Whats wrong with xp?

Lets start with the most popular ones and move onto more deep stuff. First, XP takes a little bit of time, no.. it takes a lot of time to start. By the way, thats because of the number of items on the critical path... believe it or not, it waits to connect to wifi before you see the desktop... and until it connects, or tries and fails, you won't see the desktop. Even after the prolonged bootup, it still takes a while to load the apps. And it needs about 256 MB to do stuff, which linux manages in half as much. Although that isn't much of an issue in today's age of 4GB RAM chips, it weighs in when you want to run memory intensive apps. And almost every security app, starting from a firewall, to the anti-spyware stuff like spysweeper, to norton antivirus... the last one's notorious at it... slow down the system. And it seems quite obvious that these should be in the startup list. Whats not so obvious is why acrobat reader is put in the startup list, along with all sorts of junk third party applications. The applications have the same layouts, absolutely bland, and utilitarian. And the X-window system is just about working, on the best of days.

So, XP has a lot not going for it. But then, isn't there something we are missing here? Sure, the XP starts slow, and doesn't have the best looks around. But... once it up and running, do you ever have a crib against it?... Ten mins into its running... Is there anything lacking?... no!.. Its an absolutely joy to work with once you get it going. Its easily the fastest OS around on most laptops. It even trumps ubuntu once in a while, in terms of app loading speeds. Now, i am not saying all this speed comes with MS apps... mostly its with apps like firefox and gtalk. But its ridiculously stable, dependable, and probably, the best OS MS will debut in a long time.

So, why are most of the critics in the tech world upto MS bashing? MS screwed up vista. Sure! But thats one failure, after five successes. Thats allowed, isn't it? I mean, they went after the apple interface (which is brilliant), and they screwed up while they were doing it. But still, that doesn't justify classifying MS OSes as bad, and useless. I am refering to a blog on arstechnica, which started blasting MS and compared it with the Apple OS. Now, first up, MS has a lot more audience to cater to. Second, it has a lot of backward compatibility issues it has to deal with when it comes out with an OS. Mac is just now gaining prominence. Its not as if Apple has been going high all the time. Its with the ipod that the resurgence started. So, obviously, there's something going wrong here. Why would the critics want to bash up MS?

I think its because its now the in-thing. To bash MS, is now a fashion statement among the critics. Whether or not it is correct, they take the line that Apple has the best OS in the world, and Windows sucks. I am sorry, but I beg to disagree. You cannot be MS Windows XP... Its better than any other OS on the market. Its cheaper, more compatible, and portable (Apple should learn that word)... and it runs like a charm on my laptop. I have no cribs against it, and I have been using it for donkey's years now. Its as dependable today, as it will ever be. I may be the only soul in the world saying this... but... MS Windows XP ROCKS!