>>If we're into making points about making points, what's your point with your first statement above ('Thats because they are both NT.')??? < s >
>
>The point is, they are not "compareable" to NT... they ARE NT. WIndows 2000 is written on the NT codebase, and Windows XP is written on the 2000 codebase, so logically, they are both written on WIndows NT's codebase, therefore, explaining why they are more similar to NT than 9x.

I think Tom's point was that each delivered OS *is* better than the last (though I noticed he didn't seem to care to include ME in his list). You accepted his premise for Win95, 98, etc, though they too are built each built on thier predecessor's codebase.
In addition, "NT" was the common name for that other line of OS' prior to 2000, when the 2000, then XP was promoted.