Older flavours of Windows tended to be unstable, insecure, and ran as slow as molasses on anything but top notch hardware -- the VISTA fiasco was a prime example of that.
I think that Vista...as far as the slow speed, was the really only example of that. Windows 98, 2000 and XP really didn't need top notch hardware.
Linux has its place in dedicated one off apps like say a music server or a mobile phone OS - but I question its place now as a desktop OS except for "hobbyists" etc such as those who want to learn and tinker with OS'es.
Our viewpoints here are different, in that I never have yet to truly consider Linux a desktop OS for the world we live in. But without a doubt, I think over the years Linux has certainly become a better and better desktop OS than it was. But based on it's core philosophies and unrestricted model...will never standardize on 1 way of doing things...and I have always been fine with that.
Companies who think switching WORKSTATIONS to Linux will save them a whole slew of money usually have only thought up to the middle of NEXT WEEK - if even that far ahead. Linux workstations require a lot more maintenance than windows one's and you'll find that for a business the TCO isn't worth while switching.
I think the majority of companies who indeed put an effort into switching put far more thought into it than that. Plus, most of us hobbyists and mortals have a hard time understanding the true cost of running significant numbers of Windows workstations and servers, user CAL costs, software assurance costs, back office costs like SQL and Exchange and Microsoft Office licensing. Depending upon the needs of the company, they might be able to offset their costs enough to make the investment worth it. Especially with more cloud based applications become more popular.
It's hard to know for sure, but to assume that those who want to switch simply have their heads up their butts is not a fair assessment.
My last Linux app is a music server running on SUSE 11.2 -- this might be my last Linux server as I find Windows 2008 server really good -- and as a technet suscriber I can download it for free.
Yeah, if you already pay for Technet and can use the software provided by it, I wouldn't understand why you wouldn't use it. If you aren't going to use it, there is no point in buying Technet.
As far as servers go, I found Windows 2000 to be pretty good, and Windows 2003 to be a very solid and reliable server platform. I really don't consider 2008 to be that much better, it has just added new features and such..but as far as performance and reliability goes...for me 2008 and 2003 are on par with each other. Both are solid.
