Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Would someone be able to tell me the difference between Windows ME and
Windows 2000.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

ME is based on the 9x kernel and is a development from Windows 95 and 98.

2000 is based on the NT kernel and is a development from Windows NT3.1,
NT3.51 and NT4.0. Windows 2000 is actually NT 5.0.

Loosely-speaking the 9x series (no longer in development) was aimed at the
Home User, while the NT series was aimed at the Corporate User. Windows XP
is an NT system (NT 5.1) and aimed at both markets.

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that ME and 2000 are the same,
but they are not related and updates for one are (almost) never also for the
other. Usually updates for one will not install on the other - but if they
did, unless expressly intended for both, would likely cause serious
problems. So, don't try installing Service Pack 4 on Win ME!


Shane




"KathyAnn" <KathyAnn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:72025B7F-F73F-4383-AA22-CC3D88A4C44E@microsoft.com...
> Would someone be able to tell me the difference between Windows ME and
> Windows 2000.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

ME allows 16-bit applications to grab the basic IO functions of the machine
and is therefore far less stable than 2K. In 2K, even 16-bit applications
run in a sandbox, where they can't crash the machine. ME allows older apps
to run. It's a lot less fussy. 2K provides more stability and security.

I have both installed on a dual boot machine and am quite happy with both.
For example, I do my defrags in ME because its program has a cool GUI and
also allows scheduling all drives for defrag at once. Its defrag is also
much faster. I also have old games that will only install on ME. On the
other hand, many newer apps won't install or won't run on ME.

It's nice to have both.

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eAKOqPgnFHA.860@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> ME is based on the 9x kernel and is a development from Windows 95 and 98.
>
> 2000 is based on the NT kernel and is a development from Windows NT3.1,
> NT3.51 and NT4.0. Windows 2000 is actually NT 5.0.
>
> Loosely-speaking the 9x series (no longer in development) was aimed at the
> Home User, while the NT series was aimed at the Corporate User. Windows XP
> is an NT system (NT 5.1) and aimed at both markets.
>
> A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that ME and 2000 are the
same,
> but they are not related and updates for one are (almost) never also for
the
> other. Usually updates for one will not install on the other - but if they
> did, unless expressly intended for both, would likely cause serious
> problems. So, don't try installing Service Pack 4 on Win ME!
>
>
> Shane
>
>
>
>
> "KathyAnn" <KathyAnn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:72025B7F-F73F-4383-AA22-CC3D88A4C44E@microsoft.com...
> > Would someone be able to tell me the difference between Windows ME and
> > Windows 2000.
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Thank you for your reply. I have just updated my mobile phone to a nokia
3230. I can use a piece of software called nokia pc suite. However, it
states that I need windows 2000 or Xp to run it. I was wondering why I
couldn't run it under windows me?

"Walterius" wrote:

> ME allows 16-bit applications to grab the basic IO functions of the machine
> and is therefore far less stable than 2K. In 2K, even 16-bit applications
> run in a sandbox, where they can't crash the machine. ME allows older apps
> to run. It's a lot less fussy. 2K provides more stability and security.
>
> I have both installed on a dual boot machine and am quite happy with both.
> For example, I do my defrags in ME because its program has a cool GUI and
> also allows scheduling all drives for defrag at once. Its defrag is also
> much faster. I also have old games that will only install on ME. On the
> other hand, many newer apps won't install or won't run on ME.
>
> It's nice to have both.
>
> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eAKOqPgnFHA.860@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > ME is based on the 9x kernel and is a development from Windows 95 and 98.
> >
> > 2000 is based on the NT kernel and is a development from Windows NT3.1,
> > NT3.51 and NT4.0. Windows 2000 is actually NT 5.0.
> >
> > Loosely-speaking the 9x series (no longer in development) was aimed at the
> > Home User, while the NT series was aimed at the Corporate User. Windows XP
> > is an NT system (NT 5.1) and aimed at both markets.
> >
> > A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that ME and 2000 are the
> same,
> > but they are not related and updates for one are (almost) never also for
> the
> > other. Usually updates for one will not install on the other - but if they
> > did, unless expressly intended for both, would likely cause serious
> > problems. So, don't try installing Service Pack 4 on Win ME!
> >
> >
> > Shane
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "KathyAnn" <KathyAnn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:72025B7F-F73F-4383-AA22-CC3D88A4C44E@microsoft.com...
> > > Would someone be able to tell me the difference between Windows ME and
> > > Windows 2000.
> >
> >
>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Because Nokia didn't write the software for anything other than 2k and XP.
Why? Because Microsoft are no longer developing (ie, selling) 9x systems.
Why Nokia in particular don't want to support 9x is a question best
addressed to Nokia.


Shane




"KathyAnn" <KathyAnn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:68941CBD-27FD-4068-B4BC-158362F63BDF@microsoft.com...
> Thank you for your reply. I have just updated my mobile phone to a nokia
> 3230. I can use a piece of software called nokia pc suite. However, it
> states that I need windows 2000 or Xp to run it. I was wondering why I
> couldn't run it under windows me?
>
> "Walterius" wrote:
>
>> ME allows 16-bit applications to grab the basic IO functions of the
>> machine
>> and is therefore far less stable than 2K. In 2K, even 16-bit applications
>> run in a sandbox, where they can't crash the machine. ME allows older
>> apps
>> to run. It's a lot less fussy. 2K provides more stability and security.
>>
>> I have both installed on a dual boot machine and am quite happy with
>> both.
>> For example, I do my defrags in ME because its program has a cool GUI and
>> also allows scheduling all drives for defrag at once. Its defrag is also
>> much faster. I also have old games that will only install on ME. On the
>> other hand, many newer apps won't install or won't run on ME.
>>
>> It's nice to have both.
>>
>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eAKOqPgnFHA.860@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> > ME is based on the 9x kernel and is a development from Windows 95 and
>> > 98.
>> >
>> > 2000 is based on the NT kernel and is a development from Windows NT3.1,
>> > NT3.51 and NT4.0. Windows 2000 is actually NT 5.0.
>> >
>> > Loosely-speaking the 9x series (no longer in development) was aimed at
>> > the
>> > Home User, while the NT series was aimed at the Corporate User. Windows
>> > XP
>> > is an NT system (NT 5.1) and aimed at both markets.
>> >
>> > A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that ME and 2000 are the
>> same,
>> > but they are not related and updates for one are (almost) never also
>> > for
>> the
>> > other. Usually updates for one will not install on the other - but if
>> > they
>> > did, unless expressly intended for both, would likely cause serious
>> > problems. So, don't try installing Service Pack 4 on Win ME!
>> >
>> >
>> > Shane
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "KathyAnn" <KathyAnn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> > news:72025B7F-F73F-4383-AA22-CC3D88A4C44E@microsoft.com...
>> > > Would someone be able to tell me the difference between Windows ME
>> > > and
>> > > Windows 2000.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Odd, the PC Suite from Nokia for my 3650 runs on ME.

However, this is not a very *good* software package. Mostly run it to
transfer images via bluetooth. And even then, it's quite unreliable.
"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
newsnfTyAmnFHA.3020@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Because Nokia didn't write the software for anything other than 2k and XP.
> Why? Because Microsoft are no longer developing (ie, selling) 9x systems.
> Why Nokia in particular don't want to support 9x is a question best
> addressed to Nokia.
>
>
> Shane
>
>
>
>
> "KathyAnn" <KathyAnn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:68941CBD-27FD-4068-B4BC-158362F63BDF@microsoft.com...
> > Thank you for your reply. I have just updated my mobile phone to a
nokia
> > 3230. I can use a piece of software called nokia pc suite. However, it
> > states that I need windows 2000 or Xp to run it. I was wondering why I
> > couldn't run it under windows me?
> >
> > "Walterius" wrote:
> >
> >> ME allows 16-bit applications to grab the basic IO functions of the
> >> machine
> >> and is therefore far less stable than 2K. In 2K, even 16-bit
applications
> >> run in a sandbox, where they can't crash the machine. ME allows older
> >> apps
> >> to run. It's a lot less fussy. 2K provides more stability and security.
> >>
> >> I have both installed on a dual boot machine and am quite happy with
> >> both.
> >> For example, I do my defrags in ME because its program has a cool GUI
and
> >> also allows scheduling all drives for defrag at once. Its defrag is
also
> >> much faster. I also have old games that will only install on ME. On the
> >> other hand, many newer apps won't install or won't run on ME.
> >>
> >> It's nice to have both.
> >>
> >> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:eAKOqPgnFHA.860@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> > ME is based on the 9x kernel and is a development from Windows 95 and
> >> > 98.
> >> >
> >> > 2000 is based on the NT kernel and is a development from Windows
NT3.1,
> >> > NT3.51 and NT4.0. Windows 2000 is actually NT 5.0.
> >> >
> >> > Loosely-speaking the 9x series (no longer in development) was aimed
at
> >> > the
> >> > Home User, while the NT series was aimed at the Corporate User.
Windows
> >> > XP
> >> > is an NT system (NT 5.1) and aimed at both markets.
> >> >
> >> > A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that ME and 2000 are the
> >> same,
> >> > but they are not related and updates for one are (almost) never also
> >> > for
> >> the
> >> > other. Usually updates for one will not install on the other - but if
> >> > they
> >> > did, unless expressly intended for both, would likely cause serious
> >> > problems. So, don't try installing Service Pack 4 on Win ME!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Shane
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "KathyAnn" <KathyAnn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:72025B7F-F73F-4383-AA22-CC3D88A4C44E@microsoft.com...
> >> > > Would someone be able to tell me the difference between Windows ME
> >> > > and
> >> > > Windows 2000.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

As is the case at Nokia Support's download pages.PC Suite for 3650 also runs
on 98se, but PC Suite 6.6 for 3230 (all that's offered) requires Win 2000
(sp3 or sp4) or XP (sp1 or sp2).

Shane

"ng_reader" <wilgrow_co@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8didnfFKFYPxnGHfRVn-qA@comcast.com...
> Odd, the PC Suite from Nokia for my 3650 runs on ME.
>
> However, this is not a very *good* software package. Mostly run it to
> transfer images via bluetooth. And even then, it's quite unreliable.
> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> newsnfTyAmnFHA.3020@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Because Nokia didn't write the software for anything other than 2k and
>> XP.
>> Why? Because Microsoft are no longer developing (ie, selling) 9x systems.
>> Why Nokia in particular don't want to support 9x is a question best
>> addressed to Nokia.
>>
>>
>> Shane
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "KathyAnn" <KathyAnn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:68941CBD-27FD-4068-B4BC-158362F63BDF@microsoft.com...
>> > Thank you for your reply. I have just updated my mobile phone to a
> nokia
>> > 3230. I can use a piece of software called nokia pc suite. However,
>> > it
>> > states that I need windows 2000 or Xp to run it. I was wondering why I
>> > couldn't run it under windows me?
>> >
>> > "Walterius" wrote:
>> >
>> >> ME allows 16-bit applications to grab the basic IO functions of the
>> >> machine
>> >> and is therefore far less stable than 2K. In 2K, even 16-bit
> applications
>> >> run in a sandbox, where they can't crash the machine. ME allows older
>> >> apps
>> >> to run. It's a lot less fussy. 2K provides more stability and
>> >> security.
>> >>
>> >> I have both installed on a dual boot machine and am quite happy with
>> >> both.
>> >> For example, I do my defrags in ME because its program has a cool GUI
> and
>> >> also allows scheduling all drives for defrag at once. Its defrag is
> also
>> >> much faster. I also have old games that will only install on ME. On
>> >> the
>> >> other hand, many newer apps won't install or won't run on ME.
>> >>
>> >> It's nice to have both.
>> >>
>> >> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:eAKOqPgnFHA.860@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> > ME is based on the 9x kernel and is a development from Windows 95
>> >> > and
>> >> > 98.
>> >> >
>> >> > 2000 is based on the NT kernel and is a development from Windows
> NT3.1,
>> >> > NT3.51 and NT4.0. Windows 2000 is actually NT 5.0.
>> >> >
>> >> > Loosely-speaking the 9x series (no longer in development) was aimed
> at
>> >> > the
>> >> > Home User, while the NT series was aimed at the Corporate User.
> Windows
>> >> > XP
>> >> > is an NT system (NT 5.1) and aimed at both markets.
>> >> >
>> >> > A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that ME and 2000 are
>> >> > the
>> >> same,
>> >> > but they are not related and updates for one are (almost) never also
>> >> > for
>> >> the
>> >> > other. Usually updates for one will not install on the other - but
>> >> > if
>> >> > they
>> >> > did, unless expressly intended for both, would likely cause serious
>> >> > problems. So, don't try installing Service Pack 4 on Win ME!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Shane
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "KathyAnn" <KathyAnn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:72025B7F-F73F-4383-AA22-CC3D88A4C44E@microsoft.com...
>> >> > > Would someone be able to tell me the difference between Windows ME
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > Windows 2000.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>