One of my several arguments against Microsoft.
'Perhaps, I was little too general in my last post. I apologize for that. I really do agree with your post. Windows XP Professional, which I use, is one of Microsoft's must stable operating systems. However, the Windows9.X series were all pathetic cases. Yes, I mean all of them. The 9.X series were graphic overhauls and patched kernels. In fact, one wonders were MS summoned the guts to distribute each successive release of the Win9.X series as new operating systems, when they were in fact patches. The same applies to the WindowsNTs (i.e WinNT, Win2000, WinXP).
I only hope Microsoft's next attempt, Longhorn, is really a newly overhauled kernel with a much secure and efficient file system, as opposed to an XP patch and graphical upgrade (Longhorn is supposedly going to feature a 3D desktop environment). If it isn't and it isn't free, then I'll have one more reason to stick to Linux. My displeasure is not at the fact to I have to pay for Microsoft Operating systems. It is the fact that I have to pay for new patches that really bothers me. And even then, my security and privacy is not totally guaranteed. I will not even go into relative pricing of Microsoft products. It is just plain sad.
When I pay for a product or service, I expect an almost flawless performance. If a free version of Linux gave me more problems than any other operating system, it is understandable because it's free. Yes, I do agree XP is more stable and a little more secure. But when we compare XPs price/perfomance ratios, price/security ratios, price/stability ratios with that of Unix and its variants, XP is pretty lousy for an expensive operating system I paid for.
'