Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Scott Ehrlich wrote: > I believe WinME was designed for the low-end, home user, where NT/2000 is > more for the business, higher-end market. Thus, home users will likely > not need as much security and will not tax the OS as much. That is the > theory. The feature that sold me on ME was the save sets on DLL's/registry. That, combined with Norton Systemworks, and I never have to worry about backing out crappy software again (If I determine it's crappy before I install something else). I was absolutely blown away when I found out (empirically, not scientifically) that ME really does take as much memory to run as NT, while offering 98's functionality plus a few silver bullets I liked. The main reason I went for it is I wanted to get a clean, registered copy of Windows when I built my current main desktop machine, and NT would have been about half the cost of the machine. And, again, I thought ME would take less memory. > > FWIW, by all accounts from the security professionals and > > administrators who know more than I do about Windows (but especially > > the security types) that I have had contact with, Windows ME is the > > worst Windows yet, both in terms of bugginess and in terms of security > > (they do tend to go hand in hand)... I do my firewalling WAY before it gets to my laptop or my desktop, so that's not an issue for me. But I agree with your point. - Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |