[citation][nom]edeawillrule[/nom]"You haven't figured out by now that these would be easy to add to Win2K, and didn't need a new operating system?"Idiot, what do you think XP was? It was only a tweaked version of 2000 with an improved interface along with other improvements."You didn't know that Windows NT was always for multiple CPUs? You really did know that the operating systems are made pretty modular, and drivers are separate, and you could make them work with Windows 2000? You really didn't know?"You didn't know that Windows XP, Vista, and 7 are based on the Windows NT kernel? You didn't know that the modularity you speak of is how they don't switch to a completely new kernel every time a new OS is released? You didn't know that the driver model introduced with Vista is superior to that of Windows 2000? You didn't know how to use proper grammar? You didn't know you fail?[/citation]
I guess you're too stupid to get it. XP runs slower, and they moved things around, which didn't make a lot of sense, and of course introduced a lot of bugs. XP was considered the same family as Windows 2000.
Strangely, in your dumb way, you didn't realize you made my point. All those things could have been added, without changing the interface, and making it so bloated and slower. Didn't you understand that?
Actually, they do change the kernel, although it's not completely new. That's why it gets bigger and slower. Don't you know anything?
My point is, the OS is huge and slow now, but it doesn't do anything the old one doesn't. They move stuff for no apparent reason, and manage to make things slower with each release. Why? Because idiots like you don't know any better, and buy it anyway.