"will (sic) people trade price for looks?
Some will, some buy luxery (sic) cars. Alot (sic) of people don't."

The improvements made in Windows Vista are not luxuries (the singular form of which is spelled "luxury"). Your mindset is typical: it shows why Linux is and will probably remain so far behind on the desktop.

"Couple that with the fact that linux and mac do run the same compositing and transparency effects with widgets right now if you have a decent video card."

This is not true. If you would actually watch any of the videos or read anything about WPF (Avalon), you would know that it has many capabilities that X-Windows* doesn't have at all (X-Windows is two decades behind everything else in terms of the way it's designed; even the latest x.org stuff doesn't achieve parity with GDI+).

Quartz (the main graphics layer on OS X) does compositing on a per-window basis, doesn't really integrate 3D, and still (as far as I know) is quite resolution-dependent.

XAML is better than Display PDF because it's XML-based, which really means you can do stuff to it with code you wrote yourself. Binary formats should really be a thing of the past (except where they're really needed). And yes, I know that XAML and Display PDF don't quite do the same thing, but they're close enough in scope that it doesn't matter.

Finally, it is plainly obvious that Linux is not the system to use if you just want things to work.

*I refuse to call it "The X Window System", because it would be too grand a title for something so broken and ill-conceived.