Which Linux?

[desiv]

I'd also recommend Ubuntu (or possibly Mint, which is an Ubuntu variant).

I would question why you want 64-bit tho.
If you need it, great.    If you have an app(s) that will take advantage of it, fine.

But if not, 32-bit can save you some headaches involving libs and compatibility.

desiv

[desiv]

headaches such as?

Even flash is 64-bit these days... there really is no reason to stay 32-bit anymore.

Well, personally, we have have issues with certain agents (Acronis, TrendMicro) on some of our 64-bit dual pathed environments.

While we have workarounds for most, I wouldn't recommend that type of thing for someone looking to replace Windows with Linux.

Having to tell them about 32-bit compatiblity (i.e. This page: http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/534 ) is great, but for someone just wanting something to "work", I'm not sure I see the benefit.

The question is, what is he going to run that will really want/need 64-bit?

If there is something, then fine.

Of course, I live more in the server world, so YMMV.

desiv

[desiv]

http://www.dailygyan.com/2008/04/how-to-have-dvd-playback-adobe-flash.html

[desiv]

 Ubuntu IS bloated, no matter what they tell you, and is no faster than Win 7.

Ubuntu installs from a single CD (not DVD).  
We have different ideas of bloat.

And Windows 7 barely installs and runs on my PC, where Ubuntu is perfectly happy.  However, I admit my PC is old by MS standards..

desiv

[desiv]

And then in Linux you need to install propriatory nvidia or ati drivers, video codecs, Flash, Acrobat,

You don't "have" to install the drivers, but it's recommended.
And the video drivers and codecs aren't that large.

Adobe is bloat on both OSes.

a decent media player-Kaffeine I found is the best overall, my USB digital TV stick only works with it,

You don't generally have to, although Kaffiene is nice.  Again, I wouldn't call it bloatware compared to Windows Media Player.

a video editor,

Basic editors aren't that large either.  Serious ones are, but then they are for MS as well.

DVD ripper and then its not so lean any more.

DVD rippers aren't that large either.

I still, in that list, don't see much bloat...  IMHO..

Not that there isn't some bloat in there.  The Windows managers are definitely bloaty (my new word for the day) and OpenOffice, although a good price, is bloat at it's finest.

Vista is a pig, but Ubuntu is no speed demon either-in fact I've seen benchmarks that its slower- than Win 7?  And the Ubuntu GUI just feels less snappy

My feeling, on really fast machines with lots of memory, Vista will outdo Ubuntu in some (most?) situations.

But most of the Ubuntu I've seen is being installed on slightly older machines, and that's where Ubuntu starts to really take off.

Also, as pointed out below (er.. the below which is above of course :-), MS will get slower and slower, and Ubuntu will just keep right on performing great.

I use both, but I prefer Ubuntu, and it's kept me from not having to buy a new PC to enjoy a modern OS.

desiv