. KernelEx wouldn't be considered a major aspect of Windows ME. For more information on what isn't acceptable, you may want to take a look at WP:NOT. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"poorly received"

I would say that there is not sufficient support in the article body for including "poorly-received" in the definition sentence! The lede already includes "Windows ME was often criticized for being buggy, slow and unstable." IMO that is a sufficient summary, for the lede, of the "criticism" section. That section is well referenced, so I do not think there is a NPOV issue here, unless someone can find a similarly weighty set of references showing praise that we're ignoring... and I don't think that that is about to happen. Jeh (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This quote from the body:

A PC World article dubbed Windows ME the "Mistake Edition" and placed it 4th in their "Worst Tech Products of All Time" feature.[41]

...was what made me think isn't wrong after all.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
As Jeh points out, the lead section already contains a statement that sufficiently summarizes the criticism mentioned in the body. It would be overkill and unnecessary to add "poorly received" in the opening sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
...which can be deleted in favor of the shorter "poorly-received". Brevity and less wordiness... Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
That would be ok with me if it replaced the wording later in the lede. But I think to put it in the opening sentence, which is supposed to give a one-sentence definition of the subject, is overly pointy. Nor is such a thing common on WP. I can't recall any WP articles whose ledes express POV in the opening sentence, no matter how well-referenced. Even Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Gigli are not exceptions. Jeh (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, the lesser known "Other stuff don't exist" discussion! LOL! Well, I don't insist on anything here except that "poorly received" wasn't POV. In fact, leave the sleeping devil undisturbed.
On the side note, I don't know how you are going to implement this in Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Gigli without being POV, even if you wanted to. "Poorly received" in case of Windows ME was universal but you can't call Stalin "murderous" without inciting a riot!
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
It's less wordy, but it's also a lot less specific. While it is preferred to avoid lengthy detail in the lead, one sentence that balances the best of both worlds is a good compromise, and that sentence already exists. The other concern is placement. Typically, the opening line focuses on defining the subject, and "poorly received" doesn't really fit here. In film articles, for example, it is recommended to mention reception in succeeding paragraphs (WP:FILMLEAD). I think that's a good format to apply to software products as well, but maybe that's just me! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Standing article issues

The article has had two notices at the top of its page for verifiability and systematic bias for years now. I believe since that time, both points have largely been resolved, with remaining problematic sections marked as such. I personally have added a couple positive reviews of this operating system to try to balance out the obvious negative bias on display, and tried to use sources that were available at the time of release, rather than a few blogs/articles that can be found 10 or so years later that say "it wasn't so bad". Windows Me's good and bad reputations both should be represented; it is popular to deride it but not everyone had done so even when it was the newest version.

One remaining huge issue I have with the article is the length of the New and updated features section. I'm not sure if there's an actual policy on it, but the large number of bulleted points feels more like an advertisement than encyclopedic content. I believe the New and updated features section on Windows XP's article can be taken as a good example of something far more readable and digestible for this one. Quick paragraph-format summaries, rather than a lengthy list of everything changed. Likewise, if Windows XP (and the later versions' articles) can be taken as precedent, the existing content might be moved into a Features new to Windows ME article instead of deleted outright. Something also repairable is the lack of citations for quite a few of these new features.

Some other issues I notice with the article:

  • The Real mode DOS section treads on being a guide for configuring MS-DOS mode, in addition to only the first paragraph containing citations, the rest of it appears to be original research. I'm in favor of keeping the first and second paragraphs, along with citations, but the rest of it could be junked.
  • The Relation to other Windows releases section likewise contains a large amount of original research and lack of citations. This kind of bugs me because I know a lot of this information empirically, but Wikipedia really needs cited sources for it.

That just about sums up my feelings about the article. I think with a just a little work to resolve these issues, we could get the article nominated for good article status, which would be most excellent. --Chungy (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Chungy.
Nice job.
I have two minor objections:
  • First, WP:GEVAL. You see, both good and bad reviews must be present but they mustn't be given equal weight if they are indeed not equal. The fact that it was one of worst products of all times outweights that fact it hid MS-DOS (its kernel) better. In that light, I followed WP:BRD and remove the so-called review from Paul Thurrott. He is a Microsoft fan (even Infoworld called him that once) and can generally see no major fault with Microsoft or anything related to it.
  • You have incorrectly used |publisher=. "SuperSite for Windows" goes into |Website=; its |publisher= is Penton Media. "ActiveWin" also goes into the |website=; its |publisher= is "Active Network, Inc".
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. I'm OK with Thurrott's review being tossed out as a source, I get the strong impression of bias from him anyway, although I still saw it as a legitimate review, he even mentioned a few downsides in it. At any rate, does this really damage the credibility of his site? It seems to have a ton of info, presumably accurate despite the author's bias, and even other SuperSite articles are already cited on this article. I've also repaired the citations you mentioned, thanks. :-) --Chungy (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello again. You are right about the amount of info in SuperSite for Windows website. We live in a world where there is rarely black and white, when it comes to the reliability of sources. SuperSite for Windows has been a subject of a brief debate between I and my esteemed colleague, ViperSnake151. This site has proven to be reliable when it acts as a secondary source for reporting status quo. (Paul never lies in his site.) But all speculations and personal opinion are to be disregarded with extreme prejudice. He has been wrong more than once. As for peculiarities, Wikipedia is okay with them as along as they adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines when they are emitted to Wikipedia.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Windows ME. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Rename the article to Windows Me, not Windows ME

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - closed per WP:SNOW; consensus previously debated on (ME is an abbreviation for "Millennium Edition") holds; see link below. My apologies for sending this page to an unnecessary RM. (non-admin closure) <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Windows MEWindows Me – The following rationale was originally posted by Maria Kappatou (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC):

I have never seen it referred to as Windows ME. I only know it as Windows Me. Everyone uses Windows Me in USENET and forums. Nobody used Windows ME. We must rename the article to Windows Me to reflect common usage.

I am thus sending this page to a formal RM process to request further consensus from the community. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
[Sigh]! Another person who want to do something completely useless in Wikipedia.
See for yourself: [16]
Look, we really need editors who can do something useful here. There simply isn't a shortage of positive work here. I started my Wikipedia carrier by promoting an article into a Featured Article. Why don't you do the same?
Best regards.
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should be capitalised "Windows Me"?

Look at the logo. Equinox 18:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The logo reads "Windows me". You need to look at common Microsoft usage and common usage in general.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Definitely we must use Windows Me capitalisation for the article. Windows Me is the capitalisation most commonly used by both Microsoft and the general public as you can see for yourself by googling on any Web search engine. Maria Kappatou (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • THE COMMON NAME IS Windows Me, NOT Windows ME, THERE ARE MORE EXAMPLE USAGES OF Windows Me, I HAD PUT MANY LINKS BEFORE I WAS CENSORED. Maria Kappatou (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Your link is still there. I actually invite everyone to visit it. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)