Well, I get frustrated by both operating systems, Ubuntu and Vista.
I've been using Vista RTM since November of last year, and the RCs and betas before that. Fact is, if your hardware is supported, it's a heck of an OS. On a Dell Precision M70 (a three year old top-of-the-line Dell notebook with an nVidia video subsystem) it has worked absolutely flawlessly. I haven't seen a single blue screen or had a single lockup -- or even an application crash. But it is a pain in the you-know-what to keep the OS and all applications updated.
Contrast that to Ubuntu, which I've only used for a few weeks now. Ubuntu worked beautifully -- except for a woeful lack of decent OpenGL support -- right out of the gate, just as Vista did on the same system. Getting the video subsystem to work properly with a multi-head configuration when docked has been something that no person, who wasn't truly adept at doing research and performing trial and error experiments and using the command line interface, would have gone through. Now that I've got the system configured to suit me, and even before, I've absolutely loved Ubuntu. It's like the best box of toys I ever had! But it's also a fair amount of work.
Here's the point. Vista is awful if your hardware isn't supported. That's true of any operating system with bad hardware support. Vista is beautiful if your hardware IS supported. The response of the GUI is lightning fast, and it absolutely never crashes or wavers in the performance of its work.
Ubuntu is a blast because, like other Linux variants, you can customize it to within an inch of your life. It is fast and responsive on the same system that runs Vista so well. BUT -- even when you DO have hardware support in Ubuntu -- like with my nVidia Quadro FX Go1400 card on this notebook -- it is STILL somewhat of an undertaking to get things like multi-head support working. And those things simply worked in Vista.
I'm not putting Ubuntu or Linux down, mind you. I wouldn't even be using Vista (or any other Windows) if I weren't the sysadmin on a bunch of Active Directory production domains. Ubuntu and Linux are a blast. They are fun. They are supremely cool in allowing me to configure the system so much more precisely than I could configure a Windows system.
But, if you're going to get the best out of your hardware, Ubuntu (and other distros) still require a considerably greater amount of effort and learning to make them "just work" than does Windows, with equivalent hardware support.
The guy who wrote the article seemed to mostly be carping about something that really is NOT Microsoft's fault -- although it is their problem -- and that is poor (REALLY POOR) driver support from a great many hardware vendors. They had plenty of time for this. The hardware vendors who did their homework have hardware that works better than it ever did in any previous version of Windows and which never causes system crashes. Vista was a huge step forward. It could fail because people won't use it if they can't get good hardware support.
But Ubuntu and the Linuxes have some ground to cover, too. None of the end users I know would even think of attempting to go through the research and testing that I did over the last couple of weeks.
I'm rooting for Ubuntu and friend, because -- as I said before -- it'sjust about the best box of toys I've ever had! I haven't had this much fun since my Apple //e!