You guys keep talking about XP as if you've actually tried it. From what I can tell from reading your posts, it's obvious that none of you have ever touched the OS.
First of all, to the person who said that XP was slow and that his friend would return to ME I say 'laugh' considering Windows ME is probably the biggest load of garbage ever created and while it's fast for gaming, its constant and unexplainable crashes wouldn't make anyone ANYWHERE want to return to it.
As for XP overshadowing 2000, I agree to it. XP's skinning comes as a result of the increasing amount of PC software that is skinnable. It's something that a lot of people will play around with. However, XP is basically 2000 with a few additional programs. It's not that groundbreaking as an OS.
A lot of people are saying it's a rip of XP and this and that is ripped off. What's the proof? A duck? XP is built on 2000, not BSD. XP runs just like 2000, not BSD. XP still runs the majority of software made for 9x at full-speed, not in emulation mode. XP doesn't have useless and strictly aesthetic features like magnification. Basically, XP is an improvement (albeit not a necessary one), over an existing product whereas Mac OS X is a complete overhaul of the Apple OS (again, not a necessary one but rather Apple's response to an imaginary demand for Unix stability).
Before making any kind of judgments, it might be a good idea to actually get some facts straight. Microsoft stealing a picture of a rubber ducky doesn't make XP a complete rip-off of MacOSx.