If you look at my post, you'll see I tried Linux within the last year, Ubuntu 6.  I didn't know gparted was able to resize partitions without losing data, and apparently this is a recent development, so sue me.  Does it work with NTFS?  Last I knew, it was not recommended to mount NTFS partitions in read/write mode because the support was buggy.

The point I'm trying to make, though, is that I tried Linux in 1999, and it was a pain in the ass.  I tried it in 2002, and it was a pain in the ass.  I tried it in 2007, and it was a pain in the ass.  And the arguments coming from Linux zealots have not changed a bit in the last 8 years!  They keep trying to convince me how easy it is to use, when I know from repeated experience that this simply isn't the case.

There are a lot of things that I love about Linux, the great command line interface being among the top.  If I were 16 years old again and had the time, I might be using Linux right now.  Unfortunately I'm 26, and I don't have time to tinker and fiddle with my OS to make it work.  I have projects to work on and deadlines to meet.  I need my computer to "just work" whenever I want to do something on it.

Best way to go: Dual harddrives, run WinVista off one (because it WILL eventually improve), partition the second and run WinXP off one section, Ubuntu Linux off the other.

Entroper:

That's the point i was trying to make. Don't bash linux and what it can't do or does wrong when you don't know the newest versions of the software you're bashing.
I also used Windows 3.1 and it sucked but i'm not bashing windows because of flaws it had in ancient versions.

Of course Gparted resizes NTFS partitions without data loss (otherwise i would have lost my windows installation when i used the feature). It even allows you to move partitions on the disk (I'm not shure if Partition Magic is able to do that)
General NTFS write support is stable since a few years already...

Me too, i used linux in the nineties and found it to be a pain in the ass (mind: i'm only talking about GUI desktop installations), I also used it a few years ago with the same result. But NOW i find it to be so much more comfortable and "just working" (exactly what you point out to be windows advantages) that i'll prefer it as Desktop Workstation OS over Windows.

BTW: im 29, and I acquired most of my linux knowledge in the last 2 years. From your Portrait I can see that we've got the same education and as you i too have projects and deadlines to meet. No reason to stand still. On the contrary, most command line commands are similar or exactly like UNIX-Pendants, so you could ultimately enrich your cv with new useful IT-skills.

Do people assume i'm not currently dual booting with ubuntu and haven't used it and some sort of "YOU MUST ONLY EVER USE WINDOWS" person? I highly recommend ubuntu to several people I know. Why do most linux people assume you must have never tried it if you find any problems with it?

Saying totem several times does not give it a better media library than windows media player does it? I'm aware windows media player isn't the fastest, I use vlc if I ever need speed. Maybe I used an old version or something but from what I can tell totem looks nothing like WMP11.

Also game_Boy I don't think I ever mentioned virus did I? But if ubuntu were 100% secure pages like this https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Security would not exist would they?

Credit where credit is due, linux is a great os, in the future I could see it being better than windows, but at the moment for most users it's just not there. 

Im running Debian on an older T42 Thinkpad.

Once setup with everything I needed to do for home/work its great, but I would NOT recommend this to just anyone who is already happy with their Winbox.

Doing even simple stuff just requires more work.

Try calling your mom or uncle or gf and walking them through installing CUPS/SAMBA so they can connect to the printer on the Winbox downstairs.

Or try walking them through installing a simple chat client. Sure its doable but what is easier for most home users?

*Windows - download GAIMsetup.exe(or whatever). Click it to start the install wizard.

*Debian -  Make sure to download all necessary packages
apt-get install libgtk2.0-dev libxml2-dev .......blablablablabla

download Pidgin source files
wget http://easynews.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/pidgin/pidgin-2.0.1.tar.bz2

Unpack em

tar xvfj pidgin-2.0.whatever.tar.bz2

Build it

cd pidgin-2.0.whatever
./configure
make

Install it
make install

Oh well. I love my Etch/T42 but I wouldnt start having people convert just because I hate Microsoft. And I still have a Windows box for PC games

@ion-storm:
all I was saying ist, if you have to rant about the software, rant about the newest version, not some 2-year old version.

@friedtofu
Debian is a superb distro, but i would never recommend it to anyone not used to operate a linux.

But we were talking mainly about ubuntu and your points are invalid with ubuntu:

Samba, already installed after ubuntu installation
GAIM, already installed after ubuntu installation (also, if you would install it with synaptic instead of apt-get, you needn't care about package relations even in debian)
Office (Text, Spreadsheet, Presentations) already installed after ubuntu installation.

so don't tell me that this is more work than with windows.

Those apps you pointed out are obviously pretty much already included and yes, Ubuntu does have most of the bases covered right off the bat.

I will STILL tell you its more work than Windows because outside of all the preinstalled stuff, it IS more work for alot of things. Especially on older hardware. Or if the software you are installing falls outside the comfort of Synaptic. (Yes, download and compile, hooray!)

Just try googling for "Ubuntu vs Windows", alot of people have already done objective testing in this regard.

Just one example --> http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199201179

Check out the conclusion, Im sure you would have to be able to agree with some of it.

I care about media, hell it is my job and the last thing I would buy for that would be a Mac....Especially a IMac. It actually decodes slightly slower(than either linux or XP on the same system) and Quicktime as a movie player sucks compared to others that are available. The only reason I do have Macs is essentially FCS2 which is a competent video program. If I was using CAD/3D graphics I would be using Red Hat/XP for performance or even just the ability to have the top end graphics card now(Quadro 5600). For most applications though Linux has a wide variety of software available for free. GIMP(almost as good as photoshop which  less than 5% of users will ever max out. LVE for Video which is better than Imovie IMO. VLC which has better playback than Quicktime and you should get even if you are using XP/OS X. Best of all these programs run faster than their counterparts on OSX and XP and are nice and stable. Macs are good to use only if you want optimized enviroments for Quicktime or Itunes those are the only things I can think of that run better on a Mac..Even still I would use XP for those applications.

Linux is a lot easier to use today and drivers are far from the pain they used to be with WINE it is even better. I think if anyone gave Ubuntu a try they will find it easier to use in many facets but I have run into a few linux style hiccups. But if you are just browsing the internet doing simple photo work or checking email lnux is the way to go.

 As for viruses this whole "OS this or that" has no viruses is dangerous. Recently I have had freinds with Macs call me to remove malicous widgets that were dumping stuff on their computer. Linux and OS X due have viruses but there aren't that many and none that I know of effect the kernels yet usually a macro virus. Even with windows the number of active viruses are much lower than what people think and with updates its even less than that. there are virus protection programs available for both Macs and Linux and it doesn't hurt to get one.

That's BS, there are no antivirus programs FOR Linux in the sense of antivirus on Windows.

The antivirus programs on Linux are for data that passes through Linux server, to protect Windows machines.

Virus are just too hard to make for Linux, as they just plain don't work. For them to work, the user has to go through tedious tasks of deliberately installing them. Virus just don't work on Linux and any Unix.

The only things that work are worms (there aren't any working currently) which are daemons specific, and tojans which are not viruses, and require manual installation from a cracker that can find a flaw in your services, penetrate your PV, then install it.

As for the rest, I use Linux since 2001, with absolutely no problem. All my little family actually uses it without any problem. Since that time, I refused to repair any Windows machine from people I know. I've since seen several different things from the supposedly easier to use Windows : they abandoned using a computer when it didn't work anymore less than 1 month after I stop helping them (losing countless hours in the process on a supposedly easier OS), one of them bought another PC but didn't connect it to the internet, one of them erased all his data from his laptop by remastering it with the repair CD. Most of these people don't use their PC anymore.

None of them know how to use Photoshop or CAD programs, as those are heavily specialised tools, and if one had that, it was pirated, and you can bet gimp was easier to use for them than Photoshop. For shame, my wife use Gimp to make her screen background image.

BTW, several of these people I stopped supporting under Windows switched to Linux (Mandrake, then Ubuntu) because that's the sole thing I support nowadays. I never again receive any phone calls. The thing just keeps running without problem.

Finally, it's no use telling people why they should switch, you don't want to support people that don't want to switch.

P.S. : For more shame, my wife masters Linux better than so-called computer experts that actually don't know anything, and she's computer illiterate. For example, she still doesn't understand what an archive is (zip, tar.gz, rar, ...). For more shame, my little 4 years old daughter also masters Linux without any problem. The people switched to Linux have no problem either. Most of the time, people complaining about Linux hard are computer illiterate that know their way around Windows. They think they know about computers, then realize they don't when faced with Linux, hence the fear induced "Linux is hard to use".

^Linux was a PAIN for me to use at first (because I was well set in my Windows ways) - but I got through that stage fairly quickly, with the help of "$ man (program name)" and online forums. Even with the frustration induced by learning a completely new OS at first I think it's still worth it to switch. The main reason I use it is flexibility, I suppose.