(oke, I lied, this is another semi-technical post ;)
I am sick to death arguing about Windows XP with people.
There remain people that I know, that cannot seem to let go of the idea that Windows XP is crap.
Now of course, this is a touchy subject, as a person's definition of crap varies wildly from person to person, and its largely determined by ones own personal expleriance with the crap product in question.
(Little disclaimer, I am also a great supporter of Windows 2000, after all, the difference between XP and W2K are relativly minor on the whole)
I, for one, do not think Windows XP is crap. The reasons I like Windows XP over all prevous versions are wide and diverse, and much of it has to do with the work that I do, systems administration, and thus the level at which I use the product.
And of course there is enough wrong with Windows XP too, there will never be a 100% stable OS, or 100% compatible-with-everything OS, and Windows XP certainly has its fair share of flaws.
(And just to get the security argument out of the way: Fully patched, Windows is as secure as most other OS-es out there, but the important thing to remember here, is that XP runs on 99% of all desktops, so what is a hacker or viruswriter gonna go for first, eh? On top of that, I think that MS has made some incredible strides in security when it comes to Windows XP and Windows Server 2003)
Of all the people that I know that have an aversion to Windows XP, not one seems to be able to constructivly argue their point or opinion. I have heard people spout of a lot of nonsence about Windows, or about compatiblitiy or security, without them actually knowing what the hell they are talking about. But once you actually go an drag up facts of the matter, pull out some whitepapers or technet articles, or enterprise-level news articles about ehat is acutally the case, then suddenly, these same people cant be bothered to listen or read. They are generally ignorent of What Windows XP can actually do and actually support, and their theories are usually based on hear-say and almost always based on a very superficial understanding of how software works.
Dont get me wrong, I have no trouble with someone sticking to Windows 98 because its less of a system load than Windows XP, but dont tell me its more secure, or more stable, and dont even start about administering Windows 9x desktops in the enterprise enviroment. And I am not even talking about the integrated features they are missing out on, but then again, these people often dont have a need for remote desktop, or group policy management. But you see, these people often dont know a thing about the realities of corperate administration, remote scripting, desktop enformcement, software inventorisation, and enterprise-level security requirements. The whole argument is pointless, because these people often dont live in the same world I do, they dont keep up with what is going on out there.
The upcoming service pack 2 for windows XP is a fine example of the same thing. Mention it to these kind of people, and they either dismiss it out of hand, or say they will switch of all of the features once they have installed it, entirely missing the whole point. Of course there people dont often run Windows update either.
Again, I really woun't mind people critisizing XP if there arguments are good, but as long as they refuse to educate themselves, and acutally try to understand what is is they are talking about, I cannot discuss their isues with them on the same level. So for now.. I will give it up.