Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I tried to install ME on a 133 mhz Pentium and it stopped dead because the
processor wasn't at 150 mhz. I installed 98 for now but since I plan using
the PC as a slideshow and home video display PC I wanted some of the media
features of ME. Is there any way around that installation stop? For 17 mhz
am I stuck?!?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

From: "Greg Evans" <Greg Evans@discussions.microsoft.com>

| I tried to install ME on a 133 mhz Pentium and it stopped dead because the
| processor wasn't at 150 mhz. I installed 98 for now but since I plan using
| the PC as a slideshow and home video display PC I wanted some of the media
| features of ME. Is there any way around that installation stop? For 17 mhz
| am I stuck?!?

Time to upgrade that platform !

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Don't waste your time trying. Whilst it is possible to install Win Me on
such a slow processor the machine would only be good for e-mail and
browsing. I'd strongly advise you to either stick with 98/98SE or,
better, upgrade your hardware.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Greg Evans <Greg Evans@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> I tried to install ME on a 133 mhz Pentium and it stopped dead
> because the processor wasn't at 150 mhz. I installed 98 for now but
> since I plan using the PC as a slideshow and home video display PC I
> wanted some of the media features of ME. Is there any way around
> that installation stop? For 17 mhz am I stuck?!?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Greg Evans wrote:
> I tried to install ME on a 133 mhz Pentium and it stopped dead because the
> processor wasn't at 150 mhz. I installed 98 for now but since I plan using
> the PC as a slideshow and home video display PC I wanted some of the media
> features of ME. Is there any way around that installation stop? For 17 mhz
> am I stuck?!?

Well as long as you have it may as well try and see...

Setup.exe includes a switch to bypass the processor speed test; when you
want to run setup type it in as

setup /nm




Rick

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Thank you! I'll try it. If it's as slow as people say I'll go back to 98.

"Rick T" wrote:

> Greg Evans wrote:
> > I tried to install ME on a 133 mhz Pentium and it stopped dead because the
> > processor wasn't at 150 mhz. I installed 98 for now but since I plan using
> > the PC as a slideshow and home video display PC I wanted some of the media
> > features of ME. Is there any way around that installation stop? For 17 mhz
> > am I stuck?!?
>
> Well as long as you have it may as well try and see...
>
> Setup.exe includes a switch to bypass the processor speed test; when you
> want to run setup type it in as
>
> setup /nm
>
>
>
>
> Rick
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

It will be. But it's your time to waste. You can spend it listening to your
steam radio, eh?


Shane


"Greg" <Greg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7ABCDC64-8BA6-40F0-B241-897FB3A15264@microsoft.com...
> Thank you! I'll try it. If it's as slow as people say I'll go back to
> 98.
>
> "Rick T" wrote:
>
>> Greg Evans wrote:
>> > I tried to install ME on a 133 mhz Pentium and it stopped dead because
>> > the
>> > processor wasn't at 150 mhz. I installed 98 for now but since I plan
>> > using
>> > the PC as a slideshow and home video display PC I wanted some of the
>> > media
>> > features of ME. Is there any way around that installation stop? For
>> > 17 mhz
>> > am I stuck?!?
>>
>> Well as long as you have it may as well try and see...
>>
>> Setup.exe includes a switch to bypass the processor speed test; when you
>> want to run setup type it in as
>>
>> setup /nm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rick
>>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Can't see it as being any slower than alot of laptops.


Rick



Shane wrote:
> It will be. But it's your time to waste. You can spend it listening to your
> steam radio, eh?
>
>
> Shane
>
>
> "Greg" <Greg@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7ABCDC64-8BA6-40F0-B241-897FB3A15264@microsoft.com...
>
>>Thank you! I'll try it. If it's as slow as people say I'll go back to
>>98.
>>
>>"Rick T" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Greg Evans wrote:
>>>
>>>>I tried to install ME on a 133 mhz Pentium and it stopped dead because
>>>>the
>>>>processor wasn't at 150 mhz. I installed 98 for now but since I plan
>>>>using
>>>>the PC as a slideshow and home video display PC I wanted some of the
>>>>media
>>>>features of ME. Is there any way around that installation stop? For
>>>>17 mhz
>>>>am I stuck?!?
>>>
>>>Well as long as you have it may as well try and see...
>>>
>>>Setup.exe includes a switch to bypass the processor speed test; when you
>>>want to run setup type it in as
>>>
>>>setup /nm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Rick
>>>
>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

If you read the OP's original post you will see he wanted to use the PC
for media work. In such cases hic PC will resemble a slug. As I said in
my earlier post 133MHz is OK for browsing and e-mail but not much more but
for playing a video it will stink and as for a DVD that is almost
certainly out of the question.

I am intrigued though as to why a processor of speed "x" will be slower
when in a laptop than when in a desktop. Perhaps you could explain what
you meant as I don't quite follow what you are saying here.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Rick T <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> Can't see it as being any slower than alot of laptops.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Used 233 MX processors are really cheap. It would seem to me that the OP
might want to look into that. I can get one for around 33 US dollars.

Alias

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote

> If you read the OP's original post you will see he wanted to use the PC
> for media work. In such cases hic PC will resemble a slug. As I said in
> my earlier post 133MHz is OK for browsing and e-mail but not much more but
> for playing a video it will stink and as for a DVD that is almost
> certainly out of the question.
>
> I am intrigued though as to why a processor of speed "x" will be slower
> when in a laptop than when in a desktop. Perhaps you could explain what
> you meant as I don't quite follow what you are saying here.
> --
> Mike Maltby MS-MVP
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> Rick T <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Can't see it as being any slower than alot of laptops.
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:
> If you read the OP's original post you will see he wanted to use the
> PC for media work.


original post:
>>> I tried to install ME on a 133 mhz Pentium and it stopped dead because the
>>> processor wasn't at 150 mhz. I installed 98 for now but since I plan using
>>> the PC as a slideshow and home video display PC I wanted some of the media
>>> features of ME. Is there any way around that installation stop? For 17 mhz
>>> am I stuck?!?

I don't see "media work" in there... slideshows aren't that processor
intensive, although I'm not sure what the "media features of ME" are;
certainly I wouldn't suggest installing WMP9.

> In such cases hic PC will resemble a slug. As I said in my earlier
> post 133MHz is OK for browsing and e-mail but not much more but for
> playing a video it will stink and as for a DVD that is almost
> certainly out of the question.

Depends on the video subsystem which he didn't mention.

> I am intrigued though as to why a processor of speed "x" will be
> slower when in a laptop than when in a desktop.

Did I say that? The "it" in question in previous posts was the machine
in toto, not the processor.

Regardless it won't be that much trouble for him to find out, seeing as
he already has the machine and the OS.


Rick

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Rick,

It appears that you place a different meaning on "I plan using the PC ..
and home video display" and "I wanted some media features of ME" than
myself. If all the poster wished to do was display still images such as
jpgs this could be done equally using a PC running Win 95 or 98. What
distinguishes Win Me from 98SE are its media features such as WMP7 and
MovieMaker. However WMP7 requires a processor >240MHz and MovieMaker
requires a minimum of 400MHz (although there is nothing in the OP's post
to suggest he intends using MovieMaker).

Since you didn't understand my question about processor speed let me put
it another way, what exactly do you mean by "Can't see it as being any
slower than a lot of laptops" and its relevance to this thread? Hence my
question as to what difference do you think a user is going to see between
a 166MHz processor when installed in a desktop against when installed in a
laptop?
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Rick T <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> Mike M wrote:
>> If you read the OP's original post you will see he wanted to use the
>> PC for media work.
>
>
> original post:
>>>> I tried to install ME on a 133 mhz Pentium and it stopped dead
>>>> because the processor wasn't at 150 mhz. I installed 98 for now
>>>> but since I plan using the PC as a slideshow and home video
>>>> display PC I wanted some of the media features of ME. Is there
>>>> any way around that installation stop? For 17 mhz am I stuck?!?
>
> I don't see "media work" in there... slideshows aren't that processor
> intensive, although I'm not sure what the "media features of ME" are;
> certainly I wouldn't suggest installing WMP9.
>
>> In such cases hic PC will resemble a slug. As I said in my earlier
>> post 133MHz is OK for browsing and e-mail but not much more but for
>> playing a video it will stink and as for a DVD that is almost
>> certainly out of the question.
>
> Depends on the video subsystem which he didn't mention.
>
>> I am intrigued though as to why a processor of speed "x" will be
>> slower when in a laptop than when in a desktop.
>
> Did I say that? The "it" in question in previous posts was the machine
> in toto, not the processor.
>
> Regardless it won't be that much trouble for him to find out, seeing
> as he already has the machine and the OS.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:
> Rick,
>
> It appears that you place a different meaning on "I plan using the PC ..
> and home video display" and "I wanted some media features of ME" than
> myself. If all the poster wished to do was display still images such as
> jpgs this could be done equally using a PC running Win 95 or 98. What
> distinguishes Win Me from 98SE are its media features such as WMP7 and
> MovieMaker. However WMP7 requires a processor >240MHz and MovieMaker
> requires a minimum of 400MHz (although there is nothing in the OP's post
> to suggest he intends using MovieMaker).
>
> Since you didn't understand my question about processor speed let me put
> it another way, what exactly do you mean by "Can't see it as being any
> slower than a lot of laptops" and its relevance to this thread? Hence
> my question as to what difference do you think a user is going to see
> between a 166MHz processor when installed in a desktop against when
> installed in a laptop?

Are you contending that things like a slower buss speed, slower memory,
slower disk access time, slower disk transfer speed, on-board graphics
and software sound aren't going to contribute to a user's experience of
a laptop being slower than a desktop (given same processor speed
ratings)?...

And that's not even including the psychological effects of using input
devices which sacrifice comfort and ease-of-use for size/weight/power
considerations. That furthers the feeling of slowness (even if it isn't
real).

I disrecall if WinME requires MMX.


Rick T

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Rick,

What I am contending here is that your input here is irrelevant to the
OP's problem. You also seem to fail to appreciate how poorly suited Win
Me is to running media tasks on a PC with a 133MHz processor.

As to your comments about laptop being slower have a look around you at
what has happened in the last few years <vbg>. You'll find that many of
your comments are no longer applicable hence the roaring trade in laptops
as desktop replacements in so many companies. I'd also suggest that it is
several years since new laptops ran at speeds comparable with a 133MHz
desktop but we digress. I agree that using a laptop keyboard is a bit
"icky" and as for a touchpad give me a usb laptop mouse any day. :-)
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Rick T <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> Are you contending that things like a slower buss speed, slower
> memory, slower disk access time, slower disk transfer speed, on-board
> graphics and software sound aren't going to contribute to a user's
> experience of a laptop being slower than a desktop (given same
> processor speed ratings)?...
>
> And that's not even including the psychological effects of using input
> devices which sacrifice comfort and ease-of-use for size/weight/power
> considerations. That furthers the feeling of slowness (even if it
> isn't real).
>
> I disrecall if WinME requires MMX.
>
>
> Rick T

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:
> Rick,
>
> What I am contending here is that your input here is irrelevant to the
> OP's problem.

To the contrary; I was the only one who gave him a solution which
veracity he could test immediately. Everybody else's were the stock
"upgrade hardware" which is pretty bloody obvious.

> You also seem to fail to appreciate how poorly suited Win
> Me is to running media tasks on a PC with a 133MHz processor.

I went from a 386-40 (happily running Win95) to a 667 (happily running
WinME)... missed that step(s).

> As to your comments about laptop being slower have a look around you at
> what has happened in the last few years <vbg>.

I was going to put in a caveat regarding Pentium M etc. bringing laptop
performance closer to the desktop, and the current abundance of
all-in-one boards which bring desktop performnace closer to the laptop,
but that hardly seemed relevant to the "150 Mhz" category which we were
discussing.


Rick T

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

> To the contrary; I was the only one who gave him a solution which
> veracity he could test immediately.

And IMO a somewhat pointless solution given the OPs requirements which is
why I and perhaps others didn't post the details of how to install Win Me
on a slow processor. For myself this was so as to save the poster wasting
his time. You clearly felt differently. So be it.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com



Rick T <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> Mike M wrote:
>> Rick,
>>
>> What I am contending here is that your input here is irrelevant to
>> the OP's problem.
>
> To the contrary; I was the only one who gave him a solution which
> veracity he could test immediately. Everybody else's were the stock
> "upgrade hardware" which is pretty bloody obvious.
>
>> You also seem to fail to appreciate how poorly suited Win
>> Me is to running media tasks on a PC with a 133MHz processor.
>
> I went from a 386-40 (happily running Win95) to a 667 (happily running
> WinME)... missed that step(s).
>
>> As to your comments about laptop being slower have a look around you
>> at what has happened in the last few years <vbg>.
>
> I was going to put in a caveat regarding Pentium M etc. bringing
> laptop performance closer to the desktop, and the current abundance of
> all-in-one boards which bring desktop performnace closer to the
> laptop, but that hardly seemed relevant to the "150 Mhz" category
> which we were discussing.