this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025
658 points (96.6% liked)
Funny
12006 readers
1978 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't get why everyone's so hostile to Windows Me. It was a perfectly good operating system for its time. It certainly didn't crash on me any more than 98 did before it, or XP did after it. And it had some genuine improvements grandfathered in from Win2000.
That said, I'm now a Linux user, so my opinions are invalid /j
Windows ME had the same fixed 64KB user resources and 64KB GDI resources memory limits as Windows 95 and Windows 98 for system resource allocation regardless of how much actual RAM you had. Since ME was more resource-intensive than the previous versions, you could run out of these resource allocations while still having very much free RAM much faster.
The end-result was the computer becoming unusable even though you had resources available that the OS could have otherwise used. Certain inefficient applications like I believe Quicken could snarf up all of the system resources so you had to restart with everything you could disabled to run that one application. Same computer on Win2K would run circles around WinME.