Re the arguments : -
I like Apple in some regards, I don't get all this crap about it being restrictive. If you want to play, use a toy. If you know what you're doing, you can do anything you like, if you really want to. Besides, you are talking about the OS (MacOS vs Windows), not the computer itself (Mac vs PC) - which is virtually the same hardware these days (unfortunately).
Here's something I wrote in another thread that might be relevant here:
"...Nah, I'm more of a software engineer for whatever I'm paid to do. Sometimes I have to write cross platform systems, so I'll use Qt as the GUI library and boost so I can just build the code to run on either system (usually with some tweaking!). C and C++ are my favourite languages so I'll use them where possible.
I do embedded as well, so I've written firmware that does not even use an OS and is interrupt driven, or some that use a very basic OS that gets compiled as part of the firmware, or a recent one which ran an Embedded Linux OS which did make life a bit easier, especially as I had to write in "over the air" updating of the software. These things have to be robust, especially since some end up in cars (fleet tracking).
I think the whole OS thing has gone way over the top. The primary role of an OS is to allow programs to run safely in their own memory space, and provide a means for those programs to access the hardware via drivers (via the kernel). Some can't even get the basics right, and instead invest heavily in bells and whistles, and people fall for buying the latest greatest version every time essentially because it looks different and promises "improved security". Hah. And what do people want to do at the end of the day? Run the same programs on the same computer, that's it.
To be honest I'm way past all the debates about OS. Most are bloated these days, a bit like most software; there's not much fun left in computers, not like it used to be. Haha, I sound like a grumpy old man ;-) It was much more fun back in the days of the Amiga, Atari, Archimedes, etc. for me anyway, and software engineering was a real discipline, not someone who writes Java or calls themselves a "dot NET programmer"... yack. I remember fitting a desktop publishing program called "Impression" on a floppy disk (for the Archimedes), and it was still better than Word. I see problems in peoples offices every day with their office systems which in all honestly should of been solved years ago - it really is dire.
Anyway, these days I just want to earn and living and then spend my time doing other things away from the flickering screen, like playing music.
Having said all that I am having fun writing an IPhone game at the minute! Much more fun than business stuff. If I can write a few and earn a living it might even get me out of the "service" industry for good (I'm effectively a freelancer).
And if you must know - when I want to use a computer for fun and want something that just works - I tend to use Apple, or if not whatever is laying around, haha. I use Linux for server type duties wherever possible.
..."
Addendum: most of my professional work is to develop Windows based software so I live with that environment most of the time. When doing embedded work, I'll use the OS to develop on that has the best supported development environment for that particular chip/hardware/whatever.
The funny thing is, most software people want to use works on all the mainstream OS these days, and that's what it is about at the end of the day - using the software you want to use without the foundations falling over around you. The OS should *support* you doing that and the environment should be sane. I have my (not so humble) opinion about what is technically better, but people will use what they like at the end of the day or more accurately, what they are used to, blissfully unaware of the train-wreck that exists under the hood (honestly, it's better not to know).
There's so many amateurs writing software these days, chances are everything we use is rubbish anyway, so why argue over it.
;-)