Let me say it again for good measure:

I FUCKING HATE WINDOWS!

In the course of my work, I have to use multiple versions of my company's software. To do this without going through the half-hour uninstall/reinstall cycle, I keep multiple versions installed on my hard drive. When I finish with one version, I rename its directory to <product>.<version1>, and rename directory <product>.<version2> back to <product> to use the other version.

All nice in theory. Except that Windows, in its glorious infallibility, has decreed that if a file or directory is in use you're not allowed to rename it, delete it, or in fact touch it in any way, shape or form. Which would be barely acceptable if it weren't for the fact that Windows Explorer has a habit of leaving its dirty little finger in directories it shouldn't.

Of course Microsoft doesn't offer any tools to allow you to determine the culprit process in these cases. Just an "Access is denied" error message. I had to use third-party tools from sysinternals.com to figure out that Explorer was the culprit. The only solution? Killing Explorer (or logging out and back in to Windows.)

Have I mentioned that I fucking hate Windows?

So, you suggest getting around the Windows XP file locking problem by replacing the hardware with something that's less compatible with Windows, and still running Windows on it?

By the way, I like Windows XP. It has its faults, yes, but I don't think there's an overall better desktop OS. And, I think it's by far the best Windows version.

Now for a server, Linux all the way. Fedora, specifically.

This isn't really a valid argument, though, is it? I'm not getting involved in the technical side of it, cause I don't use, nor have I ever used, linux. However, it seems a bit faulty to say that one thing is better than the other because a couple years ago it had more features.

That'd require a reboot, which'd probably end up being a minor pain for FA.

And FA noted pretty specifically that the problem was Explorer holding the file open, and not some other program.

I still find both the multiple desktop implementation and the remote GUI ability in Linux to be a lot more useful than what Windows offers. I like having a 3x3 matrix of desktops at my disposal, with the ability to have programs start up on specific desktops automagically when I log in. And Windows remote GUI is all or nothing - you either get a complete desktop on the remote machine or run locally. On X you can run specific programs on a remote machine displaying locally.

I like the capability to run remote apps and display them locally, I'll give you that, but I have simply never seen the usefulness of multiple desktops. I know I'm committing some sort of linux heresy here, but I always found it irritating, as I'd have to search for whatever desktop I'd put application ABC on. Then again, it could have to do with continued usage, I guess.

However, as much as I *do* like linux, I have to disagree that it's a better desktop OS. Not because it's not as feature rich as Windows or OSX, but because configuring it is not simply for the uninitiated. For the most part, when you set up Windows XP or OSX, it Just Works(tm). X works, but requires tweaking. Configuring X is an unholy nightmare if you don't know the specs of your hardware, for example.

Exactly. It works best if you think of each desktop as a "task portal". If you need app , y, and z to do a specific task, they go on one desktop together. App f, g, and h would go on another

I haven't tried it yet, but i've heard that the setup for Ubuntu is almost ridiculously simple. I've heard the install process requires a total of 2 enter key presses.

Sigh. Unfortunately, the unlock extension makes Explorer crash any time you try to access a file on a remote filesystem mounted from a Samba server.

The new 1.8.2 version does not have the problem. Thanks again!