OSNews

It's a frequent claim that "XP is stable".

In my experience XP is less stable that W2K and about on par with NT 4 (yes, even when using XP drivers only on "Designed for XP" hardware) when fresh out of the box and Service Pack'd. W2K is easier to install or change hardware than either NT or XP, by easier I mean likely to suceed without a lot of screwing around.

From my experience, W2K was the pinnacle achievement of the Windows program running on top the David Cutler hacked OS/2 derived code that Microsoft ever sold. Performance-wise XP introduces some severe deficiencies when compared to W2K (even after stripping out all the XP fluff).

Similarly Windows 98SE was the pinnacle of Windows with DOS underpinnings, being a slight improvement over Windows 95 OSR 2.1.

Since W2K and 98SE Microsoft's emphasis has been on drawing more attention to Windows itself as opposed to actually improving it. Simplification of the user interface has made it much harder to configure it.

This has opened the door for truly innovative Operating Systems to make a play for the desktop. I have close personal experience with an OS X eMac that handily outperforms an OEM XP box that has nearly twice the clock speed. Albeit that little raster shift defect took two warranty repairs to correct.

I use and install Windows (all flavors including 95 and later) on a daily and weekly basis and use QNX (6.1) every day. I have installed and use well over thirty different Linux and *BSD distros since OpenLinux 1.2/RH 5.0 (and prefer SuSE 7.3 so far) as well as LinuxPPC (2K), UnixWare (7), NeXTStep (3.1), BeOS (4, 5), Solaris X86 (2.5, 7, 8) as a desktop and/or server and use OpenServer (8), Netware (4, 5) and Linux (RH 7.2) daily as a Server and Windows (NT, 2K) daily as a "Server".

My experience with desktops goes back to daily use of CP/M Z-80 and Apple DOS around 1981 then on to DOS (2 - 5) and Desqview, then DOS 6/Windows 3.11 and then Solaris 2.5 X86, Windows 95, MacOS 8, etc..

Windows doesn't come close to any Server when used as a "Server" but that's getting off-topic.

When using an Operating Enviroment (as opposed to an Operating System thereby including Windows) I want to be able to tell it what to do, not the other way around. Using Windows, this is inherently more difficult with less predictable results.

The DOS based Windows allow for a virtual "smack on the side of the head" to force it into submission, but NT type Windows do not recover as well from brute force. While initially a little stronger, they collapse rather quickly into a steaming pile of P00 when such tactics are employed.

*nix, especially Linux, gives the experienced user the ability to intervene when more knowledgable than the machine itself and has stability to go along with the package. I don't have to guess what answer to the trick question some wizard is asking me to get the desired results. If I know what I want, I get it. Linux hardware support is BETTER than XP and has enough applications (many free) to do most or all of what most need or want to do with a computer.

The author complains about having to compile stuff, this is an option with Linux to gain performance, it's not an option with Windows. You can't optimize Windows for your hardware, you have to use a precompiled system that may be supporting a lot of hardware that does not exist on your system.

While BeOS is wonderful, the shortage of apps (although less so than QNX) is certainly a hinderence in being able to achieve the daily burden of menial tasks. I wish it's IP had been transfered to a more benevolent entity.

As was mentioned, two of the more prominent challengers in the desktop Linux arena were omitted from the review (Xandros and Lycoris). Perhaps even Lindows should be considered as well, despite their questionable ethics.

eCommstation/Warp 4.51 are lacking only one or two things, Crossover Office/Wine and/or X. Or, if project ODIN were to somehow surge ahead in development, it could be a major contender.

With any computer, making sure the hardware and software are well matched is a crucial plan if ease of installation and a stable system is desired (although finding this combination with XP seems to be less elusive than NeXTStep but certainly close to OS/2).