I disagree with much of your assessment. I find XP much more stable and much easier to navigate and use. Other people here at my office that have been experimenting with (its not approved by corporate) agree with me. Also, you can run XP with a Win2K UI, but I don't recommend it.


>Bill
>
>I have used Xp on Compaq 1.3 workstations, Toshiba laptops and Dell Workstations.
>
>You need, IMHO, twice as much memory as Windows 2000, and a lot of patience especially when setting up networks. Netbeui doesn't exist as an auto option though its not that difficult to install. The interface is overly fussy and the training periods are longer than with other OS. Some software will not run on XP without an upgrade.
>
>To put it in perspective, I upgraded an installation of 20 pcs from Win98 to 2000 with no problems and no training. But with Xp I have to spend hours. With XP the average user (business desktop - let me get on with my job) spends too much time playing with colors and the interface.
>
>Then equally irritating. If I have 3 other users with rights to view files on my pc the sign on screen shows 4 users - very confusing.
>
>Lastly, shutdown is very slow. Because all my installations have Broadband, Virus protection and Firewall Software (they won't pay for hardware) play a very major part. These add to the speed (or lack of it) of shutdown. I may have got round this one by going to the Microsoft Update site and downloading everything in sight - 39 files in all.
>
>My summation - for the home user or tecky OK. As a serious business tool I rank it way behind Windows 2000.
>
>Colin