ME vs XP

[Bart]

This is probably a question I'll probably get hollered at in this group,
but, is it the right thing to do to upgrade from ME to XP? As long as I
keep things clean and streamlined with minimal programs running in the
background, I get along fine with ME. I haven't had a crash since I gave up
on NAV. XP people say that the OS is dumbed down which tells me system
resources are diverted to little amenities that I could live without, but
that it also uses memory more efficiently. With SP2 and all the security
breaches they talk about with XP, I wonder if I should just wait for the
next OS. What say you?

[Alias]

"Bart" > wrote

: This is probably a question I'll probably get hollered at in this group,
: but, is it the right thing to do to upgrade from ME to XP? As long as I
: keep things clean and streamlined with minimal programs running in the
: background, I get along fine with ME. I haven't had a crash since I gave
up
: on NAV. XP people say that the OS is dumbed down which tells me system
: resources are diverted to little amenities that I could live without, but
: that it also uses memory more efficiently. With SP2 and all the security
: breaches they talk about with XP, I wonder if I should just wait for the
: next OS. What say you?

I like XP much better than Me, especially the never-needing-to-reboot
aspect. You'll wonder what you ever saw in Me after moving up to XP.
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature
of your news reader program to email me.

Utiliza Responder al Remitente
para mandarme un mail.
:
:

[Mike Cawood, HND BIT]

"Alias" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bart" > wrote
>
> : This is probably a question I'll probably get hollered at in this
group,
> : but, is it the right thing to do to upgrade from ME to XP? As long
as I
> : keep things clean and streamlined with minimal programs running in
the
> : background, I get along fine with ME. I haven't had a crash since I
gave
> up
> : on NAV. XP people say that the OS is dumbed down which tells me
system
> : resources are diverted to little amenities that I could live
without, but
> : that it also uses memory more efficiently. With SP2 and all the
security
> : breaches they talk about with XP, I wonder if I should just wait for
the
> : next OS. What say you?
>
> I like XP much better than Me, especially the never-needing-to-reboot
> aspect. You'll wonder what you ever saw in Me after moving up to XP.
> --
> Alias
>
> Use the Reply to Sender feature
> of your news reader program to email me.
>
> Utiliza Responder al Remitente
> para mandarme un mail.
> :
> :
>
>
I want to upgrade from ME to XP so I can set it so my PITA kids can't
install any software.
Now, if I can find a cheap copy of XP at a computer fair...
Regards Mike.

[Will Denny]

You've got rid of NAV, which is great step forward. An upgrade to XP is a
very good idea. However you might to check out the compatibilties between
ME & XP and how to upgrade to XP

The following by MVP Gary Woodfuff will help you:

"Upgrading to WINDOWS XP "
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpupgrad.php

--


Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
Please reply to the News Groups


"Bart" > wrote in message
...
> This is probably a question I'll probably get hollered at in this group,
> but, is it the right thing to do to upgrade from ME to XP? As long as I
> keep things clean and streamlined with minimal programs running in the
> background, I get along fine with ME. I haven't had a crash since I gave
> up
> on NAV. XP people say that the OS is dumbed down which tells me system
> resources are diverted to little amenities that I could live without, but
> that it also uses memory more efficiently. With SP2 and all the security
> breaches they talk about with XP, I wonder if I should just wait for the
> next OS. What say you?
>
>

[Jan Il]

Hi Bart :-)

> This is probably a question I'll probably get hollered at in this group,
> but, is it the right thing to do to upgrade from ME to XP? As long as I
> keep things clean and streamlined with minimal programs running in the
> background, I get along fine with ME. I haven't had a crash since I gave
up
> on NAV. XP people say that the OS is dumbed down which tells me system
> resources are diverted to little amenities that I could live without, but
> that it also uses memory more efficiently. With SP2 and all the security
> breaches they talk about with XP, I wonder if I should just wait for the
> next OS. What say you?

I have 3 versions of Windows on my machine, ME, W2K and now XP Pro with SP2,
and all on a separate drive. I like them all, although, I reserve my full
love for XP just yet. I have had it installed for a while, but, just the
past couple of months have been toying with it, and now really getting into
'using' it. I still like the simplicity of ME, it's like a very comfortable
pair of slippers. I then moved up to W2K, and liked many things about it
too. Now that I am learning more about XP I am finding things that are very
likeable about it too. I am having some growing pains with XP, as I did
with '95. '98, ME, and W2K as well.

Just don't expect to be overwhelmed with glitter, dazzle and raz-mah-taz,
and you won't be disappointed. Just be patient, enjoy, and when a problem
does arise...just visit the good folks here and they'll help you get it
resolved. Same as when the washing machine or dryer goes Kaflooie on ya. Or
the dang car won't start (my personal pet peeve). :-)

Take it slow, read up on it before hand, and.....if it don't work right the
first time, wipe and start again. And most of all.....smile. It will make
things seem much less daunting. 'k?

Enjoy. :-)

Jan :)
Smiles are meant to be shared,
that's why they're so contagious.

[Richard G. Harper]

First, if your hardware will support it, Windows XP is definitely where you
want to be. Windows XP is based on the NT software kernel, which has some
vast improvements over the 9x software kernel. For one thing, resource
memory pools are nearly inexhaustible, so you don't need to worry as much
about the background program load. For another, most programs run in a
separate memory space, so when one program does crash it rarely impacts any
other program. I could go on all day, but I won't. :-)

Second, there's no sense in waiting for Longhorn. It is still several years
away, and no one can guarantee that it will be any less susceptible to
"security breaches" than Windows XP is. And finally, if Windows XP is kept
updated and you use common-sense security measures there's no reason to fear
that your XP will be breached any more than any other operating system.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Bart" > wrote in message
...
> This is probably a question I'll probably get hollered at in this group,
> but, is it the right thing to do to upgrade from ME to XP? As long as I
> keep things clean and streamlined with minimal programs running in the
> background, I get along fine with ME. I haven't had a crash since I gave
> up
> on NAV. XP people say that the OS is dumbed down which tells me system
> resources are diverted to little amenities that I could live without, but
> that it also uses memory more efficiently. With SP2 and all the security
> breaches they talk about with XP, I wonder if I should just wait for the
> next OS. What say you?

[Jack E Martinelli]

I can not add anything even marginally useful to Mr. Harper's comments.
If your hardware supports XP, you will never look back!
Be sure to install SP2.

For those unfortunate enough to be running certain Norton software, be sure
to read the warnings at the Symantec site re: the effect of the SP2 update:
"Blue screen after installing Norton Ghost 9.0 or Windows XP Service Pack 2
"
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/powerquest.nsf/docid/2004101409483062?OpenDocument&tpre=&csm=no&src=con_web_nam
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Richard G. Harper" > wrote in message
...
> First, if your hardware will support it, Windows XP is definitely where
you
> want to be. Windows XP is based on the NT software kernel, which has some
> vast improvements over the 9x software kernel. For one thing, resource
> memory pools are nearly inexhaustible, so you don't need to worry as much
> about the background program load. For another, most programs run in a
> separate memory space, so when one program does crash it rarely impacts
any
> other program. I could go on all day, but I won't. :-)
>
> Second, there's no sense in waiting for Longhorn. It is still several
years
> away, and no one can guarantee that it will be any less susceptible to
> "security breaches" than Windows XP is. And finally, if Windows XP is
kept
> updated and you use common-sense security measures there's no reason to
fear
> that your XP will be breached any more than any other operating system.
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
> * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "Bart" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This is probably a question I'll probably get hollered at in this group,
> > but, is it the right thing to do to upgrade from ME to XP? As long as I
> > keep things clean and streamlined with minimal programs running in the
> > background, I get along fine with ME. I haven't had a crash since I
gave
> > up
> > on NAV. XP people say that the OS is dumbed down which tells me system
> > resources are diverted to little amenities that I could live without,
but
> > that it also uses memory more efficiently. With SP2 and all the
security
> > breaches they talk about with XP, I wonder if I should just wait for the
> > next OS. What say you?
>
>

[Richard G. Harper]

.... but then you did! You modest guy, you. :-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Jack E Martinelli" > wrote in message
...
>I can not add anything even marginally useful to Mr. Harper's comments.

[Bart]

OK, so what all of you have told me makes perfect sense and I really want to
at least keep up with current technology, but today and I think even maybe
yesterday I read a newsletter from PCWorld and when they talk about the
nightmares, cautions about SP2, problems, workarounds, etc, etc leaves me
thinking that who needs the hassle when all I want to do is successfully
launch some programs and save the data reliably. Maybe Jan's advice is the
most applicable and go easy, learn and have no grand expectations. Thanks,
folks, for all the replies!!
A grateful,
Bart

"Richard G. Harper" > wrote in message
...
> First, if your hardware will support it, Windows XP is definitely where
you
> want to be. Windows XP is based on the NT software kernel, which has some
> vast improvements over the 9x software kernel. For one thing, resource
> memory pools are nearly inexhaustible, so you don't need to worry as much
> about the background program load. For another, most programs run in a
> separate memory space, so when one program does crash it rarely impacts
any
> other program. I could go on all day, but I won't. :-)
>
> Second, there's no sense in waiting for Longhorn. It is still several
years
> away, and no one can guarantee that it will be any less susceptible to
> "security breaches" than Windows XP is. And finally, if Windows XP is
kept
> updated and you use common-sense security measures there's no reason to
fear
> that your XP will be breached any more than any other operating system.
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
> * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "Bart" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This is probably a question I'll probably get hollered at in this group,
> > but, is it the right thing to do to upgrade from ME to XP? As long as I
> > keep things clean and streamlined with minimal programs running in the
> > background, I get along fine with ME. I haven't had a crash since I
gave
> > up
> > on NAV. XP people say that the OS is dumbed down which tells me system
> > resources are diverted to little amenities that I could live without,
but
> > that it also uses memory more efficiently. With SP2 and all the
security
> > breaches they talk about with XP, I wonder if I should just wait for the
> > next OS. What say you?
>
>

[Jack E Martinelli]

One of the most difficult problems in "personal computing" is deciding whom
to believe, ... before you know enough not to have to ask.

I can't make that decision --- you have to.
But Messers. Denny and Harper, and myself, wish you the best and are giving
you our best advice.

OTH, PC World, or any other for-profit mag, is not going to spill much ink
telling you that XP SP2 is just great, and that you will not have issues
with it if you keep the critical updates installed, and do your usual
maintenance. They need to sell you bundles of pages of problem-fixes,
right, issue after issue?

I am quite confident that you will be pleased, if not outright surprised, at
how well XP runs. And no 16-bit system resources bottleneck, as in all
Win9X. I predict you will not look back!

--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Bart" > wrote in message
...
> OK, so what all of you have told me makes perfect sense and I really want
to
> at least keep up with current technology, but today and I think even maybe
> yesterday I read a newsletter from PCWorld and when they talk about the
> nightmares, cautions about SP2, problems, workarounds, etc, etc leaves me
> thinking that who needs the hassle when all I want to do is successfully
> launch some programs and save the data reliably. Maybe Jan's advice is
the
> most applicable and go easy, learn and have no grand expectations.
Thanks,
> folks, for all the replies!!
> A grateful,
> Bart
>
> "Richard G. Harper" > wrote in message
> ...
> > First, if your hardware will support it, Windows XP is definitely where
> you want to be. Windows XP is based on the NT software kernel, which has
some
> > vast improvements over the 9x software kernel. For one thing, resource
> > memory pools are nearly inexhaustible, so you don't need to worry as
much
> > about the background program load. For another, most programs run in a
> > separate memory space, so when one program does crash it rarely impacts
> any other program. I could go on all day, but I won't. :-)
> >
> > Second, there's no sense in waiting for Longhorn. It is still several
> years away, and no one can guarantee that it will be any less susceptible
to
> > "security breaches" than Windows XP is. And finally, if Windows XP is
> kept updated and you use common-sense security measures there's no reason
to
> fear that your XP will be breached any more than any other operating
system.
> >
> > --
> > Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
> > * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> > * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
> > * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> > * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >
> >
> > "Bart" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > This is probably a question I'll probably get hollered at in this
group,
> > > but, is it the right thing to do to upgrade from ME to XP? As long as
I
> > > keep things clean and streamlined with minimal programs running in the
> > > background, I get along fine with ME. I haven't had a crash since I
> gave
> > > up
> > > on NAV. XP people say that the OS is dumbed down which tells me
system
> > > resources are diverted to little amenities that I could live without,
> but
> > > that it also uses memory more efficiently. With SP2 and all the
> security
> > > breaches they talk about with XP, I wonder if I should just wait for
the
> > > next OS. What say you?
> >

[Jack E Martinelli]

Trivial stuff, compared to your brilliant comments, Master.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Richard G. Harper" > wrote in message
...
> ... but then you did! You modest guy, you. :-)
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
> * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "Jack E Martinelli" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I can not add anything even marginally useful to Mr. Harper's comments.
>

[Richard G. Harper]

In short words ... POO!

There are two major problem areas when installing Windows XP Service Pack 2:

1. Corporate users who have programs that rely on the more relaxed security
that Windows XP Gold/Service Pack 1 provide. That's not the fault of
Service Pack 2, but everyone will blame it on SP2 since "It wasn't broken
until I installed ..."

2. Computers with a spyware/adware infestation often have problems after
installing Service Pack 2, but that can be resolved by uninstalling Service
Pack 2, then cleaning the PC of any unwanted guests, finally reinstalling
Service Pack 2.

I am running XP SP2 on all my home PCs, and all my work PCs that have
Windows XP on them. I have yet to see one problem of any type - serious or
minor - with any computer that has SP2 installed.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Bart" > wrote in message
...
> OK, so what all of you have told me makes perfect sense and I really want
> to
> at least keep up with current technology, but today and I think even maybe
> yesterday I read a newsletter from PCWorld and when they talk about the
> nightmares, cautions about SP2, problems, workarounds, etc, etc leaves me
> thinking that who needs the hassle when all I want to do is successfully
> launch some programs and save the data reliably. Maybe Jan's advice is
> the
> most applicable and go easy, learn and have no grand expectations.
> Thanks,
> folks, for all the replies!!
> A grateful,
> Bart

[Joe Starin]

If I may jump in... Would upgrading from ME to XP be relatively painless for
all of the other programs typically installed on a PC (MS Office Suite,
games, graphics editors, AV, FW, etc?) Or will one probably have to download
a bunch of drivers to get those existing programs to work with XP? Thanks,
Joe Starin

"Richard G. Harper" > wrote in message
...
> In short words ... POO!
>
> There are two major problem areas when installing Windows XP Service Pack
2:
>
> 1. Corporate users who have programs that rely on the more relaxed
security
> that Windows XP Gold/Service Pack 1 provide. That's not the fault of
> Service Pack 2, but everyone will blame it on SP2 since "It wasn't broken
> until I installed ..."
>
> 2. Computers with a spyware/adware infestation often have problems after
> installing Service Pack 2, but that can be resolved by uninstalling
Service
> Pack 2, then cleaning the PC of any unwanted guests, finally reinstalling
> Service Pack 2.
>
> I am running XP SP2 on all my home PCs, and all my work PCs that have
> Windows XP on them. I have yet to see one problem of any type - serious
or
> minor - with any computer that has SP2 installed.
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
> * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "Bart" > wrote in message
> ...
> > OK, so what all of you have told me makes perfect sense and I really
want
> > to
> > at least keep up with current technology, but today and I think even
maybe
> > yesterday I read a newsletter from PCWorld and when they talk about the
> > nightmares, cautions about SP2, problems, workarounds, etc, etc leaves
me
> > thinking that who needs the hassle when all I want to do is successfully
> > launch some programs and save the data reliably. Maybe Jan's advice is
> > the
> > most applicable and go easy, learn and have no grand expectations.
> > Thanks,
> > folks, for all the replies!!
> > A grateful,
> > Bart
>
>

[Noel Paton]

"Mike Cawood, HND BIT" > wrote in message
...
> "Alias" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Bart" > wrote
>>
>> : This is probably a question I'll probably get hollered at in this
> group,
>> : but, is it the right thing to do to upgrade from ME to XP? As long
> as I
>> : keep things clean and streamlined with minimal programs running in
> the
>> : background, I get along fine with ME. I haven't had a crash since I
> gave
>> up
>> : on NAV. XP people say that the OS is dumbed down which tells me
> system
>> : resources are diverted to little amenities that I could live
> without, but
>> : that it also uses memory more efficiently. With SP2 and all the
> security
>> : breaches they talk about with XP, I wonder if I should just wait for
> the
>> : next OS. What say you?
>>
>> I like XP much better than Me, especially the never-needing-to-reboot
>> aspect. You'll wonder what you ever saw in Me after moving up to XP.
>> --
>> Alias
>>
>> Use the Reply to Sender feature
>> of your news reader program to email me.
>>
>> Utiliza Responder al Remitente
>> para mandarme un mail.
>> :
>> :
>>
>>
> I want to upgrade from ME to XP so I can set it so my PITA kids can't
> install any software.
> Now, if I can find a cheap copy of XP at a computer fair...
> Regards Mike.


You'll find them easily enough - but will they be legal???

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

[Noel Paton]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsme/upgrade.asp

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Joe Starin" > wrote in message
...
> If I may jump in... Would upgrading from ME to XP be relatively painless
> for
> all of the other programs typically installed on a PC (MS Office Suite,
> games, graphics editors, AV, FW, etc?) Or will one probably have to
> download
> a bunch of drivers to get those existing programs to work with XP? Thanks,
> Joe Starin
>
> "Richard G. Harper" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In short words ... POO!
>>
>> There are two major problem areas when installing Windows XP Service Pack
> 2:
>>
>> 1. Corporate users who have programs that rely on the more relaxed
> security
>> that Windows XP Gold/Service Pack 1 provide. That's not the fault of
>> Service Pack 2, but everyone will blame it on SP2 since "It wasn't broken
>> until I installed ..."
>>
>> 2. Computers with a spyware/adware infestation often have problems after
>> installing Service Pack 2, but that can be resolved by uninstalling
> Service
>> Pack 2, then cleaning the PC of any unwanted guests, finally reinstalling
>> Service Pack 2.
>>
>> I am running XP SP2 on all my home PCs, and all my work PCs that have
>> Windows XP on them. I have yet to see one problem of any type - serious
> or
>> minor - with any computer that has SP2 installed.
>>
>> --
>> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
>> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
>> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
>> * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
>> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>> "Bart" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > OK, so what all of you have told me makes perfect sense and I really
> want
>> > to
>> > at least keep up with current technology, but today and I think even
> maybe
>> > yesterday I read a newsletter from PCWorld and when they talk about the
>> > nightmares, cautions about SP2, problems, workarounds, etc, etc leaves
> me
>> > thinking that who needs the hassle when all I want to do is
>> > successfully
>> > launch some programs and save the data reliably. Maybe Jan's advice is
>> > the
>> > most applicable and go easy, learn and have no grand expectations.
>> > Thanks,
>> > folks, for all the replies!!
>> > A grateful,
>> > Bart
>>
>>
>
>

[BarryG]

"Joe Starin" wrote:

> If I may jump in... Would upgrading from ME to XP be relatively painless for
> all of the other programs typically installed on a PC (MS Office Suite,
> games, graphics editors, AV, FW, etc?) Or will one probably have to download
> a bunch of drivers to get those existing programs to work with XP? Thanks,
> Joe Starin
>

Joe,

I found that my Zone Alarm 4 firewall wouldn't work in XP, so I downloaded
Zone Alarm 5. It was also at the same time that AVG6 (AV) stopped, and AVG7
started, so my AV was also replaced.
My XP came with SP2 already in it, and it works great for me.

I kept my ME as dual boot, just in case (3 scenarios, best case, worst case,
and just in case) but I haven't touched my WinME in weeks.
I'm hooked on XP.

Good luck.
BarryG

[Joe Starin]

Thanks, all. Sometimes I wonder if it's just better to wait until you buy a
new PC. I tend to replace my PCs every 4 to 5 years -- and when I do there's
always a new MS OS installed and ready to explore :-)

BTW, Noel, I disabled MOSearch and PCHealth, per your email suggestion. Now,
my ME machine runs much stronger -- no need to reboot every 3 to 4 hours. I
still need to look into zapping UpdReg and CTFMON. Thanks for the sound
advice.

Joe Starin

"BarryG" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Joe Starin" wrote:
>
> > If I may jump in... Would upgrading from ME to XP be relatively painless
for
> > all of the other programs typically installed on a PC (MS Office Suite,
> > games, graphics editors, AV, FW, etc?) Or will one probably have to
download
> > a bunch of drivers to get those existing programs to work with XP?
Thanks,
> > Joe Starin
> >
>
> Joe,
>
> I found that my Zone Alarm 4 firewall wouldn't work in XP, so I downloaded
> Zone Alarm 5. It was also at the same time that AVG6 (AV) stopped, and
AVG7
> started, so my AV was also replaced.
> My XP came with SP2 already in it, and it works great for me.
>
> I kept my ME as dual boot, just in case (3 scenarios, best case, worst
case,
> and just in case) but I haven't touched my WinME in weeks.
> I'm hooked on XP.
>
> Good luck.
> BarryG
>

[Richard G. Harper]

Two different items entirely, drivers and software. Most software packages
will work correctly after the XP upgrade, but device drivers will need to be
installed or updated in many cases. The XP Upgrade Advisor runs when you
start the upgrade and will point out most of the usual failures or problems
with your current system configuration if you continue with the upgrade.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Joe Starin" > wrote in message
...
> If I may jump in... Would upgrading from ME to XP be relatively painless
> for
> all of the other programs typically installed on a PC (MS Office Suite,
> games, graphics editors, AV, FW, etc?) Or will one probably have to
> download
> a bunch of drivers to get those existing programs to work with XP? Thanks,
> Joe Starin
>
> "Richard G. Harper" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In short words ... POO!
>>
>> There are two major problem areas when installing Windows XP Service Pack
> 2:
>>
>> 1. Corporate users who have programs that rely on the more relaxed
> security
>> that Windows XP Gold/Service Pack 1 provide. That's not the fault of
>> Service Pack 2, but everyone will blame it on SP2 since "It wasn't broken
>> until I installed ..."
>>
>> 2. Computers with a spyware/adware infestation often have problems after
>> installing Service Pack 2, but that can be resolved by uninstalling
> Service
>> Pack 2, then cleaning the PC of any unwanted guests, finally reinstalling
>> Service Pack 2.
>>
>> I am running XP SP2 on all my home PCs, and all my work PCs that have
>> Windows XP on them. I have yet to see one problem of any type - serious
> or
>> minor - with any computer that has SP2 installed.
>>
>> --
>> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
>> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
>> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
>> * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
>> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>> "Bart" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > OK, so what all of you have told me makes perfect sense and I really
> want
>> > to
>> > at least keep up with current technology, but today and I think even
> maybe
>> > yesterday I read a newsletter from PCWorld and when they talk about the
>> > nightmares, cautions about SP2, problems, workarounds, etc, etc leaves
> me
>> > thinking that who needs the hassle when all I want to do is
>> > successfully
>> > launch some programs and save the data reliably. Maybe Jan's advice is
>> > the
>> > most applicable and go easy, learn and have no grand expectations.
>> > Thanks,
>> > folks, for all the replies!!
>> > A grateful,
>> > Bart
>>
>>
>
>

[Andrew Murray]

You'll need drivers to get your hardware to work, not those programs. The
applications will more than likely work as XP has been designed that old
programs can work with it.

"Joe Starin" > wrote in message
...
> If I may jump in... Would upgrading from ME to XP be relatively painless
> for
> all of the other programs typically installed on a PC (MS Office Suite,
> games, graphics editors, AV, FW, etc?) Or will one probably have to
> download
> a bunch of drivers to get those existing programs to work with XP? Thanks,
> Joe Starin
>
> "Richard G. Harper" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In short words ... POO!
>>
>> There are two major problem areas when installing Windows XP Service Pack
> 2:
>>
>> 1. Corporate users who have programs that rely on the more relaxed
> security
>> that Windows XP Gold/Service Pack 1 provide. That's not the fault of
>> Service Pack 2, but everyone will blame it on SP2 since "It wasn't broken
>> until I installed ..."
>>
>> 2. Computers with a spyware/adware infestation often have problems after
>> installing Service Pack 2, but that can be resolved by uninstalling
> Service
>> Pack 2, then cleaning the PC of any unwanted guests, finally reinstalling
>> Service Pack 2.
>>
>> I am running XP SP2 on all my home PCs, and all my work PCs that have
>> Windows XP on them. I have yet to see one problem of any type - serious
> or
>> minor - with any computer that has SP2 installed.
>>
>> --
>> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
>> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
>> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
>> * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
>> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>> "Bart" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > OK, so what all of you have told me makes perfect sense and I really
> want
>> > to
>> > at least keep up with current technology, but today and I think even
> maybe
>> > yesterday I read a newsletter from PCWorld and when they talk about the
>> > nightmares, cautions about SP2, problems, workarounds, etc, etc leaves
> me
>> > thinking that who needs the hassle when all I want to do is
>> > successfully
>> > launch some programs and save the data reliably. Maybe Jan's advice is
>> > the
>> > most applicable and go easy, learn and have no grand expectations.
>> > Thanks,
>> > folks, for all the replies!!
>> > A grateful,
>> > Bart
>>
>>
>
>

[Andrew Murray]

"BarryG" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Joe Starin" wrote:
>
>> If I may jump in... Would upgrading from ME to XP be relatively painless
>> for
>> all of the other programs typically installed on a PC (MS Office Suite,
>> games, graphics editors, AV, FW, etc?) Or will one probably have to
>> download
>> a bunch of drivers to get those existing programs to work with XP?
>> Thanks,
>> Joe Starin
>>
>
> Joe,
>
> I found that my Zone Alarm 4 firewall wouldn't work in XP, so I downloaded
> Zone Alarm 5. It was also at the same time that AVG6 (AV) stopped, and
> AVG7
> started, so my AV was also replaced.
> My XP came with SP2 already in it, and it works great for me.
>
> I kept my ME as dual boot, just in case (3 scenarios, best case, worst
> case,
> and just in case) but I haven't touched my WinME in weeks.
> I'm hooked on XP.
>
> Good luck.
> BarryG
>
I've got the ZoneAlarm package/box in front of me and system requirements
state "Win 98SE/WinME, Win 2000 Pro, XP Home/Pro".....so by all accounts
there shouldn't be a problem. Remember to turn OFF Windows Firewall if
using a third party firewall.