My point about games is that you have to use only a few that are native or attempt workarounds. Crysis? Just Cause 2? There are too many other games that don't. For the full set of everything you need to run windows. Though I'm sure you could run, say, dosbox stuff just as well in any OS. Notice how besides starcraft (which is also the people who did WoW) all of those games are valve games through steam that use the source engine. I'm glad steam/valve is doing that, especially because they had originally announced linux support (to come months after the mac release, which didn't happen). But that's just one developer who just converted their engine to run on a different OS and then ported all the games.
There are also plenty of things that can be read about security, the by obscurity does help. Technically windows has more protections built in that macs do, the giant target just makes sure the flaws that are there are used (RAM randomizations, etc). It's possible that macs have better stuff than linux does, but nothing I've read supports that, and at the same time there's alot more an enduser can do to lock down a whole lot of stuff in linux. So I'm not going to go any more into security, because I am far from an expert, but there is plenty of stuff that can be read online about it.
Yes I know you can hackintosh AMD systems. I'm just pretty sure doing it to mine isn't possible (AM2+ socket mobo, DDR2 RAM and a AM3 socket CPU, etc) or at least far too many hoops to jump through. Plenty of people have also done it to netbooks, and apparently enjoy that quite alot.
I never said anything against/targeting OS X specifically or why noone should use it, and that's the entirety of what a user would interact with. Games and such only matter to gamers, if you're getting a mac you either don't care about those or you have a different way to play them, such as a different computer. I can see why any OS could have an appeal to some people, and I see nothing wrong with that, nor did I say so. I specifically said things to not lead anyone into thinking I was a MS or anything else fanboy.
Actually as far as OS use goes, I thought I'd be handcuffed when I tried to use linux (and yes, it was Ubuntu, I just went for highest in popularity on distrowatch) for the first time a couple of years ago. Unless my intent is to play games (or apparently try to get videos looking fluid, but that's what the HTPC is for. But that's just my bad luck so far. Waiting for 11.04 for another go.) that very second I never really was. Everything else had either a replacement or I could use the same thing (I just installed MS office under wine, I had problems getting open office to open anything correctly) like firefox. It was still just as easy to connect to my samba running server and do anything else I would. In fact I think computer illiterate people are better served using linux (or mac os x, but that's alot more expensive to get running especially because I haven't actually hackintoshed yet. When you can put linux on anything at all, especially the when-vista-just-came-out computers and have a better user experience than vista on them generally.) with its fully automatic updates of anything and a few other things. I've actually done that to some people who managed to royally mess up windows in a few months, and now still haven't bugged me about linux years later. In fact a few are mad that they can't run netflix streaming on it, and think that netflix should make it compatible on their computer.
I do recognize that the monitors that are generally used are superior on macs. They use the most expensive type with better color accuracy. For people who are graphic designers and whatnot, that is clearly important. You still don't need to buy a mac for that, you even buy such a monitor directly from apple to use with your PC. Yes, that will raise the price of the PC, but I would hope that when the time comes to upgrade (or perhaps the monitor is the upgrade) that you would just continue to use it with new parts/computer. You don't need a new mac with a new monitor. (I personally dislike the current general trend of not anti-reflective, aka shiny/glare inducing, screens. Just because they show off good in a showroom doesn't make them less annoying to use.)
I can see battery life mattering to some people, the same people who would buy netbooks (possibly hackintoshed?) as well. I never cared about that in particular because generally speaking our battery tech is still terrible compared with what we try to make them do/perform. If you're really sitting someplace for 8-9 hours on the battery, in my opinion you should just plug in at that point, and if you're moving from place to place throughout a day you could just swap in a fresh one for any random laptop. I almost always plug in, but that's just me.
For the record, I find most $400-500 retail PC's also stupid albeit in a slightly less hate filled way. They all generally have terrible power supplies (one of the biggest reasons PCs can be thought of as flaky or unreliable). The kind that can potentially burst into flames, zap your components, or at least turn into a smoke machine (or monster? you decide). Then there's dell with their proprietary powersupplies that can have the same physical pinout as normal ones, but if you get either side standard you're going to destroy all of it. Dell has all sorts of annoying things they do like that. They also made alienware pointless. Also any retail desktop also has questionable quality motherboards and a few other things. Frankly I wouldn't and don't run a single desktop PC that wasn't put together by me. Neither do any of my friends. Once I did it for one, who was amazed at its quality/ability/stability/etc everyone wanted one of mine. Even family members of theirs.
Sorry for the wall of text.
