Robert we have two issues here one whether vista/window 7 is better then XP in any meaningful way all three being close OSs and second whether a non open source OS is better on it face then a close source OS.
Yeah, but given your penchant for hyperbole in both cases you find yourself arguing against your own positions.
When you argue against Microsoft in general you portray them as inherently untrustworthy, but then when you argue XP over Vista you deride Vista's security improvements by saying you can secure, and by implication trust, XP just as much as Vista.
Now I agree with the latter part of this for the most part, I personally feel as secure on XP as Vista, but I also personally can secure XP and Vista as well as Linux for all practical matters.
To me Vista/window 7 is in no meaningful way is a better OS then XP.
You've made that clear, but opinions are like asses. Everyone has their own. You can't deny that there are improvements in Vista whether or not you find them personally worthwhile.
A builded in two way firewall is not an improvement over a one way firewall for the reasons given.
Yes, it is
. It's not a huge improvement but it's still an improvement.
BitLocker does not have a backdoor
A free and open source encrypting program without any possible backdoor is far better then a builded in program by microsoft and therefore having it does not weight in to the issue of being a better OS.
. If you want to keep using this argument you should substantiate it.
A very slight improvement in being able to run as less then root is hardly a major issue compare to the far greater overhead of Vista.
That feature has nothing at all to do with the greater overhead of Vista. The greater overhead comes from other features such as the improved graphics engine.
I personally find the improved graphics engine worth the marginal resource use losses. RAM etc is cheap and for any personal computer I use I want enough of it anyway.
If I'm on a netbook that I only use for the internet then I might want less resource use, if I am running a server I definitely want the resource use as low as possible. But for the average end user this is just not a concern that is not taken care of with $30 of RAM.
Now add to the fact that a majority of users still perfer XP to Vista and would not leave XP unless force to do so for Vista.
If you are going to make up facts on the spot for your arguments you should at least make them make sense.
Here you are using an appeal to popularity against Vista in your argument that it's not a significant improvement over XP but would you accept that argument against Linux in it's tiny minority?
No, you wouldn't. Why? Because it's a fallacious appeal to popularity. So why are you then turning around and using it on your XP/Vista position? Do you get why I say you argue irrationally? This is the nonsense I disagree with from you. I share your fundamental positions on many tech things, but you can't regulate your extremes and take reasonable positions when it comes to anything about Microsoft.