If new Stardock software required Windows XP ...

Something tells me that Stardock never forgets OS/2.

Unfortunately the reputation that 9x/ME gave to stardocks apps was not a terribly good one.

Causes instability, hogs resources, looks cool but slows things down too much
being a few complaints leveled at Windowblinds for one.

The reputation coming with 2K and now XP is looking a lot better.

why did they have to call it ME? so annoying! >

maybe /I could of been better

Do you realize it could be something as simple as what slot you have you network card and installed in?

gessh....

and video card

+bump-bump-baba-bump"

OS's come and go. The fact is that each os is just another step to the next no matter how many people use them. No one's wishing Win3.0 was still around and for many good reasons. The new os's come out to replace the old ones because they are better.

Maybe if Stardock stopped supporting the Win9x kernel, some of us would be encouraged to move on to a better, much more stable os.

Not everybody feels the need to repace something that works fine for them. I know a lot of people still using Windows 98, simply because they see no reason to go through the hassle of upgrading. They will upgrade when their next computer ships with a new OS. So, I think Windows 95 can be burried since I know nobody still using it, but maybe wait another two years or so before trashing Windows 98 support.
Windows 2000 should absolutely not be abandonned, it is still a quite recent OS.

Windows 2000 should not be dropped because it is in far wider use than many of the other OS's. Most corporate use is on Windows 2000 because it is probably the best OS, in terms of stability, that Microsoft has released.

I think for performance issues Stardock should release two versions of the same thing. Make WindowBlinds XP...and later on down the road, Windowblinds 9x. If programs were made specifically for an OS it would speed things up and cause less problems. You can't put XP in the same category as any other OS. I just think XP should be in a class of it's own. It would be easier for the programmers to develop for one particular OS, they wouldn't have to worry about "well it works on XP, now to make it work ok 2k..."

XP is the future of the OS world. Adapt.


PS: The above statement is just an opinion.

Husipoo: XP will only be the hotest thing until the next version of Windows gets released. Thej we'll be talking about "Should we drop XP?".
It's a fact that most people don't replace things before they break. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is something a lot of people go by.

Paxx: Pretty much everything built on from here on out will be based on XP-like functions. Longhorn is XP only it has a new file system and is more .Net-ish. It's not like were going to see something similar to Win2k being released...so support the future first...the past second. But I fully understand the point you make...which is probably why Stardock had a poll, it's a very hard question to answer, a lot of people use pc's, you HAVE to consider them all.