" 
 ::::I don't know how much longer I can go on with these long paragraphs! ;-) Don't worry, I see your point.... You know, I actually wanted to get Vista right after its release because I thought it looked really nice. But it was because of all the problems people were having that I wanted to try out Mac OS X... and I liked it. I've used Vista a bit too, and it does look nice, but I don't think that the way they implement looks is very helpful for ease of use, as opposed to in Mac where it seems to help. It really does make no sense to me why Aero exists in the Business version where it reduces the speed of the OS and they don't need things like Flip-3D. Don't get me wrong, 3D stuff is nice, but only where it increases overall productivity. Windows NT: I know, its way better than DOS-based Windows. Windows ME, for example, crashed like every hour, but XP almost NEVER crashes on me. Right now, where Unix is better than NT is in being less virus-prone and in being more reliable (less corrupted) over time. I need to re-install XP ever year or so if I want it to remain at optimal speed and reliability, but not Mac or Linux. That's why Microsoft is making Singularity. Even when software is completely compatible, XP is more reliable than Vista as a result of heaping on new code, where ME or 98 was less reliable than Win 2000 on compatible software. I also recognized that NT was better than DOS, there wasn't really much of criticism in the same way, but right now Vista just has individual problems. (Note that Vista is also Windows NT, as was XP, but XP had significantly better reception than Vista did.) Again, its not like a shift in a kernel, its just one OS change, and the reason is not that people are afraid of it, its that it has problems. Now let me ask you this: If Vista's requirements are not too high, why is Microsoft working on lowering them, why should it be assumed that people buy new computers every year, why do comparable Linux and Mac systems have lower requirements, and why are people so upset? Sure, people could easily buy a new computer and get enough RAM, but it shouldn't be required. 
 ::::Personally, I favor Mac the most, and it is a real question between Linux and Windows. I think Windows wins, even though I think Linux is superior in most respects, simply because it is often extremely difficult to install certain programs due to dependency hell. I myself just accidentally trashed a huge portion of installed programs on a Kubuntu install while trying to install dependencies and fix problems that kept coming up. Viruses? I've never had a virus problem, though I did have anti-virus software catch some things. Usually, email servers will screen for viruses, and if you're careful what you choose to download, you will not ever get a virus. But not everyone is so careful, and lots of Windows users did in fact get all their computers destroyed from a virus. Not a threat for Mac and Linux users; you say its because it is not a big target. I say yes, that's true, but it's also because programs act in different ways on Unix. I mean, think of it this way: there were dozens of Viruses for pre-OS X versions of Mac, even though it was a tiny target. But now, even though OS X is a somewhat significant target (and virus-makers had almost ten years), there are no known viruses which have spread among Macs. Even though Linux has been around forever and it is highly popular among tech-gurus, there aren't viruses for it, even though you'd think someone might want to bother these tech guys for some reason. I've seen the argument that there are more security fixes for Linux, OS X, and Firefox than there are for Windows and Internet Explorer, but that really is no measure of how secure something is. You could easily say it is because Microsoft isn't ""on top"" of things, especially since it is still easy for anyone to hack an updated Windows machine without have a firewall. What is your source for Microsoft's quickness of updates? Maybe the ""quickness"" is only once Microsoft admits a problem. Either way, the bottom line of which system is easier to hack is most important. According to the US Army, Mac wins that battle. And look at is this way: Microsoft waited over one year to release Vista SP1, but Apple released 2 updates (equivalent to a service pack) for Leopard within four months. 
 ::::Now first of all, that's not my criticism section. The only section I significantly contributed to was the Public reception section. So it's great that you haven't had issues with Vista. But you have to remember, you seem to be in the minority. Look at the reviews on Amazon. com. Some people give Vista 5 stars and have had no issues, but the vast majority had either some minor issues to complete incompatibility with all software and hardware. 
 ::::Compatibility? Of course most things work, otherwise it would have less market share than Linux. But the problem is this: Windows 2000, XP, and Vista are all W