"with Windows 2000, PCs will be as reliable as large systems."
That didn't turn out to be true. Also, I was lucky enough to run SuSE Linux (7?) side by side with Windows 2000 on identical hardware. Linux was tangibly faster and more reliable.
Attributing magical properties to XML should also make your head spin.
As someone who had the experience of 9x and NT-based MS OSes... the problem was (and still is) the wast amount of hardware variants what Windows* run on. Compared to a very small variation of the "big systems", where you can actually chase and weed out the hardware related bugs, NT-based were quite stable.
Anecdata: I run 2003 on Tualeron based system (TUSL-2C) which was or severly overclocked or underclocked but with a minimal cooling, ie not with a stable hardware down to the most important parts: CPU and RAM. I saw enough program crashes yet the system continued to run, for weeks and months. Wish I saved my best uptimes when uptime-project closed down...
That didn't turn out to be true. Also, I was lucky enough to run SuSE Linux (7?) side by side with Windows 2000 on identical hardware. Linux was tangibly faster and more reliable.
Attributing magical properties to XML should also make your head spin.