Okay, Linux distro get better with every release, but mainstream desktop is still Microsoft. On our Windows home PC I prefer old OS-ses. I used Win95 for 10 years and I will also be using XP Pro for at least 4 more years (also 10 in total). Reasons: 1. You buy a PC with an OS, problably strong enough to run that OS at time of buying. An OS upgrade on MicroSoft 9 out of 10 means you putting more weight on and old horse to carry. 2. When you smartly buy, you can upgrade your system after 4-5 years with minumum cost (I upgraded from Athlon 3700+ to el cheapo E5200, mobo + CPU cost me less tha 10% of original PC costs, even OC-ed oldie to 3,13 Ghz, transferring all other parts to the new mobo), meaning after some years you get a smoother faster system. 3. The older the OS, the more reliable it gets, I am now running with Windows FW, DefenseWall, some Software Restriction Policy and Avast check on write only and Winpatrol. With Iron my Browser starts in just a (1) second. 4. I always buy in to a new OS when it is at least one to two years old, meaning average PC are so strong they can easily carry the weight of the new OS. Also the average PC at theat time was a super PC one to two years ago, only at half cost (compared to two years back). 5. Other obvious advantage is that most bugs and exploits are ironed out aftertwo years, meaning I can do with limited suecrity soft (also cheaper). Bottem line: recently I compared historic expenses of PCs with a friend, because my wife complained when I said that next year I would buy a Solid State Drive to boost my Programs Partition. It turned out that with my (often) two staged upgrade approach I spend about 30 to 40 percent less on PC's, while my friend says, geh man that oldie is fast! What are other Wilders members approach / thoughts on this?