Yes, it probably streamlines I.T. management...it does nothing for employees (in my experience). But I'm assuming you've simply had better experiences with Win

Yes, it probably streamlines I.T. management...it does nothing for employees (in my experience). But I'm assuming you've simply had better experiences with Windows than me. Let me tell you what my experiences have been... If smaller IT staffs can benefit from Windows features, then IT staffs can be almost eliminated by Unix features. On my campus over a decade ago, it took one man to administer the entire network of Unix machines. "The company" doesn't tend to make the decision so much as "the I.T. group", which is trusted by executives that really don't know any better. Since I.T. won't risk its livelihood on relative unknowns, nothing significant ever really changes. Why would they deploy something that takes one man to run, when they can have Windows? In most organizations, there are plenty of users who don't know any better. And there are users who hate Windows, but they've long given up the fight because if they complained all day long, they'd never get any real work done. And for this same reason, they're not about to look for another job: Windows is too prevalent. Sometimes, employees are extremely productive. These are the ones knowledgeable and efficient enough to deploy their own solutions in spite of I.T. offerings. They're the ones loading up Windows with a pile of open-source packages to make up for its pitiful tool set. Or, networking together a bunch of Linux laptops because they know nothing else will do the job. Despite the fact that their company has failed them with a poor status quo, these employees are more committed than anyone to do really good work. But even those people have limits; they eventually leave and form startups (that are free of Windows). Having failed its true talent, the company is left with the people who don't know or don't care how to be productive anymore. Mission accomplished?