You got it.
Hehehe... I -am- a very angry person. Just kidding. It's not as if I'm just about to graduate from college, run an oil corporation, become president of the U.S., and declare war on everybody, right? Well, not yet anyway. Ah, jeez, looks like Bush beat me to the punch. Oh well.
Seriously, chill people. I have a right to my opinion, and, I do believe the purpose of forums is to have partially civilized conversations, right?
So, on to the re
als! Get it? ... It's sad, isn't? Anyhow:
TeknamatikX9Z11: You are correct, sir. Both have advantages and disadvantages, BUT, the issue at hand is that to me, Macs have way too few advantages to compensate for some pretty hefty disadvantages. As far as "ease-of-use" goes, I'm afraid they have lost this high-ground with Windows XP. Let me go ahead and go out on a limb here and proclaim the following axiom: "If you can not operate Windows XP you are -retarded-, that's right." It's true. And I don't think Macs should be regarded as somehow friendlier and more accessible. They are not any longer. I think that in fact, that used to be the old way of thinking. So with that gone, I don't really see Macs offering much else. In addition, I have actually seen the commercial with "Ellen" in it. You are right, it's hilarious. Looks like she's been doing a bit too much of the ol' hashish, doesn't it? Now, what kind of image does that attribute to other Mac users, huh? Hehehe.
gsferrari: I agree that there are several market segments for Laptops. However, as I just stated, the only -other- possible thing going for -some- Macs is their looks. Personally, I don't like too many of them. The new iMac looks like an ugly lamp. The laptops do look somewhat better, but that's it. When you say "people who just appreciate design" I would say what you really mean is "pompous snobs that don't mind blowing a large chunk of cash totally uselessly." I also take it by "Aesthetic"-type you mean mostly artists. Well, this is a very nice myth that is founded on some very solid BS. The notion that somehow Macs are more artist-friendly is preposterous. What does that even mean? Somehow artists are more demanding? They use computers differently? No, they don't. They are regular people that perhaps need some more multimedia functions, which -were- lacking in previous Windows iterations. I don't think that is any longer the case. Now, what about performance: many people say that a top-of-the-line G4 Mac can out-perform a PC with the latest PC in things like Photoshop. Well, of course! Because the Mac would end up costing a small fortune, whereas the PC is cheap as dirt. An "equivalently-priced" PC, however, in the form of, for example, a Dual-Xeon machine with Gigs of RAM, would ultimately CREAM the Mac in -any- possible test, including all the Photoshop to you heart's content.
Icefluxx: As I mentioned, the machines all have Red Hat Linux (the front-runner "distro" in case you didn't know), with a KDE interface. It wouldn't really matter anyway, now would it? If only one "distro" worked really well, then it wouldn't really be "Linux" that is a great OS, it would be ONLY that "distro." Fair enough, not -all- have to be good, but, when the principal Linux distribution crashes my machine, with a simple text file, multiple times, and freezes solid, it doesn't really make a good impression, now does it? Let me reiterate that with my fairly extensive and exhaustive use of Windows XP, it has -NEVER- crashed frozen. Every time something goes awry, the system can fully recover. Also, I'm not a Linux person, but as far as I know a bunch of those other "distros" you mentioned are -not- Linux. OSX is based in BSD-UNIX, as are Open-, Net- and Free-BSD. Sun OS -"Solaris," on the other hand, is based on System V UNIX.
beebster: Alright, lemme calm down a bit. There... I'm calm. Hehehe.