In the final analysis, if you don't like windows or how it operates.... don't buy it.

-hpearce (January 14, 2012, 10:22 AM)

It is amazing how many problems would be solved if people followed this philosophy.

-Josh (January 14, 2012, 10:42 AM)

I've been saying as much all along, but this is a VERY different beast we're now talking about.
This is hardware.

"So what? Apple's done that for years", you might say.
This is diffferent.
Apple has their own stuff, and a niche market.
This is Microsoft.
That means everything else.
Do you not get it yet?

EVERYTHING ELSE.

Please understand this, I don't want to get angry.
.. yet.

-Edvard (January 14, 2012, 03:15 PM)

Um, yeah, except Apple isn't a niche market anymore.  Besides, with all the holes Microsoft always bakes in, I see this as a potentially good thing.  Why?  Because Apple has relied on the very same UEFI to lock software to hardware and viseversa.  If people break it for Microsoft, and they will...eventually, don't you think it would be a pretty good bet the same or very similar hack will break OSX and the Apple monopoly.  I am not completely certain that isn't a side goal of Microsoft.

Now, with all that said, I really only see this as another step of Microsoft out of ideas and "me too"ing Apple.  It works for Apple, and they have no ideas, so let's do it too and lock everyone in again.  The thing is, lock-in is how Microsoft beat all the competition in the late 80's...namely they didn't when everyone else did.  Therefore while it will suck for a while, either they will use it to break competition again, or someone else will.  Yes, it will take time, but it will happen.

I can tell you one thing, if they keep following Apple like they have been, my next machine will BE an Apple with VMware installing all other OS's (unless I can find a reliable way to virtualize OSX and it's ancestors).  Microsoft doesn't have the balls to lock Windows out of a virtual environment.  It will alienate way too many IT shops.

Not that I can speak from experience per se, but I do suggest the VPS option if you don't use your own server(s) to their fullest.  It can be significantly cheaper than owning your own server, and is often backed up by enterprise features you couldn't afford with your own server.  Things like automated backup, failover, clustering (potentially), etc.  Yes, most charge extra for those features, but not a lot compared to the costs and hassles of doing it yourself.  Specific companies, however, I cannot recommend due to lack of experience with any of them.

As for the email server, I have heard a lot of good things from Open-Exchange.  Don't know anything about it from an admin standpoint other than that hearsay, but I can say it is functional enough from the client end (My ISP uses it).  It isn't great, but I don't know many/any that are anywhere near Exchange in features/compatibility/stability.  Two of the three, yes, but not all three.

Server OS?  I am partial to Debian, but that is only because I really like Mint Linux and the LMDE release.  Yes, this is designed as a desktop edition, but keeping the desktop and the Server the same base OS does make some things marginally easier.  Otherwise I have been told by many that SUSE is by far the easiest for most people to learn coming from Windows Servers.  CentOS is also quite popular and I use it at work everyday (as a user, not an admin) - it is also quite functional.  The one thing I learned with Linux is don't worry too much about the flavor, just choose a popular one and dive in.  You can figure it out and learn as you go.  By and large, the changes are in the shell and not the OS itself anyway, which makes them relatively easy to rip and replace as needed.

Lastly CMS.  Can't say.  My only suggestion here is WordPress is the biggest general purpose CMS deployed (measured by number of deployments).  There has to be a reason for that...I will leave it to your own research and conclusions as to why, but that is why I would start there.