Talk:Windows Me

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] old

I've not seen coverage of this in media, but WinME's kernel will try to call out, regardless of whether you tell it to let you update everything manually. Simple installation of e.g. ZoneAlarm will confirm this. I'm not sure how to work this tidbit into the article, either--I know it's true but essentially have no confirmation beyond the screen capture showing ZoneAlarm asking whether I should let it call out. --KQ

Call out what to where under what circumstances for what purpose? --Brion
I don't know; I didn't let it. Kern32.exe. Also, I don't have a packet sniffer, so I have no idea what it would have said. I was not in process of trying to update anything, if that's what you mean--just going about my business online when the message came up. IIRC it came up every week and a half or so. I eventually told ZoneAlarm "no" and "remember this answer." --KQ

I've had windows ME for just over 2 years and have *never* gotten system restore to work. Additionally, the error message it gives is unhelpful. KQ

[edit] System Restore info bogus

The information on system restore is totally bogus!

  • 'System Restore caused a number of major problems' -- problems not major
  • 'performance, which some regard as never being a Windows strength in the first place, was noticeably reduced' -- performance not impacted; system restore activities only occur at specific times.
  • 'and because it automatically recreated previous system states on every reboot, it made it very difficult for the non-expert user to implement a desired change, even a necessary one such as removing a virus or an unwanted program.' -- Totally wrong. System Restore only restores things if the user selects it upon booting in Safe Mode or from the UI.

--- As someone who fixes computers for a living, I highly disagree with the above, and believe that whomever wrote that has never had to fix ME using SR (or in spite of it), and probably has has very little experience with ME in the first place. SR excels at restoring virii and problems; look on the web pages of Symantec and other AV companies where they explicitely instruct users on how to turn off SR. I definitely consider restoring a virus to a clean system to be a "major problem". Also, the "performance not impacted" claims depend on the SR activities happening only in idle times; this is, of course, an ideal that happens much less often then would be desired, and therefore adds to the the already painful slowness in the 9x series. This is without even mentioning the disk usage. The poster may have a point that SR should not be happening "automatically", but I've had calls where it seems to have done so (although I can't completely rule out user error) and therefore I, like all other professional IT techs, do not trust it.

The whole paragraph in question was worded too complicatedly and I couldn't make much sense of it. I rewrote it in a way which I hope is more NPOV. - Brian Kendig 20:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

Shouldn't the article be at Windows ME not Windows Me?

--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 07:16, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

I thought so too. However Microsoft seem to think different: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsme/ AlistairMcMillan 13:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Microsoft seems to like spell it "Me" and not "ME". The logical abbreviation would be ME, but the official one seems to be Me. I'll change the article to the proper spelling according to Microsoft, now that I've read this. --Mike 00:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Isn't the official name of it "Windows Me: Millennium Edition"? That's what the logo looks like... -BocoROTH 03:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

The top logo actually says 'Windows Millenium Edition' -- with one one 'n'. Hahaha. How embarassing. User:Maestrosync not logged in (202.6.138.34 13:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

I am suspicious about this. The logo is taken from a Russian site that hosts a lot of logos. It claims that they are free, but it reminds me of those sites that have lyrics which are also "free", in the sense that although you can download them from the hosting site for free they are nonetheless still copyright material. Microsoft's own website spells it correctly. [1]Lupine Proletariat 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISA support

"Microsoft's removal of legacy ISA support led to further confusion when older ISA based modems, soundcards and network cards failed to work."

Somebody made this up. It is in fact NOT the case that ISA cards are unsupported by Windows ME.

  • I think that is sourced from this ...but that article is from before ME was released, and other sources seems to suggest that ISA support has been carried all the way through to XP. The line will be deleted. Gsham 22:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

yeah its wrong, i regularly use ISA Network Cards on ME.

ISA support was only removed in VISTA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pentium 4 / 512 MB RAM comment

However, some enthusiasts feel, from personal experience, that Windows ME has been judged harshly and that it runs well on relatively "powerful" PCs e.g Pentium 4 systems with plenty of RAM e.g. 512MB. (see www.msfn.org - forums).

Should it be mentioned that the Pentium 4 was released 2 months after Windows ME? --R'nway 19:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Windows ME doesn't run well on relatively "powerful" PCs such as P4s, it merely runs faster. The majority of software technicians make the point that Windows ME is crippled and technically inept, and shows signs of having been rushed out as a stop-gap before Windows XP (yes, hard to believe that XP was the complete product!)

www.msfn.org is not the right place to go for an objective or neutral POV.

My own technical experience aligns with others' opinions that ME:
  • has compatibility problems
  • was designed to use cut-down drivers for cheaper components - e.g. software modems
  • contains features that obviously don't work, e.g. system restore
  • often needs reinstalling, and is difficult to reinstall successfully
  • was purposely designed in collaboration with PC manufacturers to make upgrade to another OS difficult

Centrepull 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People think WinMe sucks

Why?

Because they didn't follow installation procedures properly. I have had it and never had any problems with it. I only seen 2 or 3 blue screens in my 2 years of Windows Me'ing. Windows 98 would do the same. The TAFE I went to even had Me as the test platform for software and hardware installations. All of them...no blue screens seen yet. Well...blue wallpaper, but no blue screen of death. These computers were a Dell and my home computer were a unpopular branded Hyundai computer with 500Mhz Celeron, 64MB RAM, 8.4 GB. Windows Me ran happily well on this system. So I don't understand what's the fuss everyone is talking about!!! Winxptwker 00:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Few people installed their own Windows ME. That is a mistaken assumption. People think ME sucks because if often doesn't work well - notwithstanding that some users have had little trouble with it; and when it doesn't work well, it is often near to impossible to fix its' problems without an extraordinary level of technical knowledge. The criticism section is intended to reflect overall experience, not just yours. Centrepull 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My copy of WinME came pre-installed on an IBM NetVista PC, and it was craptacular. It crashed frequently and was totally unreliable. I cross-graded to Windows 2000 on the same hardware and have found it to be vastly more reliable. This seems to be typical of most users' experience. --Woden325 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Oh, come on! It does suck. It doesn't contain the compatibility and functionality of Windoes 98SE, and it doesn't have the stability and NT of Windows 2000. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deresser (talk • contribs) 09:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

2 or 3 blue screens in 2 years is about 2 or 3 blue screen too many, m'lad (;


I never had any problems with Me, and I'm still running it. I ain't gonna giv Billy Boy more money for XP, Vista or other hyped-up shit. He's rich enough already, don't ya think ?

[edit] How is it pronounced?

Is it supposed to be pronounced like the word "Me" or are the letters pronounced individually? --Kuroki Mio 2006 19:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This [[2]] suggests the IPA would be [em.i], and I am changing the main page accordingly --Slp1 03:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I pronounce it "millenium" but... SchmuckyTheCat 03:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, according to [3] the current is correct. EM MEE :). RN 04:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to the person who put the IPA thing in too :). RN 04:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Its supposed to be pronounced like "Me" not "emm-EE" ~Heather
Thanks for your opinion, Heather, but it would be better if you could find some evidence to support this. --Slp1 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No one else remembers this product being marketted as "Get to know ME"? Google the phrase along with windows ME. ~dan

There's how Microsoft's marketing department wanted it pronounced, and then there's how people actually pronounced it. In my experience, it was emm-EE about 90% of the time. --Dgies 05:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added the other sourced pronunciation so that both are there Slp1 17:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is supposed to be "Meeee" but everyone called it "Emm Eee" - same with XP - XP stands for explore but no-one pronoinces it "exp" do they? no! its "Ex Pee" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I have removed a large amount of unsourced comments as they violate NPOV policy and citation policy. If anyone wants to re-add it, please make sure it is correctly attributed/referenced.-Localzuk(talk) 10:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Restoring. Will try to find what citations I can. These may be unsourced but I have heard them a lot before. -- Dgies 04:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but our policies regarding this are quite firm and clear. Unsourced information should not be added. Only restore if you can include citations for all claims, ensuring that they are from reliable verifiable [WP:CITE|sources]].-Localzuk(talk) 09:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the criticism section, which I feel was properly modified by other editors to reflect the concerns stated above, and was inappropriately removed by another editor for the somewhat invalid reason "I've had my crashes too, but that is not a reliable source. Please feel free to introduce discussion on any flaws of Me that can be reliably sourced.)" The criticism section did not specifically discuss technical problems with Windows ME, rather, it referenced the widespread popular criticism of the operating system among members of the media and the general public, and was properly referenced and linked. In my opinion, a single editor should not be able to unilaterally declare a source reliable or unreliable. -WGW August 29 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgw2024 (talk • contribs) 21:22, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insulting Nicknames

I agree that these names should be cited. The problem is that for slang names only used informally or in discussion groups, the only citation possible is those discussion groups. How does the citation policy deal with other slang terms or pop culture which may be widespread but has not been noted in a reputable source? --Dgies 06:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

By not writing it. We have to have reputable sources of names else we could end up with people inserting all sorts of nonsense in the article. We go by the 'if it is common enough then it will have been covered by the media' mantra I believe.-Localzuk(talk) 15:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memory Eater

User:AlistairMcMillan and I are having a little revert war over this phrase and I would like to get a consensus on the talk page. The fundamental question is should we include mention of the fact that WinMe has been nicknamed "memory eater" over problems with memory leaks. I would say that we should because:

  1. This phrase was in common usage, and we have some citation of that
  2. Windows Me has memory leaks and we have citation of that
  3. Notability criteria applies for subjects as a whole. (WP:NOTE)
  4. Guidelines in WP:TRIVIA section 2 seems to support inclusion: "The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them." A major documented flaw deserves at least one line of mention.

What are other people's opinions on this subject? --Dgies 20:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That source sucks and doesn't read like a bug at all. User expectations of "free physical memory" have nothing to do with what the OS actually does. I see no collaboration that the phrase was in common use as asserted by your first point. SchmuckyTheCat 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? This is official Microsoft bug report: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q278368/ --Dgies 21:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
And the source does use the term 'memory eater' and is a reliable source according to our policies. I would say that you should stop rv warring Schmucky.-Localzuk(talk) 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The site is part of the PCMag network - which is a notable and reliable source. As it stands now (I have removed the mistake edition thing), it complies with our policies regarding sourcing.-Localzuk(talk) 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The atmuni source is a documented bug. The extremetech article is NOT going on about the atmuni bug. The ATMUNI bug is also present in Windows 98, 98SE, and Windows 2000. As atmuni controls Asynchronous Transfer Mode NICs, the number of affected home users running WinMe is very close to zero.
The extremetech link is quote ONE SINGLE USER about some other "percieved" bug from one user who wrote the site and that ONE SINGLE USER refers to ME as Memory Eater. Microsoft doesn't acknowledge it as a bug and anyone familiar with Windows memory management would immediately recognize this is not a bug. You can't extrapolate that many users call it memory eater based on ONE SINGLE USER.
Lots of things appear on extremetech that aren't reliable. Just fyi, that article also says that WinMe was supposed to use the NT kernel, which is plainly false.
Googling "memory eater" "winme" on google gets me 352 hits, total, with large numbers of them being archives of old versions of Wikipedia, or people quoting Wikipedia.
SchmuckyTheCat 02:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems very inappropriate to revert again and claim "per talk" when this is under active discussion and there is no consensus. Please do not engage in revert warring. --Dgies 06:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Less inappropriate than adding and reverting to unsourced negative criticism. SchmuckyTheCat 07:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It is sourced, you just don't think the source is reputable enough. --Dgies 07:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear on this: our cited source has one person, Matt Vlasaty, using the phrase "Memory Eater". Our second source only proves WinMe had a memory leak, it doesn't back up any expansion of the letters "Me" in Windows Me. If we had a source clearly stating that "Memory Eater" was in common usage I wouldn't be disputing this.

We follow this up with "This also prompted the creation of a memetic character among the Japanese known as ME-tan", except every version of Windows has an whatever-tan, so how can you say this one was "prompted" by the "perceived failure" of Windows Me. Given that all marginally notable operating systems now have whatever-tans, are you saying all operating systems are "perceived failures"? AlistairMcMillan 05:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I would agree that the Me-tan was misplaced in the article, but Localzuk fixed that before being reverted. --Dgies 06:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If we had a source clearly stating that "Memory Eater" was in common usage I wouldn't be disputing this. Exactly. SchmuckyTheCat 07:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The source is a reputable one - it is published by the PCMag network - which is a very notable organisation. The fact that they published it makes it notable enough for inclusion. Maybe we should reword it to reflect who is saying this (ie. Matt Vlasaty of ExtremeTech or whatever).-Localzuk(talk) 12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
A local paper might be a reputable source. It's letters to the editor section are not. The editors responding to it's letters (even in support) are not. That is what this is. The author of the statement is a reader of the website not a writer for the website. SchmuckyTheCat 15:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is whether we take a phrase used by one person in an email to the website as notable enough to mention in the article. We are not questioning the reliability of the website, the people who work on the website or anything at all to do with the website.

Would the editors commenting on this issue please read the cited source before commenting. AlistairMcMillan 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Responding to RFC:
I don't think it's notable in the form of a quotation, however it may be valid as a criticism. The adding of a disparaging description by some user would not be notable unless this was a common description that the product became well known for. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. There are only a little over 1000 hits on the google test for "memory eater" "windows ME". Thats a small number compared to the user base, not enough to warrant a claim it was "known as" that. In addition there's this little problem with a claim that windows ME was "known as" that:
Version Link to
search		 No. of
hits
Windows 98 link 968
Windows XP link 1380
Windows 2000 link 750
Windows ME link 1280
and even:
   Linux		 Link 2540
Overall it looks like there is validity to saying that as with some other popular operating systems, memory leaks in drivers were a reported source of user annoyance[CITE] (if that's the case), but I don't think a claim that it was "known as memory eater" is notable or even especially well supported. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I know this is a very old discussion, but all the Win9x OSes suffered from the same memory leak. Picking out Me is unwarranted. -- Elaich talk 09:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release date is wrong

That's Windows 2000's release date, ME was actually released on September 14 2000. Here [4] is your citation and you're on your way. --65.8.99.73 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Both the Win 2000 page and the ME page says that they where the last system requiring activation.

They lacks this requirement, not demands it. Wikinger 13:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

I thought some of you might find it entertaining to know that this article has been cited at least once on a Microsoft internal discussion list. 131.107.0.73 23:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real DOS 8.00 without hacks

I added unique method of creating separate real DOS 8.00 without using any hacks. I discovered it myself, and this method is not published on Internet anywhere. Let's try it if you don't believe - it works!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.19.52.107 (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Removed as original research. It's also not that unique, as most methods available generally use a different version of IO.SYS than the stock version installed on the HDD. --Sigma 7 16:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Better method that uses only Microsoft files, but with only one single-byte hack is here: Windows Me boot and Windows 2000 boot 83.19.52.107 12:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Abovementioned WikiBooks article now provides too unique method of adding separate real DOS 8.00 option to Windows Me. Wikinger (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relations to other Windows releases - Windows XP against Windows 2000 SP4

This article states Windows Me lacks the Compatibility Mode which Windows XP does have. However, Windows 2000 SP4 also contains the Compatibility Mode. A few other statements are also incorrectly pointed to XP as first solution while Windows 2000 SP4 does contain them too. I think we should honour Windows 2000 and correct this information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deresser (talk • contribs) 09:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

As Windows XP was released 2 years before Windows 2000 SP4 I would say that XP is the first OS to have these features. (XP was released 25th Oct 01, SP4 was released June 26th 2003).-Localzuk(talk) 16:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Higly POV

This article is rather negative towards Windows Me. It's POV. 213.240.234.212 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


I can only second that. I still have Windows ME running on five different machines, ranging from 266MHz up to 2,2GHz. I never encountered any of the described problems, though I should have run across some of them if they were there, given the wide variety of my hardware. I also installed and uninstalled various cards and adapters in my PCs, and upgraded them with more RAM etc. Never had any problems there, either. Generally I got the impression that it is more stable than Windows 95 OSR C, which I ran prior to Me.

And it is no POV to state that Me runs on machines way slower than the official minimum requirement. If you ain't got much money or simply like the old stuff, Windows Me is the way to run an OS on an old machine that's got most of the important features that make life easier: UPnP, USB, DirectX, SystemRestore, you name it.

So far I have not seen any reason to buy XP, much less Vista, cause I can do anything with Me.

But I'm afraid there are some Microsoft employees editing this site to promote sales of their later OSes by denouncing Me the way they do.

Please keep your personal opinions to yourself as they constitute original research. If there is anything in the article that is, in your opinion, POV please inform us about it. However, wide ranging and sweeping comments saying 'this article is POV' do not help as it doesn't do much to narrow down to the problems. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
What should he include? Unoriginal research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.234.212 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Verifiable information. Josh (talk | contribs) 16:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows ME was codenamed "Georgia"

Windows ME was codenamed Georgia

I cited three or four sources to prove that, and if you google "Windows me" + "codename georgia" you will get hundreds more. Pick one to your liking, but please don't keep people dumb. Tell them the truth. It was codenamed Georgia, and I wonder what's wrong with that in your opinion ? All my edits to include this codename in the article were reverted by vandals, so I put this into the discussion section and maybe someone else interested in the truth will pick this issue up and fight the vandals.


That the codename was Georgia can also be read in the French Wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Me

... and the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_me

Both articles concur with me on this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.185.141.18 (talk • contribs).

Other Wikipedias can't be used as references. Find a reliable source for this assertion, preferably a major publication, or Microsoft itself. That's the only way we can be reasonably assured that it's actually correct. -/- Warren 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It isn't at all correct. I don't recall 98SE or ME having designated or well-used codenames. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"I don't recall 98SE or ME having designated or well-used codenames. SchmuckyTheCat"

That may be because you didn't work for Microsoft in these days.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.141.18 (talk)

Please do not make accusations without evidence and even then only if you can show that these affiliations are causing a problem.-Localzuk(talk) 18:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Me IS stable, after a few tweaks...

System Restore, overall, just isn't needed. Ive used it once in the past, and it worked, but I didn't really accomplish anything in the process as the computer continued to crash. I'm typing this from Me, running an Athlon 1.15GHz and 512 DDR RAM. Ive had to edit the VCACHE because Windows Me, and Windows 9x in general has problems with anything over 511.9999999. I am monitoring the RAM and where its going to. Currently, I am running Mozilla's Firefox, AOL Instant Messenger, Nullsoft Winamp, and MemMAX, System Resources are 30% and its showing no signs of crashing.

Granted, When first installed, Me wasnt stable at all. There are a few quintessential tasks you must complete to get Me to be stable. 1.Disable System Restore 2.Either Disable Virtual Memory or Handle it yourself, give it plenty of room for the Swap File. 3.Disable Scheduled Tasks

Overall, I am pleased with Millennium, and I'm going to continue running it, regardless of Microsoft support. ~~User:SufferWell1396 11:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for Me not being stable was that computer manufacturers and hardware suppliers had little time to adapt to it. The most then-new computers were intended for Windows 98 SE or Windows 2000, and then, Windows Me was released. Computer hardware manufacturers had only a year to adapt to Me, but most of them never did, because of the XP hype. 83.228.121.186 (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That should be included, it is true, I guess. It would be better if Microsoft didn't release Windows Me, since they didn't care about its users.

A possible reason for the hardware-related problems was that computer manufacturers and hardware suppliers had little time to adapt to Windows Me, as most of the then-new computers were intended for Windows 98 SE and/or Windows 2000. Computer hardware manufacturers had only a year to adapt to Me, but most of them never did due to poor advertising and the release of Windows XP the next year. 213.240.234.212 (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Lilisot

[edit] Last DOS-based Windows

"Windows XP, which is NT based, became the successor to Windows ME. It also closed the gap between MS-DOS and NT."

What exactly is this gap and how did Windows XP close it? Windows NT/XP is still completly different from MS-DOS. Josh 23:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The gap is the gap between server and network oriented OS and desktop/client OS. Windows NT was designed spacifically around the concept of networks. Windows 9x/ME was designed around providing the best experience to an end user, and providing multimedia capabilities to them. Those multimedia capabilities were much less available in NT. XP took the network part of NT and the multimedia part of 9x and merged them - resulting in the removal of the need for 2 lines of OS production. That was a gap closed.-Localzuk(talk) 11:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah, basically games + consumer hardware vs business and security

e.g win95 - plug "n" play and ran everyones games vs NT4 which ran hardly any games and didnt have PnP but was amazing for networking.

[edit] Erroneous relation to 2000?

"If the Windows 2000 Installation CD is inserted, it erroneously states: 'The version of Windows you are running is older than the one on this CD. Would you like to upgrade?' Windows Me was actually released several months after Windows 2000." So, if ME is newer than 2000, so, the CD notes this incorrectly, because newer ME is called as older than 2000. Wikinger 10:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Windows Me cannot upgrade Windows 2000. SchmuckyTheCat

yes, only nt4 (maybe nt3?) can do an upgrade