I have found both Microsoft Windows Vista and Office 2007 to be disappointments. For Windows environments, I still very much prefer Windows XP over VISTA and the earlier versions of Office (XP, 2000, 2003) over Office 2007.

Perhaps my biggest beef against these two products (after using every flavor of their predecessors since Windows 95) is that what I had previously learned, particularly for routine tasks, has changed radically, but without much in the way of corresponding benefits.

However, from what I've seen of the next generation of Windows (Windows 7) it appears that Microsoft will finally have an acceptable replacement for XP. Therefore, I recommend using XP over VISTA, at least until the next generation of Windows arrives.

Now, in all fairness to Office 2007, I've used non-Microsoft products that implement the new ribbon interface and I've mastered them easily. I suppose I will gradually switch to Office 2007 if for no other reason than to gain access to the Smart Art features in PowerPoint, because for me they will indeed add quite a bit of value.

Despite the missteps of VISTA and the Office 2007 user interface, Microsoft is a force to be reckoned with. Although their market domination is loosening, they're still in the hunt. Microsoft XP and Office offers a far greater reach to applications than the competition. Often times that alone will dictate operating system choice.

I have recently installed UBUNTU and I've found it to be far better than the previous versions of LINUX I've tried. It installs and behaves well. As for Open Office, it just keeps on improving and is really a strong and serious alternative to Microsoft Office, especially for users who are on a budget. Firefox works well as a browser and has a strong following in the Windows community as well. The UBUNTU/Open Office/Firefox combination looks, feels and operates in a deliberately similar fashion to a Windows XP/Office combination, except at a much lower cost. Although, it is still a bit too early for me to assess the long-term stability of UBUNTU, for now it looks to be a solid and stable performer. From a financial standpoint, UBUNTU is the clear winner.

Finally, I would like to mention Apple OS-X. The Macs we have are running the two older versions of OS-X (Tiger and Panther). In general, I have found that Macs using OS-X work very smoothly and reliably. In particular, I like OS-X Tiger. Ease of use sums up the Apple experience. I have grown quite fond of both the dock and the dashboard as Windows taskbar/desktop replacements.

An important point regarding Apple: I have not noticed any degradation of operating system performance over time with Apple hardware. I can’t say the same for any hardware operating under Windows – they simply slow down over time. Performance enhancers such as disk de-fragmentation, anti-virus and clean-up tools seem to offer limited performance improvement, but these are added-cost utilities. I'm expecting similar results to be forthcoming out of UBUNTU.

On the three older iBook laptops we have, their elapsed runtime, operating off of battery power, outperforms a much newer COMPAQ machine running XP. These laptops use the now obsolete PowerPC architecture and perhaps that's the difference behind the lower power consumption. We use Microsoft Office 2004 to maintain good compatibility with Windows versions of Microsoft Office. We also use Apple's Safari browser.

Although Apple PCs are definitely more costly to acquire than are Windows-based PCs, there is an elegance and a simplicity about the MAC and OS-X that makes it perhaps the strongest contender in today’s hard-fought operating system war.

In closing, the determinant of an operating system will be largely dependent on the specific applications you will need, and on what platform(s) they are available on. The starting point is usually Windows, but your choices will narrow from there.

If basic Internet, e-mail and Office suite applications are all that's needed, UBUNTU will suffice and at a much lower cost than the alternatives.

However, if you've got the money, go with an Apple Mac and Microsoft Office for Mac.

They have unfairly squashed hundreds of potential competitors and stifled America's technological creative destruction process.

Microsoft has also tricked consumers into buying dysfunctional products, such as the millions of malfunctioning "Vista Ready" computers sold.

It's about time the American consumer gets weaned off of third-rate windows software.

One thing I have noticed is that those that consider them selves "technical" have a much harder time using Linux than those who just use a PC and don't care how it works. Linux is easy. I use Ultimate Edition. Software installs consist of finding what you want and clicking apply. How much easier could you want it? You have to remember one very important fact first, Linux is not Windows, so if you are a techie and are trying to do things the "Windows way" then you will have a hard time. If you say, hey, let's see how things work here, then it will be very easy.

At least these note books won't need virus protection and spyware protection. Those are Windows things.

every thing is about competition…. those who say Linux is not a real threat for Microsoft should just look at ms_sbs_2008 ms_ebs_2008 and ms_office_sbs pricing

competition from Linux will push more nad more market leader to cut its margins and suite products to fulfill customers needs… however it's not likely to have it beaten by open source system…

Interesting considering the amount of time a netbook is good for is approx. 2 hrs longer on windows xp vs linux netbooks all around at the moment. The main reason for it is, cheaper pc's, and to catch the anti-media attention that is surronding microsoft. Media power has once again taken facts and made what ever they have wanted of it!

Wrong! ASUS markets a sub-$400 laptop running Red Hat Linux in Target stores already!

From Jon Fortt: Again, ASUS = not a major computer maker.