Windows 2003 is a great Workstation 12268

Bob 4 month uptimes aren't very long, when compared with the (much less expensive) alternatives.

Well, Server 2003 might be 'very stable', but XP isn't. It's 'acceptable' at best. Certainly not on part with Linux, and it's not one of the heavy hitters of system uptime.

Internet Exploiter and Outhouse Express are 'good'? People must be so used to Microsoft's usual crap, that they rally around so-so products as if they're the best thing since sliced bread.

Microsoft's products have a lot of features, this I will grant you. But they're typically half-implemented and disbuttociated from one another.

Microsoft gets features working, they don't get features working well. They like being able to advertize more features than the compebreastion, even if the compebreastion's lesser features are implemented in a more acceptable manner.

You have no idea what your talking about, do you?

Handled it back in 2002. Now we're just busy convincing people that they *can* uncouple themselves from Microsoft, despite Microsoft's best efforts to lock users into their products.

Desktop: Both GNOME and KDE are better than XP's environment. Outlook-Outlook Express: Evolution, or any of a number of alternatives. Exchange: Never looked into alternatives. Media Player: Totem is probably the closest thing to it, but a WMP clone isn't needed or wanted. I, for one, perfer using Gstreamer to manage codecs and picking the most appropriate frontend for the media I'm going to be playing back.

Microsoft's products are trash, but popular trash.