On 1/31/08, Bob Axtell <engineer@cotse.net> wrote:
> > Power users can still do powerful things. And Vista protects
> > novice users better. Under the hood, Vista has also many
> > improvement over XP. And XP is a vast improvement over
> > Windows 98SE for home users and business users.
> >
> XP was not supposed to be an improvement over Win98, it
> was supposed to be an improvement over Win2K. It most
> certainly was NOT.
>
> Win2K remains the pinnacle of Microsoft capabilities. Before and
> after Win2K is simply downhill.

Windows XP is the replacement for Windows 98SE for home
users. And it is the replacement of Windows 98SE/Win2k for
business users.

Compared to Win2k, Windows XP is much better in terms
of the support of hardwares for home users. For business
laptop users, it is also a vast improvement compared to
Win2k -- just for the reduced boot-up time. It takes "forever"
for Win2k to boot up in a networked (espeically Novell)
environment.

I feel strange that many users here seem to like Windows
2k. I only had short experiences with Win2k and I did not think
it was any better than XP.

And do not blame Microsoft for what Microchip did wrong. ;-)
Example: http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=312114

The biggest complain to Windows XP is the security issue.
And Vista has made a lot of improvement in that front and
it may be perceived as in the way for some power users
but I think it is in the right direction in that front. Not so sure
about Aero.

Xiaofan
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist