So.....not that any of you might have ever noticed, but I don't usually get into these **** measuring contests.
Is it not apparent that all of the effort people put into bashing what they don't use or have is an effort to feel better or validated about what they do have?
I'm actually pretty qualified to speak on this topic-- I'm a software developer, have been a sysadmin, DBA, etc. I'm currently an Associate CIO.
Apple products are expensive. However, the current generation of Mac OS, OSX, is built on the BSD kernel and is incredibly stable. UNIX systems have many tools built into them that Windows/DOS based systems don't natively have. Thus, they actually make great development platforms for PHP, Ruby, Java, Groovy, Python and others. In addition, one thing that Apple does that the others don't is innovate. Similarly to what I mention in the next paragraph, they grow via acquisition too. But, they on occasion do introduce original ideas.
For traditional business (meaning, word-processing, spreadsheets, managing email and calendars, etc.) systems, the MS-based solution is the clear winner. The greatest reason however is because of software. MS-Office is by far the most ubiquitous solution, and it is for most purposes a great product. Windows is a fine product now, but it wasn't always that way. Neither was MacOS. The only issue with MS is that they really only try to copy the innovations of others and mass-produce it. They grow largely through acquisition and don't typically release products into the marketplace that are original. (Challenge: try to name a MS product that is truly original to them. It's harder than you think.)
Last, when it's your money on the line, Linux and UNIX systems are more secure, generally faster and have a much more broad foundation of stability and cluster-ability for production internet-based applications. MS indeed has a presence, but it's not because their systems are great. It's because the labor needed to run them is much less expensive. They have visual tools that are easier for many folks to adopt. For most of the systems that we run in production we don't even bother to install a GUI-- it's just unnecessary bloat.
So, they all have their purpose and their niches. There isn't a better. One doesn't suck or any of that BS. They're all tools that have a purpose where they fit best. What one does exceptionally well, the other doesn't and vice-versa.
In closing, why can't people get over the "mine is better than yours" BS? Yours and hers/his are just different.