> How about because it's far easier to use and less fiddly than Linux?
It really isn't. Unless you cherry pick the wrong hardware, it just works. And keeps working for ages.
> How about because the software selection is vastly superior to both Linux and OS X?
I'll agree the selection is larger. As for its superiority, that is debatable. In fact, I consider OSX's experience less confusing. And the package managers you find on Linux are vastly superior to the Googpe-browse-download-run-next-next-finish experience most Windows users have to endure.
> How about because almost any computer (including Apple's) can run Windows AND all your hardware will work just fine with it, while if you want to run OS X, you'll have to buy an expensive machine from Apple, and if you want to run Linux, you better pray there's decent driver support for your peripherals.
It's hard these days to buy a computer that won't run Linux properly. You really need to plan your mistake. As for Macs being more expen
sive, they are also better built. There is no Mac competing with the US$300 HP notebook, of course, but the US$1000 MacBook has feature parity with US$1000 machines from Dell, Acer and Lenovo. Plus, it's pretty.
It's true that the computer components themselves have good support, but that doesn't yet extend to many printers, smartphones, gps devices or suchlike.
It's been a long time since I last met an unsupported printer. Multifunction devices are a sore spot, but they are the epitome of amateur equipment in any case. Any half-decent printer has very good support from CUPS. And what smartphone are you talking about? I don't have much experience with iPhones, but my iPod works just fine (as much as the lack of iTunes allows) and my Android phones work perfectly. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows Phone has problems, but I woulnd't call Blackberries and Symbian devices smartphones by current standards.
I'll admit that I was mainly reminescing about hardware from the previous decade when writing that. But the general point of "windows officially, linux maybe" remains.
It really isn't. Unless you cherry pick the wrong hardware, it just works. And keeps working for ages.
> How about because the software selection is vastly superior to both Linux and OS X?
I'll agree the selection is larger. As for its superiority, that is debatable. In fact, I consider OSX's experience less confusing. And the package managers you find on Linux are vastly superior to the Googpe-browse-download-run-next-next-finish experience most Windows users have to endure.
> How about because almost any computer (including Apple's) can run Windows AND all your hardware will work just fine with it, while if you want to run OS X, you'll have to buy an expensive machine from Apple, and if you want to run Linux, you better pray there's decent driver support for your peripherals.
It's hard these days to buy a computer that won't run Linux properly. You really need to plan your mistake. As for Macs being more expen
sive, they are also better built. There is no Mac competing with the US$300 HP notebook, of course, but the US$1000 MacBook has feature parity with US$1000 machines from Dell, Acer and Lenovo. Plus, it's pretty.