Looking Back on Five Years of Windows XP

david.emery writes "In an article in the Washington Post entitled If Only We Knew Then What We Know Now About Windows XP, post technology columnist Rob Pegoraro points out the 5 year legacy of Windows XP. The article starts 'Windows XP is turning five years old, but will anybody want to celebrate the occasion?' This is (IMHO) a very well-reasoned critique of WinXP, although it does fail to credit XP as being markedly better than its predecessors." More from the article: "Consider stability, the single biggest selling point of XP. The operating system was meant to stop individual programs from crashing the system, and it succeeded. It takes an especially malignant program to send my copy of XP to a 'blue screen of death.' But that's not the only way XP can crash. Drivers, the software that lets XP communicate with hardware components, can still lock up the system. If you've seen an XP laptop fail to wake up from standby, you can probably blame it on buggy drivers."

Comments

Re:W2K FTW

[nmb3000]

W2K FTW

LOL so tru!!!!~ m$ is teh sux

</sarcasm>

Here's an honest question: Ignoring the cost, just what is it that you think is so much better about Windows 2000 compared to XP? I've used both and I'll tell you what: Nothing.

Both systems are designed around the same kernel. Windows 2000 was NT 5.0 and XP is NT 5.1. In this regard both are very stable and nearly never have stability problems that aren't due to faulty hardware or drivers (and the same can be said for Linux systems).

XP is basically 2000 with added multimedia, games, and hardware support. In addition it has a revamped interface allowing for theming (which can of course be turned off for those that don't like change). Throw in some additional native drivers and you've basically got XP.

As far as I can tell, people who still use 2000 by choice are either ignorant or just dumb.