I know, its old post, but made me chuckle By your logic (which might have some substance actually) it is actually Win2000 that should be the best 'second OS' because you missed NT4 (pls dont say the name fooled you to think it was something different than 2K/XP IMHO it should look like this: Win95->Win98->WinME :: 1st so-so, 2nd great, 3rd completely overdone (too many mostly useless changes) WinNT4->Win2000(NT5)->WinXP :: 1st so-so, 2nd great, 3rd completely overdone (too many mostly useless changes) I have 2 identical old PCs (actually 3... but third doesnt run any Win). P4 2.0GHz/1GB RAM each, all same hardware We set' these 2 with 2K and XP, and I dont mean default settings - each one was *properly* set (no nliting but all apropiate tweaks and settings). In every prog/app/cpu/ram/.../test we did, Windows 2000 always won or was the same as Windows XP. Yes, most of the time it was better not by much, but it still did. I dont know why would you post such bulls*** here. Sheesh. The only things XP is better is "the look". I hate the "Win98 style" of Windows 2000, but thats about all anyone can pick on. (Yes I'm aware some software deliberately refuse to work on W2K while it works on XP, but - not surprisingly - its usually Microsoft's software, or software relying on DRMs deeply woven into XP OS and missing or thinly-supported on 2K).
