 |
News
Why Windows Me is not for me
Windows 2000 Professional should be your 98SE upgrade choice
By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Sm@rt Partner
August 14, 2000
I've been playing with Windows Millennium Edition (Me) for more than three months, and I'm not happy. Microsoft tells me that Me really is for the home, not for business. Sorry guys, but I don't want it in my study or my office.
Me's big problem is that it's a performance dog. At least, I found waiting for it certainly made me want to howl.
Me's main slowdown problem comes from its new belt-and-suspenders approach to system stability. That approach to PC health includes features like system file protection, system restore and integrated help center. There's nothing wrong with any of that. Windows is notoriously unstable. But those same safety belts murder performance.
ETesting Labs (formerly ZDLabs) found that, with the heart of the safety system activated, benchmark system performance varied wildly. The same machine would see its overall speed drop by more than 30 percent from one run to the next with little rhyme or rhythm.
In theory, that happens because of the benchmark's demands. I found similar occasional performance drop-offs when I ran three or more applications. Because I never run less than three applications at once, that is simply unacceptable.
Worse still, I discovered that even when Me was behaving, it still ran slower than Windows 98SE with Internet Explorer 5.5 on the same machine. Throw in that high-usage 30 percent ball and chain, and you're talking about a computing experience that's going to make you want to kick your monitor off the desk. Fortunately, I have carpeting and my monitor survived, but my foot still hurts.
You want to secure your desktop Windows from problems? Don't bother with Me; get a copy of Symantec's Norton SystemWorks 2000 for your existing Windows 95 and 98 systems. That way, you'll get computers that will still run quickly and that will run with more stability.
You see, I found that despite all the safety padding, my systems were actually less stable with Me than they were with Windows 98SE. Talk about annoying! The problem is that while ME is supposed to be the newer, better desktop Windows, it has worse device support than Windows 98SE. That's compounded with what appears to be shoddy workmanship. The operating system is simply more prone to the blue screen of death and other less-annoying crashes.
OK, everyone knows that the first version of any Microsoft operating system is going to be buggy. With Me, however, Microsoft has reached a new low. Me was rushed to the market too soon.
In stark contrast, W2K Professional worked well from the second I put it on my machine. It was the best initial operating-system release I've ever seen from Microsoft or anyone else. Coming after W2K, Me is a real disappointment. If you want a new Microsoft desktop OS, run -- don't walk -- and get a copy of Windows 2000 Professional.
When I think about the bigger picture, though, and Microsoft's unrealistic plans to push W2K server-capable BackOffice applications and advanced W2K operating systems to market before year-end, I get worried. If Microsoft is serious about doing right by its operating-systems customers -- and with Linux coming up fast -- MS should spend more time getting its products right. W2K Professional shows Microsoft can do that; Me tells us it needs to learn how to do that consistently.
SOURCE: Sm@rt Partner
|
 |
|
|
