[Cicero]

I'm surprised Windows XP doesn't get better feedback from users. I think it's many, many times better than any of the earlier versions. I have Windows 2000 on a couple of computers, and it's equally stable, but it seems to be more allergic to programs it doesn't like. Win2K and WinXP are much more stable than Win95/98/ME. Especially ME, which was a disaster.

[Drango]

I'm surprised Windows XP doesn't get better feedback from users

Whatever...I still have a devil of a time getting my 20 new XP machines to work in a multiuser environment. What are there, some 850 possible permissions? ~sigh

[js1138]

I'm surprised Windows XP doesn't get better feedback from users.

Because it does what it's supposed to. I use W2k at home and see no reason to upgrade. I haven't encountered anything I want to run that won't. For the fires couple of years there were some hardware devices that didn't have drivers, but that went away.

Anyone who used windows prior to 2000 has reason to think it sucks.

[kezekiel]

I'm surprised Windows XP doesn't get better feedback from users.

There was a lot I liked about XP, but it was too much of a resource hog even for my 800 MHz, 256MB Thinkpad. I switched to 2000, which is brisker and even more stable.