Flamebait on a first post, isn't that the job description of a Microsoft employee? If Linux does not meet your standards, then by all means continue to use Windows, the rest of us who actually use it know Linux is not "pathetically slow".
Maybe 10 years ago this would have been believable, around the same time Windows users had a shared experience of BSOD's. Now it just sounds like the handbook of FUD still hasn't been updated. Maybe whoever is responsible for that has been downsized and it still refers to "Mandrake Linux" among others.
It's like any other scare campaign, it's so wildly inaccurate that it doesn't even come close to "artistic license" for people who actually try what they're scaring people away from. All that does is lose you all credibility on other issues, as they know you're part of the propaganda network and will say anything, regardless of the reality.
If Windows really was a competent OS, Microsoft would be happy with legit competition. Let retailers offer Linux as the customer would see how bad it was in comparison and happily fork over cash for permission to use Windows in ways Microsoft allow. Therin lies the problem, Microsoft KNOW they can't compete, the more Linux is seen by users, tried by users, the less effective their propaganda is, as it doesn't resemble the reality experienced by those who have used Linux.
The stronger that becomes, the more they employ people to post in forums like this, trying to argue, flame etc making all sorts of bizarre claims under the banner of "I really want to be a Linux user but it just doesn’t work". It's just another part of the spreading of propaganda that they hope will influence Windows users who haven't yet seen Linux, into thinking it's some amateur OS that's not worth their time. If they believe posts by Microsoft employees in disguise, they will never actually try Linux for themselves, or that's the plan.
Maybe the concept of running an OS designed for users, customizable in the true meaning of the term "personal computer", a centralized installation and updating system, with no need to have anti-virus and anti-spyware scans sapping every CPU cycle is something that scares Microsoft, it's actually a nice way to use a PC for users. It's the little things like that, which show how backwards Windows still is, despite decades of trying to improve. It also puts cost very firmly into the spotlight, why pay a fortune for something that's still a malware magnet by design, when you can avoid all hassle that for free? That's not even starting on the ownership issue, Windows has always been infested with DRM at every turn, meaning the users don't own it, users are treated as thieves at every turn by their own computer.
Why so scared? As I said, if Windows was clearly better, why not encourage them to experience Linux?
Report card - "must try harder".