Call me a little slow, but has everybody forgotten the "backward compatability" question? Don't get me wrong, I like XP, it's the first offering from M$ that I really like and use....constantly. I haven't been near Linux for OVER A WEEK !! But it appears to me that the only thing achieved with XP is stability and a bloody good UI, AT WHAT COST? How big an installation was windows 3.11, or 95 / 98? I know, technology moves on, when I was running 3.11 / DOS I had a whole 150 meg hard drive, (upgrade to WHAT?????? a WHOLE 500 meg, don't be silly, you'll never use it.)
How about machine code, you know, that stuff TOS based machines like the Atari was programmed in. How much sleeker, faster and downright smaller our installations would be. "Windows 3000, yes Sir, that'll be $400.00 for the three floppy set" Have Apple got it right? Photoshop for MacOs X is less than half the size of the one for PC, no backward compatability you see.
OK, i'm a little hard, I realise that Microsoft Software and OS's are the easiest to install and use, and yes, they are getting it right by providing us with a very usable and enjoyable xp-erience, but just sit back awhile and think what it COULD have been.
p.s. sorry