Most versions of Linux these days that shoot for being user friendly have a GUI interface for software installation. Sure, you can do stuff from the command line, but you don't have to. Linux is as good (sometimes better) than Microsoft when it comes to recognizing Plug and Play devices 90% of the time. Most major Linux distributions come with a wide array of software that you may need preinstalled (Open Office for your office suite, Firefox for surfing the web, Gimp for photo editing, Pidgin for IM, etc..). Not being "user friendly" used to be a valid argument with Linux. Any more though, it's has about the learning curve of a Windows user switching to Macs. Don't believe me? Download a copy of Ubuntu Linux (free) burn it to a CD and boot directly from the disk and try it out for yourself. There is no installation required to try it (ie, it won't erase all your files and put itself on your system in place of whatever you may currently have).

OK, now that I've gone off on my rant...my vote is for XP. My biggest problem with Vista is how much of a resource hog it is. I complained about how many more system resources XP used over Windows 2k. Then, Vista came along added tons and tons more bloat that I'll never use and don't need. I don't need or want a ton of bells and whistles in my OS, at least not unless I explicitly turn them on.

As for what I use personally, on my desktop I have both Ubuntu Linux and Windows XP that I will switch between depending on my current needs. I'd like to use Linux more, but it just doesn't have the support for the games I want to play. Until recently, I used Gentoo Linux on my DHCP/file server, but I have recently decided to give CentOS a try on it. I have Ubuntu Linux installed on my "media center" computer hooked up to the big TV in my living room that I use to watch movies/listen to music/surf funny web pages when friends are over.

Linux is the bomb. I have yellow dog linux on my PS3 under which I run dosbox. I once again have use of software that I originally bought for a 486. Sweet.

You know, i was dedicated to Red Hat back in the day and went away from Linux shortly before the split into fedora and RHE. I came back into Fedora/KDE last year and that was my favorite (I too feared the command interface) but just this weekend I decided to take the plunge full on into a more hard-core Linux and load Arch on my aspire one.

Yes, manually doing EVERYTHING (from my WiFi, webcam, sound, and setting up the GUI to prep for GNOME; not to mention finding and compiling a patch to allow the native resolution) can suck royally, but the aspire one is fairly weak by today's standards (i think it's just fine) and while it never ran the windows it came with a day in it's life for comparison there, Arch/GNOME runs 10x faster than fedora 10/GNOME ever did. I'm in love with this distro. I love the spartan setup and the control offered by installing only what I want.

Also, the Arch community is very passionate about this distro - getting help on anything has been easier than it ever was in fedora and the user-compiled packages are better. granted I'm sure a rookie would not get so much help but it's a great second step.

Now, if I can only get used to GIMP, I will have no reason to run XP at all (now, it's photoshop). I really want to put Arch on my desktop too lol.

I was trying out Asianux at work (we needed a workstation that can process longer than windows-legal paths), and came to the point of creating user accounts. Turned out I have to go to command line.

That sucks. While I obviously realize that no-one "owes" it to me to create a full GUI, command line just makes no sense for me.

I have a trouble comprehending it's reason for existence.

There is so much processing power with todays CPUs, and it is wasted, literally on visual enhancements, like goofy icons and themes, round corners, etc. This is not functional, just aesthetics. I don't need that at all. W2KPro dry look does it just fine for me. Even simpler would do. I have also noticed, that while NIX world insists on command line, supposedly for the "true simplicity", it nevertheless wastes tons of cycles on drawing goofy corners, and all that unnecessary crap, be it KDE or Gnome. But, I don't want to be handicapped by cryptic commands. I don't want to use my time to learn and master something that is not permanent, and will become obsolete in few years either.

The output is not easy to understand, I mean, yeah, I am not stupid, I can read, but I prefer readouts and gauges to scrolling lines, even if they are of different colors.

The necessity of knowing the commands and parameters is a handicap, because it makes it harder to just jump on the system and do what you want with it. The point of what you're doing is still the same, you're configuring something, so you already know what you're doing. But learning new "language" every time is just inefficient, as compared to GUI, where even if you see a system first time in your life, you can quickly choose the options and enter the numbers where you want and what you want.

I understand the coolness of being a geek and knowing that you have wasted some of your time learning the terms that someone decided to use as commands. I just don't care for the coolness. Just want to get it done, and done right.

Whew... quite a rant? I hope I have stayed on the point, and didn't bring out any unnecessary emotions, guys.

I'd love a DOS style GUI for arch. i do everything at command but have GNOME loaded for school stuff (openoffice, tomboy notes). I never liked how KDE or GNOME worked the system so I tried to do everything in terminal with fedora and now, I boot the command in arch and run startx to get gnome up when i need it. An old-school blocky 4 color menu array GUI would be great for a lot of those day to day operations.

so yeah, while command gives you immense power over the system, I'd rather a simple, low impact GUI for the not so complicated stuff.

XP with Service Pack 3. I'll hold out for another year and see the results of Windows 7. It may be a good enough reason to ditch Vista altogether. I've never used Vista but I have read mixed reviews.

If nothing else, I'll migrate to the Mac and use the OSX's capability of running Windows applications as a Windows machine inside the OSX environment.

Linux involves too much learning and relearning that I don't have time for any of that.

Ubuntu is insanely easy. There are even distros that do not even have a command line - everything is controlled through GUI. If apple proves to be too pricey (my one complaint) than I seriously suggest looking at some of the entry level linux distros.

As a software developer there is only one choice and that's XP. Vista is slower than XP by 50% and needs twice as much memory to do the same thing. Vista was just a waste of time and Microsoft should have just binned Vista until Windows 7 came along,yes Windows 7 is based around Vista but with all the problems ironed out but even in its current form is still a little heavy on cpu and memory usage and is still currently slower than XP but should be very similar to XP when it finally gets released,Vista will get abandoned after Windows 7 release and currently many users are downgrading to XP because Vista so unstable,Microsoft have learnt a very harsh lesson at the expense of 1000's of users and business's.

I have both and I like both

I don't believe Microsoft care's too much as long as there making a quick buck.

While I absolutely agree with you that Vista sucks, I remember that Microsoft did this already with Windows Me. They have sold it while they were developing other systems, already knowing very well, that it deserves nothing but to be dropped. This is exactly what M$ did, they dropped Me, and said let those people all go to hell.

Now, they are doing the same exact thing with Vista.

In my opinion, it is impossible to believe that M$ is doing a mistake. They are instead, doing the trick they learned long time ago. Microsoft never cared for the people buying their software. Nor should they. Thus the people should never care for M$.

I say, let them develop something for few years and let's buy nothing. I advocate to just wait, till Microsoft starts doing what is needed by people, and not what is needed by Microsoft accounting.

It all depends on your PC Configuration. I personally like Vista for its sleekness. It'll really cool. Vista was made to be really encompassing and to accommodate more various PC requirements in the contemporary world, which includes Hi-tech gaming, DVDs, high user friendliness and improved security. It should be of interest to know that Microsoft has resolved most, if not all of Vista's user issues with its various patches. And most vendors have updated their drivers and applications to fit with the O.S.

So if you ask me, i'd go with Vista. All you need to do is upgrade some your hardware like your RAM and maybe your HD (which are not all that expensive nowadays) to allow for a more efficient System. Complains that i hear from people of Vista is like driving a V4 and expecting much acceleration in few seconds as a V6.

Sure. Once you disable UAC. But then there goes the high security. Oh well.

Yeah. Just wait till it blows up on you.

Any of you learned on Macs while in high school? I learned typing and all sorts of things using Mac.

Then I decided to buy a computer.... it was a Packard Bell 486X2 with a whopping 16MB of Ram and Windows 3.1

I felt like throwing up when i saw Windows...I'm like "what the hell is this"...since I only used OS 8 or 9 with Mac, which was clear and sharp text and display with easy and on the mark accessibility and well ahead of what Microsoft could offer. Then MS decided to copy the MAc OS and then you got Windows95. Any MAC user can tell how MS always copies Apple. Even Vista is a poor attempt to copy OS-X.

I've heard this before, and I thought of this myself, when I have seen Vista. To me, it was undeniably an attempt to copy the gayness of Mac.

Somehow, it always copies Mac (if you're right), but ends up with better gui than mac. I have seen a lot of macs, and like you, every time I felt like "Oh my got, what is this gay, one button horror?". I still think that macs are disgusting, and prefer not to even touch one. However, even though I might have argued with you before on origins of MS Windows, these days, I see MS copying Mac in Vista.

By the way, this is one of the reasons I don't want to have anything to do with Vista, except of killing it, which I've done many times gladly. I just can't accept something as horrible and senseless as Mac in my world, where everything used to make sense.

the beautiful thing that apple has done is integration. Everything (video, music, etc) is built into the core. iTunes is essentially the file manager. Quicktime is fully integrated and not separate as with WMP. That is the one thing I love about macs.

Microsoft beats apple because of marketing. Windows is open usage. OSX only runs on an apple machine. There is a line in the BIOS that it has to see to load the system. That is Apple's downfall. on the other hand, a mac runs seamlessly because for the most part (basically with the exception of the mac pro) the hardware involved is a controlled environment and apple can assist in developing drivers and such for those in the macbook and iMac. Windows uses almost any hardware you can get your hands on. This control has made Macs more stable and reliable and allows for the customization of the OS around the technologies used.

May-be the integration is not the way into the future.

I am not sure why would I want something integrated into operating system, beyond bare minimum of what is necessary to run the operating system.

Seriously, didn't people fight to detach IE from windows? Why would I want to run windows media player, slow, disgusting pile of bloatware?

And, let us say that it is quick times. First, it is so gay (there is no need for the visual effects, all I want is function). Yes, it works, but it also wants to be connected! Second, as soon as you allow it to be de facto computer component, it will be abused and the piece of software in question will immediately become less performing than other similar use programs on the market. Third, other players work too, and work great.

Why would I want to use iTunes? First of all, the concept of having to be forced to use file manager to access my drives, immediately makes me to revolt. I want it to be a drive, where I dictate what goes on and how. Secondly, why stick to iTunes, when there are better managers, if that is what you want?

On compatibility and reliability issues, I think, we can put a thombstone. I have not seen any issues lately. Everything just works, and works great. This might be a valid concern, but, way in the past.

I love the fact that I do not have to buy a pre-built castrated cheapo computer. Anyone can build one, and I think it is a great freedom to control what you want. I would hate to have everything determined by some idiot at apple.

I can only wish, that laptops be more modular and standardized, so that we could by every single component separately and put them to work the way we see fit.

Of course, there are people who'd rather be dictated by either Gates or Apple or Dell. I understand. But for them, there will always be those who will build computers out of cheapo under-performing parts, and charge triple prices.

I see a great push for portable applications these days. I think this is an ultimate manifestation of consumer desire to have just a base, that executes whatever we give it to execute. The base, must have no holds on us. We should be able to wipe it out in a whim of our desire, in favor of another competing base. We move our portable apps, and format the old base without as much as thinking twice about it.

So, everything considered, I think the less integrated is operating system with everything else, the better. That way, consumers will have a lot more control over what they choose. It will be so much harder for OS manufacturers to hold us hostage under the threat of reinstall or migration.

Unfortunately the web is becoming loaded with gizmos..such as flash player , windows media player, realplayer and the rest of the plugins..which are copyrighted and most of the time will force you to download a bunch of other stuff that you don't need, some of them even alters your services or adds more running in the background . I usually go for the bare minimum I need and even then I go for extra service or startup item hunting.

Same here, bro. Tracking down and killing.

I am at the point that I appreciate most the simple, square, black and gray website, that lets me do what I need in seconds, instead of showing me flash and ajax pop-ups every god damned time I move my mouse pointer.

I find, that most of the valuable stuff, is accessible without all this flashy crap. Makes sense, since I need it, they don't need to attract me to their site. And when I see all the "technologies" that I have to download and install, I can definitely do without it.