What people need to learn is that Linux is not good enough to replace Windows by any means, but at the same time, there are definitely things that GNU OS is going to be better at. When I am coding Linux is clearly superior because the tools are made for coders by coders with no marketing people forcing features and deadlines. Also, when I am working on poor or questionable hardware, I will use Linux because a lot of the tools, especially the diagnostic ones, are written for minimal requirements.
When I am doing other things though, Linux is not yet caught up to Windows. As the original poster suggested, most games are made for Windows and will run better in Windows. Linux has yet to create an office suite on par with Microsoft Office for Windows. Open Office runs slower than Word on Windows and no Linux text editor is as fully featured, which is sad since Office 2007 has the worst, most unruly, and least usable GUI of any software I regularly use and it looks like it will only get worse. Finally, Linux has a very poor web browsing experience. There is no browser that is as good as Firefox for Windows. The Linux version of Firefox does not feel as polished and good. The GUI is very reminiscent of older versions. It also inexplicably shuts itself off (does not crash, just disappears). Also, Flash is a lot more resource intensive and seems to be single threaded (a flash ad in one tab will lag a music player in another).
What I am trying to say is that there are still some tasks for which Linux is not as good as Windows. Preaching Linux as the universal OS good for everything is a poor idea since new users will often try to do something that Linux is bad at and will judge the OS from it.
