Published at LXer:

If it wasn't for Linux setting the bar, would Windows users still be dealing with the "blue screen of death" several times a day?

Read More...

I have always been of the opinion that (putting issues like binary blobs aside) GNU/Linux has always represented the actual state of the art in OS development.
Sure, Windows used to be easier to install, easier to manage and easier to use -- but that was at a high price in terms not just of dollar amounts but in lack of security, lack of choice and lack of dependability.
It used to be that GNU/Linux lagged behind Windows in features because to implement then with the hardware and existing software libraries was insecure and/or failure-prone.
Seems to me that about the time XP was released both Windows and GNU/Linux could do almost anything that can be done now (albeit slower and less pretty) so, then, things changed and now we have Android making Windows the "outsider".

Sad thing is MS could have done all sorts of cool stuff, they could have gone semi-open source (binary blobs etc.) and could have treated customers like collaborators rather than hostages.

I truly feel that without M$ we'd actually have pretty much the same OSs but it would be free with a whole heck of a lot more cool tools.

XP was nothing all that 'new', it was only 'new' in the sense that the everyday consumer was migrated from DOS to the WindowsNT kernel. During the heyday of XP I was migrating from NT4.0 Workstation to Win 2000 Pro - compared to XP which IMO wasn't much of an upgrade, 2000 Pro was outstanding and in some cases NT4.0 was actually a gem in it's own right.

Yes I just praised Windows, but again that was when it was literally two separate flavors and actually secure and robust. Since now the NT kernal is the defacto standard, it really has morphed into something rather unwieldy and bloated (Windows10), but doesn't matter since I have gone completely over to Linux. I do have a Win7 VM but I have even rarely used it.

I tend to agree -- I referred to XP as the "best version" because, whilst I preferred 2K, XP was the meeting of NT and the consumer where the consumer felt more at home.
I use XFCE so,as far as I'm concerned, UIs haven't got any more useful since W2K.
Versions aside, I think we agree?

Pretty much agree. The only problem with XP was that even though the consumer was migrated to a more secure platform, most still ran as administrator practically defeating the purpose. If you were a WindowsNT veteran (me) or came from a proper computing background, you NEVER worked as administrator in WindowsNT or root in a *NIX environment.

As far as the interface was concerned the Windows95 interface was just fine and if you even look at the Mac to-this-day, it really hasn't change that much since 1984.

-edit

I am using LXDE , and actually ever since I migrated to Linux - I have always been using some form of the Windows9x-like interface - because well thats what I was familiar with.