^Sometimes, it really shocks me how much we have in common! 😁
But yes, Windows XP was a friendly OS.
I think we can agree on that. At least, in comparison to the last recent releases.
And for someone like me, who came from Win98, XP was nothing less than amazing!
Before XP, I tried a few other "true", non-DOS OSes, before.
(Including some DOS-like OSes, that were true OSes. Like PC-MOS/386.)
Windows NT 3.1 and NT 4, which both were interesting, but had got compatibility issues with the software that I used to use.
Ironically, that wasn't Win32 software, even.
I had been a loyal Real-Mode DOS (VGA applications) and Windows 3.10 user.
Ironically, that exactly was the type of software that required emulation on NT.
Yeah, I wasn't lucky at the time. 🙁
OS/2 Warp 3 was another type if "true" OS that I loved.
Because, it was very Windows 3.1 friendly and integrated Windows so well into itself.
As if it was giving 3.1 a big hug each time.
So it was no surprise that I got myself a full version of OS/2 Warp 4.
The blue spine, that contained Windows 3.1 and networking, but could be used like the red spine, too.
So an existing installation of DOS 6.2 and Windows 3.1x could be integrated.
(DOS could be used for dual-boot.)
That being said, I also have had (still have) got a soft spot for Windows 98SE.
Maybe even more than I have got for Win95, despite being Win95 part of my early childhood.
98SE had got its issues, but most were likely caused because of poorly written third-party VXDs.
I liked the fact that it could use Windows 3.1 drivers still.
Also, it had got a useful UI with and supported all kinds of devices and standards.
Like tape drives, zip drives and infrared connections.
That being said, Windows 98SE had got issues with several of my emulators.
Things like SNES9x or Marukun's MZ700 emulator never worked on my Win98 installation.
On Windows XP, on the other hand, all these issues went away.
Sure, XP SP0 was a few magnitudes slower on my Pentium MMX 166 than 98SE was,
but the reason was lack of memory.
Windows 98SE could run reasonably with 24MB, but XP was slow with 64MB, even.
It constantly had to swap to disk.
Anyway, that's another story.
Real OSes need more memory, due to their powerful capabilities.
The DLLs etc loaded into memory have many functions, that applications could make use of but rarely will in practice.
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//