Yep, my observation is that XP is/was the "sweet-spot" for Windows. Stable (finally), does plenty, isn't bloated, well-understood by users.
Microsoft can't follow XP. Not that Win7 isn't good -- it is. But it ain't nearly the sweet fit-to-needs-and-resources that XP became.
Microsoft is flogging a dead horse -- the NT codebase has been pushed farther than it can be and still work. MS is in the same position Apple was in the late 90's -- their operating system is a dead end.
If MS has half a brain, they're doing what Apple did -- layer their existing GUI over a stable, secure base, like Unix.
Unfortunately, MS has "Not Invented Here" stapled over their half-brain, and will re-invent another square wheel instead.
Which is a shame, because they've got really good software engineers, and they could make a leap past Apple if they were willing to admit that Unix runs better than their creaking NT crap.
Agreed. I've used Mac (starting with the Plus) Win (starting with 1.0) and *nix (various flavors.) Having done so, I always pick the software needed to do the job first and then buy the hardware to best support it.
I've use XP on my trusty Dell Inspiron 8500 for years and am still happy with it (allthough my Dell is now pretty underpowered for today's day and age. And the stupid d key hardly ever works without some encouragement.)
I'll prolly buy a new laptop after Windows 7 Service Pack 1. I hear it will run most of my favorite XP software anyway and most everything worthwhile will be updated by then anyway.
Microsoft better be rewriting from scratch as we speak or they are history.