Did you also put Win2K through the same paces? From the reviews I've read, XP doesn't really add speed or stability over and above Win2K. As I speak, I have had my Win2K box running for 18 days, and that includes running a VMWare Linux box, doing video capture/post processing, playing DVD's, etc. And it's on a Duron 800 overclocked to 1000. So I think Windows 2000 has all the stability and speed I need.

From what I've read, all XP is to a 2000 user is a cosmetic upgrade. And given the shady things M$ is doing to it in regards to pricing, licensing, and all of the Big Brother features, I don't think I'm going to upgrade. If I was running 98, NT, or Me, I would certainly do it for the speed/stability advantages. But until the day Microsoft starts writing their apps so they specifically force the user to upgrade, I'm staying with Win2K.