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.

@281

How is Linux terrible to use?  For me, 95% of the time, everything works right out of the box with Linux assuming you pick a good distro and even if it doesn't work with everything, usually all you have to do is download a few source packages and compile it. It has come a long way in terms of compatibility in terms of hardware and software.

Mac is more expensive than Windows and it also has much less hardware compatibility and a smaller selection of software titles.  And if you look at this year's pwn to own competition, you'll see that mac os x got hacked in 2 minutes flat ( http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/pwn-2-own-over-macbook-air-gets-seized-in-2-minutes-flat/ ) thus not very secure.  Sure, Windows has more viruses and trojans made for it, but that's why I go with Linux.  It couldn't even be compromised at pwn to own.

...so, in general, this is how I see it:
Linux > Windows > Mac

I'm not including any off beat OSes in this like BSD, OS/2, Solaris,  etc. because most people don't use them as desktop OSes