which would you choose

Windows Pro doesn't have these issues, only Home. Home doesn't have group policy, so lots of this can't be managed easily. Pro has GP, which is where all this stuff gets controlled by Enterprise organizations.

Even better, LTSC has even less nonsense and only gets security updates (no feature updates, so nothing odd happening).

Get Win10 LTSC. It gets updates 2x/year, has very minimal bloat.

Then get O&O Shutup to reduce bloat even more.

And you can permanently license it using Microsoft's own scripts.

Scripts on Gituub.

This all applies to Win11 too, if you just have to use it.

Come on, man. Let them come to us. Linux needs more adoption.
Can you get security updates more often than 2x a year doing this method?
- Yes you do. I get monthly security updates on mine and I think it is feature that are twice a year.
No, clearly switching to an entirely different operating system is the easier option.
- Worked for me, but until there’s a consensus on how to onboard the layman on Linux, we need to stop bitching that the layman doesn’t use Linux.
  
  What Linux is missing is a "just works" distro like Mint, that isn't based on Debian Stable or Ubuntu LTS but on something with newer packages and kernels, with >50% market share so you can easily ~~google~~ duck distro-specific issues.
  
  Basically what Ubuntu was, 18 years ago. Nowadays, Ubuntu is still a good beginner's distro, but every beginner asking what to start with is confused by all the experienced Linux users shouting at them about how the most popular distro is evil and shit, for reasons a beginner doesn't understand.
  
  There’s always going to be the people that feel way too personally attached to adoption rates of their favorite distro. Those people are full of incendiary loser sad sauce.

Many people suggest popOS for a new linux user which is based on ubuntu which in turn is based on debian. I never tried popOS but i found ubuntu hard to get packages or find help with when i was first learning.

I would recomend endeavourOS which is based on arch. In arch, its very easy to get packages and and find help since you can use the aur and the arch wiki . But it might require using the terminal a bit more than PopOS. Dont let that intimidate you however, the terminal is actually not hard to learn and many tools guide you through using it.

Both are better than windows and i would recomend you try them both on your machine. Just download the live image ISOs to a usb that has ventoy installed. Throw some other distros on there too like nobara just to round out your testing.

Then you can always install it on an old computer (even one that windows dosent work well on) or a spare hdd/ssd while testing until you are ready to leave windows for good.

I use EndeavourOS, only because I wanted to get up and running quickly. It's still Arch under the hood, and all the fun nuances that come with Arch. I would probably suggest that EndeavourOS is more intermediate, probably popOS or Mint are more beginner-suited.
Stop recommending arch and arch based distros to newbies. They break way too often for people who have never used Linux before.
- A new linux user will break their system. Thats part of the learning process. The queation is will they have the resources needed to fix it or will they be forced to reinstall.
  
  These are the reasons i would sugest anyone to use an arch based distro like endevoros.
  
  They only break if you dont update or you do something dumb
  
  If the os breaks, or you need help with something, you have the best help resource avalible, the arch wiki. Along with a very large and often knoledgeable comunity. If you need help with ubuntu or a derivative distro, you often must serach the forum which have a lot of incorrect or outdated information.
  
  Its easy to find packages on the avalible repos including the aur. No searching for ppas to install the packages you need to actaully switch off of windows.
  
  The most imporant thing a new linux user should know about, is how many options they have with linux. This is linux's greatest strength and it is not a one size fits all solution. Arch and its derivatives are great examples of this.
  
  Also, i recomend new users use a multiboot with multiple distros and testing for themselfs.
  
  They only break if you dont update or you do something dumb
  
  Stop capping. I used to use Arch, it's not nearly as stable as you are suggesting.
  
  Its easy to find packages on the avalible repos including the aur. No searching for ppas to install the packages you need to actaully switch off of windows.
  
  If you really want applications then use NixOS, not arch. That way you aren't dealing with the AUR, and Nix OS actually has more packages than the AUR.
  
  Recommending NixOS to new users would be dumb though. Just like recommending arch is dumb. The install process alone would put lots of people off Linux.
  
  I've not had an issue with arch yet besies once like 4 years ago when I rebooted during a Nvidia driver update which was my own fault.
  
  The goal is to introduce new Linux users both to the possible options and to proper documentation so that they can learn and help themselves.
  
  Honestly, I wish I had started on arch instead of Ubuntu.
  
  The goal is to introduce new Linux users both to the possible options and to proper documentation so that they can learn and help themselves.
  
  Honestly, I wish I had started on arch instead of Ubuntu.
  
  Okay you are not a normal user or person. There isn't anything wrong with that. Giving people advice based on your own experience isn't going to work for you, because most people aren't that technically inclined and don't think about going for the harder option first.

You don’t need to code or use a terminal to use Linux

As someone who has fully transitioned to Linux myself recently:

You don't need to know how to code. But I don't know how you think you don't need to use terminal. Linux is complex. You run into problems. You will need to learn to troubleshoot. You will inevitably have to use terminal at some point (even if that's for copy/pasting commands, but you'll still need a very basic understanding).

Trying to underplay the complexity or learning curve for Linux is disingenuous and problematic for new users.
- Certainly true for a lot of use cases, but not all. Many folks, like my father, only need access to a web browser anymore. Got him in Linux Mint well over a year ago, and neither he nor I have had to touch the terminal.
  
  For him, Linux is easy, Linux removed the problems Windows caused, troubleshooting has not been needed.
  
  Linux can be all the things you said, but trying to over play the complexity of the learning curve can also be disingenuous and scare away new users.
  
  I was watching YouTube videos on Fedora recently,and they were stuttering for some reason. A few google searches later, I did find a permanent solution, but it involved using the terminal to install some video or audio codecs.
  
  Watching web videos is a pretty basic thing that most users will eventually do, so needing to install new codecs is kind of a big deal. I think many users would just accept it as a reality of the OS and switch back to Windows rather than looking up forums to find out which packages to install. Linux is full of little fixes like this in my experience. It’s not rocket science, but it’s far from a hassle free experience.
  
  This is not to say that I’m not impressed with how good of an OS you can get completely free, but it’s a reality of using Linux that people should be aware of.
  
  Iirc Mint comes with many of the codecs, which could explain that.
  
  In any case, I agree, the terminal certainly can be necessary at any rate and even if it isn't for a particular individual, it is powerful and good, and though daunting it is easier than it seems to become proficient enough if not a wizard. The angle shouldn't be "you'll never need it" but rather "it's way easier than it looks and you'll be fine. Here's a few basic tuts to get you started."
  
  That's not how you use anymore.
  
  Tried mint ages ago following a guide. I failed at sudo apt-get update. Like, the command didn't work. How the FUCK. Ended up somehow getting wine to try to install stuff. Don't think I ever figured out tarballs. Just endless psychic damage trying to do stuff that isn't a problem in windows.
  
  How long ago is ages? I installed it almost a year ago and had no noteable issues that I can remember.
  
  Uhh, 15 years maybe? I use my pc mostly for gaming so I won't be trying Linux again any time soon. Too many horror stories.
  
  You can play games on Linux now. One experience of one Linux variant from a decade and a half go really doesn't mean much.
  
  Also a tarball is just another type of archive like a zip file, you can use a GUI to extract it. You don't have to use the tar command if you don't want to.
Unless if you use Arch btw
- To use Arch, you need to be able to copy and paste from the Wiki into the terminal.

Didn't Windows 10 also have ads in the start menu from pretty much the start, like Candy Crush and such? Or maybe I just used a bloated OS image, wouldn't be beyond me.

It did, yes. One of the first things I did with my Windows 10 machine was install Classic Shell to give myself the Windows 7 start menu.

Good thing you don't need to know to code or use a terminal to use linux. Just install popOS! And you're good to go

It's easier than it looks, figure out how to do the first step: create your live boot flashdrive that you would use to install linux to your hdd. Then boot into that and play around before you install. I reccomend to follow along with this nerd in your terminal like it's a class. Once you learn this basic stuff you're pretty much set.

Same