Obviously the NT stuff is much more stable than the DOS-based Windows, but still has issues. I find it interesting that the NBMers never have any problems with XP and 2K while many other people do... and they're dismissed as driver problems or users having been "screwing around". I figure (1) you're very fault-tolerant, (2) you're lying, or (3) you know something the rest of us don't.
Which is it?
If you'll think about it, this makes sense.
I wouldn't be so down on MS if I didn't have a long history of problems getting their junk to stay up. It is this continual hassle with Windows over the years that has soured me on them, and wishful for an alternative.
BTW, I used to be a "Team OSer," I used OS/2 from the 2.0 version through OS/2 Warp. In the early days of OS/2, I also had problems with it. It was NOT as stable as many were professing it to be, and I got a lot of the same "it must be user error" comments from that crowd as well. Eventually, though, OS/2 DID become quite stable, at least by my own experience, and I attributed that to the desire for the OS/2 developers to incorporate feedback from people such as myself. I was even a Beta-tester for OS/2 3.0, because I was always nagging them about stuff.
I have not had much success with MS in that department. Oh, a patch or a fixpack will come out, and it might address some concerns, but others always remain and new ones appear.
The people who claim that all my problems must be "user error," are just being thick, though. By definition, and OPERATING System ought to be able to handle day-to-day activity, which is what I do. I'm not doing video editing, or real-time data processing, or anything like that; I'm trying to use spreadsheets, CAD software, email clients, applications of all kinds.
Saying that I "err" because I can't do that without rebooting from time to time (to time) is just lame.