While that may be true, biosboy4, I would not recommend OpenBSD to someone looking for a "turn key" graphical workstation.

OpenBSD is simple, elegant, and easy -- for the technically minded. New-to-OpenBSD workstation users expecting graphical installers and a selection of pre-configured, integrated desktops are often shocked by the text-based installer, and having to choose for themselves among the more than fifty different window managers available.

In particular, provisioning and maintaining the OS requires a degree of self-sufficiency which may be daunting to those who do not have a strong background in Unix-like OSes. Two examples:

1. The OS is source code maintained. Patches are published in unified diff(1) format. The administrator is expected to follow written instructions to obtain the applicable source tree, apply the patch, and install the resulting module.
   
2. Only the most recent two releases are supported, and the release cycle is twice-per-year. The administrator is expected to upgrade once or twice per year to maintain currency.

Can OpenBSD make a nice desktop? Absolutely. But I would not recommend it to someone who would be uncomfortable provisioning the OS and its desktop environment themselves.

Can OpenBSD participate as one of several OSes being multibooted? Yes. But multibooting adds complexity, and errors in provisioning can cause data loss. I would not recommend multibooting with OpenBSD to a brand new user who is unclear on MBR/GPT partitioning and BSD disklabel partitioning mechanics. Instead, I'd recommend a second disk drive.

I state all of the above having been a happy OpenBSD user for many years. It's the only BSD variant I use.

2 members found this post helpful.

I agree with the assessment, but with one addition to point #1 and an additional point to consider:

For the first point, #1, there, M:Tier offers the most recent stable patches for free. So binary patches are available from a reputable source. And, for a fee, older stable branches can have the same service.

For the additional point to consider, I'd say that using it will teach, in a most excellent way, all the system components. Nothing you did not turn on is turned on and nothing you did not install is installed.

It's by far the most clean and organized. The developers aim to not need additional guides or forums, as the manual pages are second to none. There is a short FAQ on the project web site though for areas that require more introduction than is appropriate in the manual pages. However, point #2 there is a serious point and not to be neglected. If you can't commit to regular upgrades or fresh reinstallations, then look elsewhere.

I didn't mention M:Tier because they are a third party service provider.

Outsourcing technical knowledge and skill needed to successfully administer a platform is not the same as having it.

Of course, M:Tier will also sell licenses and access to their commercial GNOME desktop, as mentioned in http://www.openbsd.org/support.html -- but while looking through that page, one could likely find a nearby technical support consultancy and have them create a unique solution, such as a "turn key" graphical desktop that multiboots with Windows. But ... I don't think that an outsourced support contract is what the OP had in mind.

I will echo the sentiment that FreeBSD might be the best starting point. However, in the case of the *BSDs you're not likely to gain a whole lot from more than a brief experiment with VMs. It's important to get something on bare metal as soon as possible and see how it performs on your hardware. This is because you're not trialing some new Linux distribution, but a whole different OS.

1 members found this post helpful.

I agree. It is best to roll up your sleeves and dive in. I prefer OpenBSD, but, FreeBSD may be a better starting point.
OpenBSD has exceptional documentation as does FreeBSD.

1 members found this post helpful.

Likewise, whilst I use OpenBSD, I wouldn't advise it as your first experience of BSD, by far your best introduction would be a version of FreeBSD - be that FreeBSD itself, PC-BSD, or even GhostBSD.

1 members found this post helpful.