Thing is, ME as an idea made sense. Win2K wasn't targeted to consumers, XP was in the pipeline for that, but they needed an interim version until it was ready. It looked like Win2K, but ostensibly compatible with the Win9x line. They just fucked up the execution on the internals, so it was terribly unstable.
Windows 8 had the opposite problem: it improved on Win7 internals, so it was solid, but had a terrible UI that no one asked for.
One could argue that the reason ME failed was very possibly because it was rushed. Win8, on the other hand, looks very much like designed by comitee with either very misguided designers or marketing people at the helm. Because of that, Win8 feels like a much worse failure to me.
It is my understanding that ME was the last DOS-based Windows. My understanding is you can find "MS-DOS 7.0" ISOs floating around out there which IIRC is the DOS version ME is based on that was never released separately but for some reason it happened in China? Like it was used in Chinese computer factories or something? Half remembering an LGR video or something?
And ended up tarnishing win2k's good name. Many people think it was the same as ME.
Win2k is the only Windows which didn't irritate me.
I didn't actually mind the UI once I got used to it. If they had just made some things optional UI wise they would have been fine I think. I hated vista because of all the random things they changed for no real reason that I could understand. They fixed a lot of that with 7, but 8 was a jump too far. It made some sort of sense on touch screens, but given that most devices running windows at the time weren't touch screens it was problematic for long time users.
But around the same time they began pushing their hybrid surface devices and those all did have a touch screen so as a hardware decision I can still understand why they tried it.
I also kind of feel like it dumbed down a lot of the power user facing controls that most people coming from previous windows versions (especially XP) used pretty frequently. People talk a lot of trash about younger gens not being tech savvy and I feel like this is part of the reason. They couldn't tell you what control panel was, wouldn't know what to do with those settings if you told them, let alone using the run command to open msconfig, or the command line. They never had to do that because for them computers and phones just work (most of the time).
It's frustrating the number of things I feel like Microsoft could have done to make 8 better that didn't involved the adpocalypse nightmare that they have become with both 10 and especially 11.
Windows 8.1 was actually really good with the new UI that was closer to the other Windows versions, but with 8 underneath. Only issue was the same as with 7, that there were still elements of the previous Option menus, causing a lot of similar options to be in 2 completely different menus which made no sense.
Thing is, ME as an idea made sense. Win2K wasn't targeted to consumers, XP was in the pipeline for that, but they needed an interim version until it was ready. It looked like Win2K, but ostensibly compatible with the Win9x line. They just fucked up the execution on the internals, so it was terribly unstable.
Windows 8 had the opposite problem: it improved on Win7 internals, so it was solid, but had a terrible UI that no one asked for.
One could argue that the reason ME failed was very possibly because it was rushed. Win8, on the other hand, looks very much like designed by comitee with either very misguided designers or marketing people at the helm. Because of that, Win8 feels like a much worse failure to me.
It is my understanding that ME was the last DOS-based Windows. My understanding is you can find "MS-DOS 7.0" ISOs floating around out there which IIRC is the DOS version ME is based on that was never released separately but for some reason it happened in China? Like it was used in Chinese computer factories or something? Half remembering an LGR video or something?
And ended up tarnishing win2k's good name. Many people think it was the same as ME.
Win2k is the only Windows which didn't irritate me.
I didn't actually mind the UI once I got used to it. If they had just made some things optional UI wise they would have been fine I think. I hated vista because of all the random things they changed for no real reason that I could understand. They fixed a lot of that with 7, but 8 was a jump too far. It made some sort of sense on touch screens, but given that most devices running windows at the time weren't touch screens it was problematic for long time users.
But around the same time they began pushing their hybrid surface devices and those all did have a touch screen so as a hardware decision I can still understand why they tried it.
I also kind of feel like it dumbed down a lot of the power user facing controls that most people coming from previous windows versions (especially XP) used pretty frequently. People talk a lot of trash about younger gens not being tech savvy and I feel like this is part of the reason. They couldn't tell you what control panel was, wouldn't know what to do with those settings if you told them, let alone using the run command to open msconfig, or the command line. They never had to do that because for them computers and phones just work (most of the time).
It's frustrating the number of things I feel like Microsoft could have done to make 8 better that didn't involved the adpocalypse nightmare that they have become with both 10 and especially 11.
Windows 8.1 was actually really good with the new UI that was closer to the other Windows versions, but with 8 underneath. Only issue was the same as with 7, that there were still elements of the previous Option menus, causing a lot of similar options to be in 2 completely different menus which made no sense.