I agree with the reviewers. There's nothing in Windows XP to cause anyone to go out of his way to get it. In fact, I wonder why such an amazing giant of technology as Microsoft--which argues vociferously for its right to integrate new technology into its operating system--can't do better than this. XP was supposed to finally replace old-world MS-DOS with a modern, stable platform that can be modified for new technologies without the pain and suffering we all experienced in the past. So why doesn't XP work a whole lot better?

XP really isn't all that new or stable. XP is based on what used to be called Windows NT, which Microsoft developed over many years as a competitive response to Unix. Yet XP requires you to do things Unix doesn't require, like restart your machine when you install a new application. That's the Windows legacy: XP has to work with software designed for previous versions of Windows, and programmers know that with Windows software, it's safer to tell users to restart the PC after a program is installed. This reflects the design of the core of the operating system, called the kernel. The kernel in XP is not fully protected against what application programs might do; the kernel in Unix is. So for all the hoopla about stability, XP still puts an extra burden on the user.

As many readers know, I've been using the Macintosh more and more at home. Apple recently upgraded its operating system to what's known as OS X. That is based on Unix. You don't have to restart your computer all the time. Managing programs and data is even easier than before. Of course, Apple is still the same old company too. But I'm beginning to think that Apple might actually be able to use such advantages to compete effectively. And I'm beginning to think that Microsoft looks like a company too wedded to past practices to keep up. Heck, what do they need to worry about with $38 billion in cash and net profits close to 30% on every dollar they collect? Yes, indeed, what does Microsoft have to worry about?