At least I don't get viruses.

[worker201]

What has the most application support?

x86 architecture ftw.

For the sake of argument, though, here's some Google search results:
"windows applications" 302 million hits
"linux applications" 18.1 million hits
"mac applications" 21.6 million hits
"vista applications" 52.6 million hits
"leopard applications" 5.3 million hits
"unix applications" 2.4 million hits
"xp applications" 3.3 million hits
"red hat applications" 13.1 million hits
"debian applications" 8.2 million hits

These extremely basic and misleading results may indicate that maybe there actually are more Windows applications than Linux or Mac applications.  But so what?  Even if there really are 5,300,000 Leopard applications available, I only need like 70 of them.  Anything else is, in a way, overkill.

[yahurd]

Linux at this point natives and wine.


And song and dance.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I have Windows Vista and get no viruses.

I have XP and don't run memory resident antivirus and I don't have any viruses.

The only virus I've ever got was when I stupidly installed a trojan disguised as a Windows theme.

I know some applications break when you try to run them as a restricted user but I don't use those kinds of programs.

It is funny because I remember the days when Linuxfags (even myself when I deserved the title) would go on about the evils of Microsoft letting an OS with no privilege separation by default on the Internet to ruin everyones shit with ddos zomies, etc.

I agree, remember 98, ME?

So Microsoft stick it to their dumb users and throw pretty good priv seperation in Vista. You all bitch about it for breaking everything, despite the fact Linux does the exact same fucking thing. Hell Windows has address space randomization by default, you can't even configure that shit on Linux without grsec (building your own kernel, bye four hours) and breaking Xorg ever having a chance at running on your system (bye GUI).

I certainly don't bitch about Vista breaking everything even though there's no excuse for it to break anything. All software that requires NT (whether this be Windows 2000 or XP) should work on Vista and they could even bundle a crippled version of MS virtual machine running a crippled version of ME for shit that won't work on Vista.

My biggest critism is they're kept too much backward compatability, you must've heard about how shitty the UAC is.
http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2007/02/vista-security-model-big-joke.html
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/129268/vistas_uac_warnings_cant_be_trusted_symantec_says.html

The way Vista has been marketed wasn't at all fair - e.g. the Vista compatable bullshit.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/12/1658249

Not to mention how overpriced it is and that the hardware requirements are far too damn high.