Vista vs. Linux - Which is REALLY better?

I'm sick of this "just get more ram!" bullshit. My 286 did almost as much functionality-wise as my current multi-ghz machine. Yeah, really. Sure, there was no multi-tasking, but I did the mostly the same things as I do today.
Hello, fuckers, just because you can eat ram doesn't mean you should. It costs money and also reduces the number of programs you can run.
I can see it now: in another ten years programs will have minimum footprint of 1GB, but they'll just do more of the same.

DOS is for clueless fucktards that didn't realize CP/M died in the late 70's and have spent so much time customizing their CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files that their dick goes limp at the thought of having to learn anything else.

Windows 3.1 is for clueless fucktards that didn't realize DOS died in the late 80's and have spent so much time customizing their CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files that their dick goes limp at the thought of having to learn anything else.

Windows XP is for clueless fucktards that didn't realize Windows 3.1 died in the late 90's and have spent so much time customizing their CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files that their dick goes limp at the thought of having to learn anything else.

Windows Vista is for clueless fucktards that didn't realize Windows XP died in the late 2000's and have spent so much time customizing their CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files that their dick goes limp at the thought of having to learn anything else.