Quote Originally Posted by cdobrich View Post
And if you ever complain about missing hardware drivers, try using a micro-kernel and you'll really understand what no harddrive support means. Great example is throwing Windows XP onto a computer and it doesn't support the network card because it only comes with 31-flavors of network drivers, and the one I've got doesn't exactly fit. It's almost never the case with Linux there. Sure, you might still miss hardware, but you'll have a whole heaping lot more with a monolithic kernel. Not to mention Micro-kernels can (but not necessarily) be inefficient.
The only problem with your statement is that Windows XP is technically a Hybrid Kernel (despite some theories that this is a marketing term, hybrid kernels have a balance between services being in user-space and kernel-space), and I believe its drivers are in kernel-space (same model of Linux).

As to your claims of driver support, I would venture and assert this to be untrue; in relation to hardware support, with the exception of CPU architectures and "exotic" GPUs, Windows generally has superiority in this area. Although certain instances of this support can be attributed to the higher amount of cooperation from other companies in aiding compatability, I think it should be commended, on the part of Microsoft alone, for their ability to produce an operating system that generally works on most modern hardware. Using an outdated example from a decade ago, such as Windows XP, is not a fair or logical method of arguing your point. Looking towards Windows 7, however, one can see that there is a wider range of compatability--even for legacy hardware--than XP.