Was the switch to an NT-based kernel in Windows XP really necessary for the general consumer...

I never installed ME but I remember it crashing all the time p a neigbors computer. Like it would BSOD every hour and I remember peole saying it was normal. I used 98 SE and it was a rare-ish occurence.
Did Msoft stabilize ME in the years after it released?

>It was the OEMs!
It was the same problem they were having with 98 retard. There was no separation between drivers and applications. All it took was one thing going full retarded to take the whole system down with it. They even spread rumors that it was bad to have a computer run 24/7. They said you should shut it down once a day to prevent damaging the hardware. This was taught to people in PC building workshops offered at community colleges.

ME was not stable and no one used it. Anyone that was building a PC at that time was choosing Windows 98 SE for compatibility or Windows 2k for stability. There was absolutely no reason to use ME and I assure you no one was. You couldn't even get people to try the warez version. It was impossible to get support from anyone. Microsoft blamed the OEMs, the OEMs blamed Microsoft and since no one was running the warez version you couldn't get help from dumb faggots online.

Total shit show of an OS release.

Cool story bro. I used ME because it has native USB drivers. Was much faster than win2k on my old Pentium 3 laptop, and actually supported DOS stuff
And no I didn't install any updates besides IE6 and directx 9.0c (which Win98 also cant run)

98SE wasn't that bad. It frustrated me because the last time I had it on bare metal I managed to get a pretty stable install. But no matter what I did every 72 hours or so I'd get a random BSoD. There was no real pattern to it and the error codes led me nowhere. Plus it was swiss cheese whenever I connected it to the internet so that was fun.

ME was just like you described. A bunch of my friends got their first PC that Christmas. Straight out of the box they would BSoD. It didn't matter which company they bought them from. Most of them got Gateways iirc. It was far worse than 98SE. You couldn't get 3 straight hours of uptime out of them. I'd watch them go on and offline on AIM and ICQ all day.

Win2k was very stable. I could leave it running for months after upgrading to it. I kept using it well into 2005. I even riced it.

Attached: 2k-tan.png (1600x900, 766.47K)

You're doing exactly what I described. Running a 20 year old OS with the benefit of some autist's guide and a warez version with all you need baked in. No one is arguing that it isn't stable today. I am sure some fag managed to get it stable and find all the right drivers for it because of autism. Maybe it's even better than 98SE now for DOS shit.

What I'm telling you is when it came out it was shit. People figured out it was shit. Word spread that it was shit. No one wanted to use that shit. So no one wrote guides, FAQs, how-to's, or packaged that shit. By that point 98SE was stable, had support for all the hardware in-use, and there was a lot of software that maybe wouldn't work in ME for whatever reason. People stuck with 98 because everything they heard about ME was bad.

post more 2hu feet. I used to think foot fags were disgusting but I'm starting to come around

I didn't use any guide and am running the RTM version. The drivers I used are from 1999 and 2001.
XP was also unstable shit before SP1, zoomie.

>How long could they have continued to just make Windows versions based off of DOS?
~5 years until dual cores hit the consumer market, at that point it would've definitely been obsolete. But by then we had Vista which is still the most used OS to this day (do not be fooled by "Windows 11" that's just Vista Service Pack 7).
>Don't listen to dumb zoomers that tell you ME is stable.
I may be a zoomer but I have used it and I don't remember it BSODing constantly. It was a Pentium 2 system so a bit older than ME, it most likely was driver compatibility issues which caused all the instability.
From what I've heard they half baked WDM driver support into ME, and if you had only WDM or VXD drivers, you were good. If you had just one thing, even a modem, that was not the same driver type as everything else, you were fucked.

>What I'm telling you is when it came out it was shit. People figured out it was shit. Word spread that it was shit. No one wanted to use that shit.
Yes and that is exactly what happened with Vista as well. By the time it was fixed nobody wanted to use it, so MS re-released it as 7 and that was a success.

>From what I've heard they half baked WDM driver support into ME, and if you had only WDM or VXD drivers, you were good. If you had just one thing, even a modem, that was not the same driver type as everything else, you were fucked.
Nah, the issue were buggy drivers themselves. But everything still had support for Win98 and 95 back then so you always had the choice of using the more mature VxD drivers anyway. Unless you bought a shitty prebuilt that came with the WMD trash drivers preinstalled and you had no clue why things didn't work.
I wonder how many retards also blamed hardware issues that plagued shitty prebuilts like Packard Bells on winME.

This is the correct answer. Anyone who actually used these systems knows.

Attached: xpme.png (1024x768, 95.7K)

>I wonder how many retards also blamed hardware issues that plagued shitty prebuilts like Packard Bells on winME.
It was a major investment for most of these people at the time. Windows was the most visible problem. It's only natural that they'd blame Microsoft. It was partly Microsoft's fault because they rushed the OS and released it unexpectedly.

If I'd just spent $1k on my first computer and it crashed all the time I would be pissed off to.