Windows 2000 was mainstream for the buiseness sector, and still has a bigger market share then 98 (2000 - 2%; 98 - 0.66%). The XP-Vista line of OSes is called NT and Windows Vista is actualy the 6th release OS from this line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT). EVERY version of windows has needed more resources then the previous. Windows 2000 needed 64MB of RAM, Windows Xp requires about 256, XP SP2 about 512 and Vista 1-2GB. Each windwos requires about double the amount of RAM of the previos, and each time everybody is unhappy with this. I don’t see theis as a real problem . Most modern PCs have the hardware to run Vista, and if you don’t stick with XP it’ll be supported till 2014 (plenty of time to replace the current hardware) .

Vista adds very intresting Search and interface capabilities so I belive it’s worth the extra 512MB. And hopefuly we will see more Vista 64 bit instalation soon, and that is where Vista has it’s real potential. I’ve been using vista for more then a year and I have to say I am very pleased with it. Sure drivers were a bit of a problem at fists but things have gotton better, so has performnce with severel patches from MS. And even if you do have a problem the new “Problem Reports and Solutions” is a great improvement and actualy tells you wich app/component was the issue and if there is a newer version available wich solves the problem. Given another year or so vista and it’s application echosystem will mature and people will start wonder why the disliked it in the first place.

I've been using Windows XP Professional since 2002, and it's been alot better then Windows 98. I really like this operating system and hopes it will not be put out of sales or support. I encourage that microsoft keep selling copies of Windows XP because alot of enterprises use Windows XP and so do many small businesses. The hospitals finally migrated to Windows XP Professional, and banks did too from Windows 2000. If they cut support out for Windows XP, then where will Microsoft be today?

The surprising thing to me is, that Microsoft created 6 service packs for Windows NT 4.0. Why can't they keep the support prolonged as they did for Windows NT? Besides I really like Windows xp.

Besides, Windows 98 was slow, and Me was just as worse.

Nothing changes in this respect in the IT world.
I remember the same tripe being sprouted about new versions of operating systems way back when I started in IT in 1975.
Advances in hardware mean advances in software, if you want the best of either, use the latest of both.
BUT ensure they are the correct tool for the job you want to do.

It is exactly the same. It does not matter what release XP was in relation to 2000 or even Me and it does not matter what kernel each is based. The fact is that XP got very, very little respect from the tech press until way past 2005. As recently as 2005, there was still talk of XP's slow adoption in the corporate world and there were still driver issues as a result of SP2. I can remember XP's 'LUNA' theme called Fisher-Price even last year. I'd bet that over 75% of the alleged problems with Vista are driver or poor app support not from the operating system but the manufacturers and developers. It inexcusable. They had well over a year to get it right and few, if any, had things ready when Microsoft released the operating system in November of 2006 and January of 2007. As far as reasons to upgrade...better stability, sandboxed IE 7, tighter security, better graphics engine, PARENTALY CONTROLS (which more than makes the upgrade worth the prices, for parents) Media Center, better mobile device support, etc.
I've got it on four machines, the only software that will not work with Vista that we own: Sim Theme Park.
XP...meh.