Well Julian - you have your experiences and the rest of us have ours. It's interesting how they differ. Those differences imply many things. I run Linux on about a dozen machines (between work, home and shack and server farm) and they ALL - by far - out perform Windows. Both for speed and stability. I have XP and Vista installed on a few other machines at work and they're passable. However, I can't leave Vista running overnight without lock ups - XP requires constant care and feeding of outside software to keep it healthy and any more it's getting trickier to get some hardware to play nice. I intentionally do as little as I have to with Vista - just to leave it as 'vanilla' as possible in hopes of it surviving longer. So, do my experiences prove Windows products to be dogs? I don't think so. There're WAY too many variables in my experience alone to lay all problems at the feet of the OS. I'd also point out that KDE isn't Linux - nor is it the only desktop environment available, by far. That's about like saying Windows is a dog cuz Photoshop isn't to your liking. Everything I want to do on Linux - I do. From image/sound/video editing to rig control - soundcard modes - servers - securety - guest/remote access etc, etc, etc. One place I am having a problem is in playing with mal-ware. Crap simply won't run for me on my *nix machines. Guess it's time for a Windows virtual instance. My Linux experiences seem to be of the more common variety - special when compared to yours. So I'd have to ask what's different for you? Could it be your laptop has either a design, implementation or other hardware flaw? Could there be some other configuration errors? Hardware/software mis-matches? I don't know - but that's one place I'd check. To categorically label Linux as 'second rate' from such an obviously limited exposure and experience - well, before I take your comments as unbiased review, I'd want to know where in Redmond you work <g>. See what I mean?