There is a reason that a lot of software only runs on Windows NT based systems (e.g., NT 4/2000/XP/2003) and not Windows 9x (e.g., 95/98/Me). Windows NT based systems actually have a significantly different architecture than their Windows 9x counterparts, which in terms of OS design, is archaic by most current standards (no memory protection, no security, etc.). Among the largest similarities betwen Windows 9x based systems and Windows NT based systems is probably their GUI.

I don't fully understand why people are so attached to Windows 9x. Maybe it's because some things were easier to code under Windows 9x (think: parallel port access). Maybe it's because Linux users find that Wine runs programs designed for Windows 9x better than it does those designed for Windows NT. Easier doesn't always mean better though, and the Windows 9x user experience reinforces this: lots of hanging/blue screens/unresponsiveness, frequent need to reinstall, even more frequent need to reboot, etc.

Windows 9x is a thing of the past. It's time to move on. I'm not a huge fan of MS trying to push upgrades as frequently as they do, but then again that's their business, so they have to do it if they want to make money. That said, I think Windows 2000 is still a perfectly competent OS and the fact that it runs almost all current software is quite respectable from a backwards compatibility standpoint (remember, it's been around for about 6 years now). Windows NT based systems do in fact bring a lot of great features to the table that make them a compelling upgrade, not the least of which are terminal services and active directory.

--Sasha Jevtic