• Windows Update - actually fixed one of my problems
• Files disappearing?  I've never even heard of that, are you sure you're not just pressing the delete key?
• I actually had trouble getting my printer to work correctly over the network in XP but Vista was a breeze
• My wireless acted up pretty consistently in XP and again, it's been near flawless in Vista

I'm not saying Windows and Vista don't have their problems, but usually the vast majority of people I see with problems like yours are the ones that are trying to sell me Linux or Macs.

-edit-

Bah, beaten by Samuel

I know anecdotes are worthless. What I'm attempting to say is, spend a few hours trying it out. It doesn't cost anything. You can then make your own judgement. The "I tried it a few years ago and..." style of anecdote is just as fallible, if not more so because it's also possibly outdated.

Well, if you have no issues with your current setup, then obviously Linux is not worth trying for you. But please don't let that stop other people from trying it.

Well, I dual booted Hardy Heron for a while. I've also installed a few other distros on some laptops that were laying around the house. None of which impressed me.

1.  I haven't had a Windows virus in over 5 years.

2.  After trying SuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora, and a couple others I can honestly say that unless I'm running a stripped down GUI model that it's not faster.  In fact, pulling up notepad in Windows is faster than just about every GUI editting program I've used on a linux distro.

3.  This point is a pretty big lie especially on old PCs.  For example, Beryl becomes a huge performance hog as you increase the amount of stuff it does.  Just try the flames effect and watch older PCs struggle to perform.  If you're not doing anything that fancy then Stardock can match it without a noticeable performance decrease.

4.  Free versus a sunk cost doesn't lead to an advantage.  Unless you're building your own box (in which case the person would be savvy enough to make his/her own decisions), the average person is buying a box and getting Windows included in the package.

5.  Many great OSS applications on Linux have Windows counterparts.  Why be stuck with GIMP when I can have GIMP and Photoshop if I want?  Heck, I can also play real PC games while I'm at it.  Woo hoo!

6.  So either I install them separately after the OS or I install them with the OS.  I usually do it the former on my linux machines anyway.  If it's my box I'd rather get things as I need them instead of carrying a lot of bloat that I don't need.

7.  If by maze you mean a single installer then... well... then your point doesn't make sense.  Linux installations are only easy if you have a repository to install from.  Good luck to the poor novice trying to figure out make install on his/her own.

The fact that you can do over 95% (except games and certain field specific applications) of all things Windows programs can do, only for free doesn't impress you?

Linux is not for everyone, but no OS is, ours just happens to be Free (in many meaninings of the word).

Speaking as someone who ran Gentoo, Debian, Kubuntu, and a few other distros for half a decade, I don't even bother trying to get people to run linux unless they do it on their own accord. Even I got frustrated trying to find things and unless you really enjoy digging through manuals and getting harassed in irc channels trying to find functional drivers and getting things to work properly its just not worth it. For a lot of people, doing 100% of what they can do in Windows is important, and if they don't like using openoffice in windows, or prefer outlook to thunderbird (which is a poor replacement in its current state), it simply just isn't worth the switch.

I hear that about Thunderbird, which is why I'm stuck with GNOME so I can use Evolution, which is exactly like Outlook.

1. Because you are a sensible and knowledgable PC user. I know it's possible not to get viruses on a Windows system (I haven't got one running XP or Vista), but on Linux it is much harder to get infected in the case of malware and impossible in the case of viruses (because they don't exist)

2. Not for me, not on any computer. It's sometmes faster in the beginning, but after about a month XP and Vista slow right down, apparently by themselves.

3. I meant relative to Windows. With Compiz, you get get better effects than Aero on hardware Aero doesn't even support, like Intel integrated stuff.

4. I'll concede this, but it's the reason I hate MS so much (you can't buy a non-Windows PC for cheaper).

5. I'll concede this too, but it's better when the apps are native (GIMP on Windows sucks due to lack of integration). As for games, I honestly wouldn't recommend Linux to any serious gamer, or at least I'd say dual-boot.

6. You can't have it both ways. One of the criticisms of linux was that it required too much effort to set up, and now it doesn't you say their isn't enough control? For the average user, Linux is easier to set up than Windows.

7. Everything's in the main repository anyway. I've yet to find a useful program that isn't.

 Not particularly impressed, no. I just felt blocky, for some reason, I don't know why, there was something missing.

Point being, a good OS by design is an OS that you don't have to tackle with, that you forget is there. I have that experience with Windows, therefore I am happy with it. I have never had a blue-screen of death and rarely does anything crash on me (and when it does, it's so simple to restart the application).

Basically, I believe that this whole "Windows is buggy shit" is something that's been blown up by the media/internet abit like this Ross/Brand affair that's going on at the minute.