Fortunately, on Windows or Linux, I can go out and get every single one of those types of applications free of charge from any creator/vendor I choose.  I don't have to get the blessing of Steve Jobs before I run something on my PC, and I certainly am not restricted to a small list of things that have been deemed acceptable by him.  I can go to Download.com, find the best rated choice for my specific need, and I'm off to the races.  BTW, OpenOffice is a perfectly acceptable alternative to MS office, and it's 100% free.

Sorry, have to add this:  Windows gets ripped on CONSTANTLY for all the preinstalled stuff.  In fact, they're talking about taking it all out for Windows 7 and just having you download the things you specifically need.  This is actually a move I do NOT support, but most MS critics do.

The only thing limiting a program from running on Mac is the programming.  All they have to do is release a Mac version of it. The same applies for Windows and linux, tho I know of a program that lets you run windows coded programs on linux.

Back on the windows mobile topic. Not a big fan off it since the current builds are filled with errors. Android is the most bugfree right now, but that's about it. I personally only have a basic mobile and that's it.

As far as Windows goes. Most people use it because it came with their computer. They are also unlikely to change to another operating system and are not
able to judge the difference between good or right. I suggest downloading Linux for example and placing it on your pc as a dualboot. It will give you a screen when you boot your pc asking you if you want to load Windows or Linux. Try it yourself m8. I use Mandriva linux for just about anything, XP just for gaming. You can get it here: http://www.mandriva.com/ and it's free.

If people want to try Linux they should get Ubuntu and use the install inside windows option. This saves any formatting and drive prep.

vista was a failure, but xp is good so i wont say that Windows in general is a failure.

I don't hate Windows. I just don't use it anymore. The last version I have used was 2000, and then when my desktop was stolen, I switched to a Mac laptop, mainly because I had friends who recommended it. Against that background, and without any experience whatsoever of Vista, I can say that the consistency of the user experience in OS X is what separates it from Windows. And MS is to blame for that, unfortunately: while Windows is, in a sense, more "open", Microsoft isn't. For example, if you want to develop an application using the ribbon UI from the new Office, well, tough luck. You have to buy a license from MS for that. No wonder you see all kinds of user interfaces in Windows apps. Apple, on the other hand, is very straightforward in their human interface guidelines, although I only have experience from iPhone development. Even though iPhone is kept under tight wraps by Apple, you still get all the same interface elements and ready-made classes that Apple themselves use, so you can easily make apps that are consistent with the rest of the system. In the end, I would argue that Apple doesn't concentrate in developing features, they develop the user experience, whereas MS and the FOSS community, to an extent, develop features.

Do people at least get warned for stating lies?

Anyone can create any application for Mac OS X. There's truckloads of them, both commercial and open source or freeware. I'm using QuickSilver, Adium, Amsn, OpenOffice, Handbrake, ffmpegx, jaikoz, VLC, etc... all excellent freeware software that was made on this open platform called Mac OS X.

I've been using windows back since the days you booted into DOS and had to execute windows for the GUI to pop up and I can tell you macs are better as far as stability goes. Which is no surprise since Mac OS X is nothing but a UNIX-like OS, much like Linux is.

It appears that the only reality distortion field is the one you create yourself to protect you from the harsh reality: windows blows and you shouldn't be using it unless there are critical apps you need not available on alternative, more robust, operating systems like Linux or Mac OS X.

That goes for iPods also.

Some people, but it's a neccesity

I dual-boot Windows and Ubuntu and they both have good points.

Ubuntu - More Stable, Faster, Free

Windows - Better software support, Better Driver support, Easier to use at times.

For me Linux is the better choice, but unless you are willing to hack a command line for silly things like monitor support (like i had to do), or use dial up it's probably not for you.

Attention xbox360 fans! The 360 runs AIX

How many operating systems are most of the people here even aware of other than windows? OS X, Linux, and maybe BSD. And yet people feel they have enough information to make such strong statements.

I would wager that if you took a survey of OS researchers very few of them would suggest vista as "the best" (whatever that means). I would even go so far as to suggest that this would apply to people at MS research (although your survey would have to be by secret ballot). Windows will always be limited by the need to remain backwards compatible and the need to support weird hardware combinations (although linux has it worse). And that's if Microsoft one day stopped being a mediocre company.

Here are some examples which eschew the identity politics that inevitably cloud any discussion when apple is mentioned.

Without rampant piracy (tacitly supported by MS) and their horizontal monopoly they wouldn't have beaten Dr. DOS. And without people just being comfortable with it and the legacy apps they never would have defeated the technically superior OS/2 or BeOS.