What's after xp?

[beedubaya]

Is this really worth arguing over? It was just a casual statement I made in response to the possibility of Microsoft releasing Windows XP Reloaded. 2000 is indeed the most stable of the Microsoft operating systems. XP is VERY close behind, followed by NT.

But yeah, Lone Wolf, MS-DOS 6.0 was the best Microsoft ever released...............................................................................................................jk.

 

[ShoobieRat]

When a huge (strike that, HUGE) portion of the world's users is using a certain OS, that certain OS is obviously going to be pecked at and pecked at numerously.

In the end, you actually have to admire XP for the fact that it is still there. Just about everything is gnawling on XP, 'cause it's the biggest target out there. Who the heck (wanting to cause real damage) would pick on some squat little OS that only a handful are using, when they can bash the OS that's gonna fk millions?

I mean, think about it. If yer gonna crash an OS, who would you pick first? Are you going to bash Amiga, or XP?

The news isn't reporting worms that attack Microsoft products because they're attacking Microsoft. The news is reporting the attacks because craploads of businesses use microsoft products.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Is this really worth arguing over? It was just a casual statement I made in response to the possibility of Microsoft releasing Windows XP Reloaded. 2000 is indeed the most stable of the Microsoft operating systems. XP is VERY close behind, followed by NT.

But yeah, Lone Wolf, MS-DOS 6.0 was the best Microsoft ever released...............................................................................................................jk.

Dude don't get me wrong, i'm not dissin ya... i'm just teasing ya in a playful way.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but i don't think that W2K is greater than XP in terms of software compability as XP was the first OS to merge both the Win9.x and NT codebase. But whatever... it's still better than DOS 6.0. <grin>

 

[beedubaya]

Here's a little interesting article I found. Its long, but if you read it, you may see why I consider 2000 of more quality than XP.

http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm

 

[ShoobieRat]

Actually, according to Microsoft, 98SE was more stable than W2k. From my own personal experience, I would have to agree with that as well.

Since it's release, I have only had XP crash a handful of times (on its own), and that's including both home and work environments. Aside from intentionally frutzing the OS up, or pushing in applications that aren't stable themselves, XP stays pretty stable.

 

[Lone Wolf]

You can find proponents for both OSes and find plenty of links/articles to support either argument. Either way, you're entitled to your opinion and that's fine.

 

[Jerigorn]

Thanks guys. You've really helped alot.

 

[xotix]

lol, jerigon we've strayed away from the topic haven't we.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It's all good xotix... jerigon's question had already been answered by the time I jumped into the mix. Besides, beedubaya had set himself up perfectly w/ his statements, I felt compelled to hold his feet to the fire and have him articulate on his assertions which he failed to do.

 

[bjcskier]

I can't see much improvement upon XP...What is there to change?