What Operating System should i use?

[shortcut]
Do you want to play your Vista games (Full price games like Fallout, Assasins Creed or Sims) on Ubuntu? In that case you should stick with windows. They won't run on Linux. There is a reason why the requirements list only a windows OS (or a MacOS *shudder*)
[/shortcut]

Windows programs cannot run natively on Linux OSes. (Although there is WINE in Linux and it works for many common windows pograms). On the other hand many windows programs have native linux alternatives which you have to install and use in Ubuntu then.
Example: To run Firefox on Windows you need to install the windows port/version. To run Firefox on Linux you need to get the source code and compile that (or use the package manager that does that for you [preferred] )

>When I switched OS non of my files and data carried over can I get it back?
Depends on how you tried to carry them over and to get it back it depends on if you have a backup copy of your old OS - you do have a backup?

here, this might help to get migrate your windows data to ubuntu for email and internet things. Maybe that gives you the idea how to migrate other stuff to.
Well I hope you planned ahead and have your windows data accessible from a second media (hard drive, cd, usb stick ...)
http://users.telenet.be/mydotcom/howto/linux/migration01.htm

Also you might want to ask the guys at http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=333

I am not a regular Linux user myself and connat say more on that topic.

Use windows 7, it kicks butt :D

I think the advantage of windows 7 over windows Vista is not worth it to buy Win 7 now (for a general user).
If I got the numbers right then Vista is supported until April 2012. Maybe by then a successor of Windows 7 is available.
Or maybe you learned more about linux by then.

Vista is almost worse than ME -.-

I had a laptop with ME on it once. It was by far the worst OS I've ever used, no way Vista is close to being that bad. If you're comparing the gap between Vista and 7 to the gap between ME and XP, then you may be right. I haven't used enough yet to know.

lol, dude.. each new OS from Microsoft is better than the next. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to learn how to use an OS to its potential. Just to name a couple advantages that vista has over xp for instance is a better start menu and a wicked nice search overhaul.

Vista sucks. Google it. You'll see huge amounts of complaints about Vista, as compared to XP (SP2, SP3 was compatibility-breaking and buggy). Windows 7 was released and developed far more quickly than originally planned due to Vista's failure(s).

It may have had features over XP, but most of those could be replicated by 3rd-party software for XP. Its cons far outweigh its pros. I purposely held back from purchasing Vista to wait for Win7, which turns out to be better than XP in many features, and far better than Vista in usability.

I would agree that using a large amount of tweaks would fix up Vista for the average user, however that's not the point of Windows. If I wanted a huge amount of performance, stability, and security, Linux would be the far better option there. Windows is meant to be off-the-shelf convenience for a semi-affordable price.

@silverlight if you are going to slander linux at least learn everything possible where as you are right to it SOLEY not being able to play games there are such devices called VIRTUAL MACHINES this enables you to run linux as your main OS and emulate a OS on linux of your choice I.E running linux open virtual machine which contains Windows XP - game problem solved

@equals lol just because something is newer does not make it better there is a reason MICROSOFT yes MICROSOFT have completely stopped development in Vista because they know it was a terrible idea there is no advantage in it what so ever it consumes more CPU than XP and from what i hear than win 7 all it is, is pretty graphics, ironic isn't it..... i'm running vista right now :'(

Windows 7 will be required soon enough as the market standard. Better 64 bit support, shinier graphics, more efficient than Vista, and, of course, set for expiry many years after XP. XP will die of lack of support. No updates, no drivers, no 64-bit CPUs, etc.

If for no other reason than better future-proof-ness, Windows 7 will outlast and surpass XP.
Win7 64-bit Ultimate > XP SP2 Pro > Win7 (other) > XP (other) > Vista

@equals
So far every Windows lacked support in the beginning. Once the first service pack appeared the situation was much better.

@youcantwin
WinXP Pro (32Bit) only supports up to 4GB RAM.
Even Win7 Home Basic (64 bit) supports up to 8GB RAM.
It is kinda unfair to compare 32Bit with 64Bit but I disregard WinXP 64Bit in this comparision because of it's bad support in the start and therefore rare use.
It depends on what hardware you have. Win7 has higher requirements etc. So if there is no special requirement that forces you to run win7 (RAM, driver support, 64Bit support, DirectX 10 or 11) then you don't have to switch.

@Junes:
"at least learn everything possible"
For a start why don't you ask at least for something easier like world peace?!

And how do I slander at Linux?

"They [the windows programs] won't run on Linux." <- that is a fact. Yes, you can use WINE and such to get those applications to run but there is no guarantee that every windows application will work then.

"(or a Mac OS *shudder*)" <- You might refer to that negative remark because Mac OS X is build on a Linux. As a spoiled windows user my mac user experience was bad (when closing a window I always clicked first into the void). It got only slightly better once I opened the console - and used my Linux knowledge then. I assume Mac users feel similar with windows.

"On the other hand many windows programs have native Linux alternatives which you have to install and use in Ubuntu then." <- I admit, that was just hearsay. I take it back. Happy?

"Linux > Windows > Mac" <- That was the title of my post. You are free to convince me that windows is better than Linux - but I will stick with my opinion that Macs are the worst.

None of these four are a slander to Linux in my eyes. Please enlighten me how I hurt your feelings.

And I object to your suggestion of using a VM.
Full emulated VMs take lots of resources (you are running two OSes and a full set of virtual devices then - at least). And until recent years there was no 3D graphic card emulated at all!
Some games do run on a VM - in fact more and more will do in the future but the main issue is still there: they require extra resources and the emulated devices are slower. This is less an issue if your computer exceeds the suggested requirements - but I assume that won't be the case with the newest games.

WINE and similar emulations are faster but they are incomplete emulations by design (ok more like by lazyness of humans to efficiently support all real hardware and a fitting virtual hardware piece for each).
Once something unsupported is used the application fails. If it doesn't fail: good for you.

But in any case the emulated hardware might not be the best or not work ideally with your real hardware. Rarely the latest hardware is emulated (Are there stable emulations that support DirectX 10? DirectX 11?).

It depends on each game. Some run stable and smooth, others slow, others with problems and some not at all. As a rule of thumb older games work better but in the end it depends on each game.

I suggest to use a dual boot installation for playing recent windows games.

My own installation is this way:
Win7 is the only installed system (for gaming and working).
Cygwin is installed for a few needed Linux tools.
When I need a Linux OS for testing things ( == speed is not an issue then) I will use a VM inside windows - if it doesn't run in the VM then I will think of my options (mainly where to get which Linux from and where to install it to).

If I would go with the main OS being Linux then it would probably be a dual boot or even two separate computers.