So I think that I officially hate all operating systems and computers in general. I bought a Compaq Presario CQ50-115NR a while back. It's a laptop that comes with the latest Atheros chipset, the latest NVIDIA/Intel HDA chipset, the latest SATA drives... all of this meaning that to get any support at all I have to be using at least Linux 2.6.26. Most Linux distributions I have tried do not even boot up on this machine (they usually end in a Kernel panic). No 64bit distribution has worked at all. The only two distributions that have worked are Ubuntu Intrepid, and MEPIS 8. Currently, I am using MEPIS. Someone here had told me that Ubuntu worked for him, but it didn't for me. Yes, I could get video support, but no wifi, and no sound. Currently, my issue is that the sound is really scratchy. Everything else is working, but no where has anyone AFAIK solved this issue with Linux on this laptop. This was all brought on because Vista corrupted my boot sector during a restore. I finally just said, "F-CK IT! I am going Linux and not looking back." This led to an end of my dual boot and dipped my toes into the Microsoft free world.
Then I realized that no OS is inherently better than anyother. If you go the open source route you have to wait for hardware support; you have to wait for software library equivalency. Why? Because people do not have the same incentives. In a closed source model, money can be paid to developers to ensure that they make things for a certain platform. Money is a big motivator, and will bring all of those developers running to the company with the deepest pockets. In this case, that is Microsoft. Apple can do this to a point, but not with as much startling result. GNU/Linux, BSD, Solaris, SCO, AIX, HPUX, zOS, and others have no way to acccomplish that same goal. This means that the open source operating systems fail in certain respects, and closed source operating systems win in certain respects. The issue with closed source operating systems is that for any given flaw, you have to wait for the corporate machine to get its wheels moving to fix that error. Also, the more common a system is the greater its possibility for exploitation. OSX and Linux are such small portions of the market, no one really cares to try and attack them. It's far more logical to attack Windows installations than anything else. So that happens. Windows gets a bad rap for being insecure and blah blah blah. In reality it's just common as hell. People get to see it everywhere, study it everywhere and learn its flaws. The Unix design makes systems only slightly more secure by default. However, if there is a flaw in a program, there could easily be flaw in a system's security (think Emacs in the late 80s).