It sucks that so many people hate technically superior system due to marketing practices and other issues. I suspected earlier that people oppose Microsoft for ideological reasons and now I'm sure this is most likely true even in the cases where people claim otherwise.
What is "best" always relates to some specific use and specific requirements. Windows isn't "the best operating system" for this reason alone, such a concept as "universally best" just doesn't exist.
From one post to another, you contradict yourself. What constitutes "technically superior"? You have already admitted that the whole Win 9x series is not "technically superior", nor do you seem to think all that highly of Win XP either. The comment in red is the correct one. There are no "ideal" solutions out there, never were, never will be.
In many ways, Linux is the "technically superior" platform. If I were setting up a server farm, Win-d'ohs would be my absolute last choice. When it comes to setting up a system for a routine, run-of-the-mill user who's largely atechnological, and not interested in learning, then, perhaps, XP would be the best choice. As for myself, it is not an option. I'm too enamoured of the configurability of the *NIX's. My desktop of choice is Enlightenment. Now, should I decide to get KDE, GNOME, IceWM, etc. it's NBD to install one or more, plus a desktop switcher, and I can still keep Enlightenment. Change the desktop in XP, and it's quite a job of hacking, nor do you have the option of easily switching desktops and themes. XP just is not as configurable.
Furthermore, Linux is a better platform for learning programming. The RAD development kits that come with Win * are certainly convenient and you can move apps out the door quickly with them. However, these dumbed-down development environments lead to lazy, dumbed-down developers. A pretty GUI can easily hide a multitude of bad code. We've all seen the result: apps that crash at the drop of an electron, the wide-open buffers, apps that don't perform as advertised. "Professional" programmers who don't seem to be able to understand what a pointer is and what it does.
I suspected earlier that people oppose Microsoft for ideological reasons and now I'm sure this is most likely true even in the cases where people claim otherwise.
You are never going to separate "ideological" concerns. It was Microsoft themselves who made it an issue. WPA, the onerous EULAs, the attempt to 'jack Java, the on-going attempt to 'jack the very protocols that drive the 'Net: all these are political and ideological. Microsoft could put an end to it any time they wanted to: use W3C compliant HTML in IE so that there would be no more web sites (and I've seen a few) that won't render on alternative browsers, cancel the NDAs that they require manufacturers of hardware to sign for full access to the Windows API, so that the protocols of said hardware could be published and Open Source drivers could be written for such things as WinModems, WinPrinters (Note: I personally visited the corporate headquarters of Lexmark to ask about the protocols for the Lexmark WinPrinter. They refused, even though I told them that I would code a Linux driver and give the code to them, citing an NDA.) audio and video cards so that full functionality could be guaranteed when used with non-Win * platforms.
Don't like it? Then take it up with Sir William of Redmond; you're barking up the wrong tree here. :p