The point of my post was to explain how LFS isn't XP dependent, to relieve fears of LFS being stuck in the past, unsafe to use or that is it waste of time and resources to support it by keeping it DX9 and, consecutively, XP compatible.
It is not affected by how many users are using whichever OS or which one is the best (and which one is preferred to thyself). Now, everyone can use it, including Linux users which is great, and for a very long time at least in the IT timeframe.
To prove that one statement which caught peoples attention about XP being superior to later MS OSs would be a time wasted. Not in a sense you wouldn't understand or something like that but rather it wouldn't change anything.
MS will continue to overprice newer, modern OSs which will become less and less usable, more restrictive, slower and at the same time more demanding for processing power. I can't say it is because of catering to the less experienced userbase because that is done differently by adding failsafes, not by removing essential stuff. The reason it's done the way it is done is because of less gifted managers and/or programmers being employed. The reason for that is stagnation of the education system and bombardment of bad examples through mass media, so people have almost noone to learn from. Or worse, they learn from bad examples.
So, sorry I'm not going to solidify my statements with arguments, I hate doing that and is often contra-productive. I wish I had the patience and optimism about the end result as a motivation to write down my experience, but I'll provide the next best thing: other people experiences
Why is Windows XP better than Windows 7
Why is Windows 7 better than Windows XP
Google that, skip the non argumented statements (good luck finding those), compare, welcome abroad.