How is NT 4.0 "the worst"? What OS is would better demonstrate a devices capability as a resource stress test...Android or a desktop OS? How many other phones can run a desktop OS with any acceptable level of seability? Some people may find the fact that they can run server based apps "on a smartphone type device" quite an acheivement, irregardless of its practicality. Being able to run a proxy server or firewall, etc, "on a phone" is pretty impressive no matter how you slice it. Let alone the fact that a Windows desktop OS would be considered a more acceptable device to allow on a secure network, via a remote conection, than a new "unproven" smartphone and its OS (n900 and Maemo 5).

Just because "you" see no use for an older PC based OS running on the 900, doesn't mean that there are none, nor does it make it any less of a technical acheivement. Would WinXP be more relevant? That goes without saying, but from I understand, its not possible yet, if at all.

Android can not run either of the apps, nor present the content I'm looking to access via the 900, but a NT/Windows/PC based OS "running on the 900" could. The fact that your recommending that I shoud have cited "other OS" just goes to prove my original point that the 900 and its architechture make it a better device than the iphone out of the box, and if "app availability" is a concern, being able to run other OS on the 900 opens up a lot of access.

I guess there aren't many Windows apps that are useful? Oh wait, I'd be able to run everything on my 900 that I run on my PC. Yeah, I could see how that would be useless. But again, does it really matter "which desktop OS" is running on "this smartphone"? Is it not enough that it even runs desktop OS?