I used linux before when windows was slow and ugly. Now I would still use a linux for a server etc but not for my home machine.

ok, lets think this out, the majority of people don't need the software and hardware that is being pushed on them. Gates' cronies and the guys at Intel need to keep fleecing the world. I see they have you convinced you need the next greatest invention. This is probably the article's author's only good point, linux can run well on next to nothing.

"2)...Vista is currently the only OS that allows legal playback of Blu-ray and HD-DVD. DRM only affects users who buy media with DRM. Do some research before repeating lies about Vista and DRM."

Well you payed for that software, so enjoy. But
This first attempt at DRM is only a glimpse of what these huge corporations want to do (refer to iTunes). Thank goodness it hasn't happened yet.

"3) Moot point. Replace it with the analgous ‘Linux is free’ and you have a valid point."

Not a moot point. I don't know about the servers crashing, but we need to stay away from the huge businesses controlling more and more. I understand MS's MO here but it's not thinking about helping you and me bro.

"4) Vista has actually beaten both Linux and Mac OS in security tests. Vista is very secure despite being the only real target of malware (understandable since Windows has over 95% of the PC market)"

This issue is sticky, I know you and I and most readers don't know enough to say what is the best, but I can tell you that Windows has adopted a lot of *NIX methods of handling PC security. Such as, multiple user environments (not an MS original), not setting the defualt account to a super user account (ref. '98, '95, 3.0, XP), those annoying vista popups (got that from *NIX), and oh yeah powershell??? jesus.

XP, didn't even ship with a firewall (not until sp2). That is not a good security practice. XP was a security nightmare when it first came out (remember this was the release before vistaids), so it's good to see they are learning from their mistakes. 13 years later, and not to mention after you and I have lined m$'s pockets over and over again as they push their next product out every few years. Competition is healthy in a free market economy. You should be glad a struggling alternative is trying to force m$ to raise their standards.

"5) Wow, reason 5 is the biggest load of rubbish I’ve ever read. There is FAR more software available for Windows than for Linux."

Can't really argue there, just remember that's what happens with a monopoly.

I can be called a linux zealot, and there are times when I just want shit to work too. Not always the case with linux. I won't take credit for this incredibly articulate stance, but I will repeat it with the hope that someone else will "yeah that makes sense":
We are beyond comparing which OS is better or worse, (the 3 major OS's *NIX WIN* and MAC*) are all pretty equal at this state in the game. Speaking only of OS functionality. Not comparing which hardware is more compatible or which has more software. All 3 are very close to equal in terms of capability, performance, and yes even security. Windows has the edge in compatibility for obvious reasons (*cough* monopoly). Don't hate on people trying to use the alternative so they don't have to shell out $200 to use an office sweet, watch movies, and browse the web.

$679.95 for office ultimate, I sure hope it is better than the free open office suite. That is the price of monopoly people, healthy economic competition would not let that price inflate to such a level. That is my biggest issue with M$.

"REALLY lame article."
agreed

Bottom line linux aint for dummies...think about it.

Bottom line linux aint for dummies...think about it.