Yes, I find this whole Mac vrs PC argument has tons of irony.
For example, what endeared many people to the original Apples (Apple II line that is) was its open architecture, something I can fully appreciate now having tinkered with them. I remember in the early days Apple II owners LOVING their (expensive) machines with mean fanatic fervor and bragging about how upgradable they were and how they could get close to the hardware. The perfect hardware hackers machine.
The irony is, that the IBM PC and AT line (and deritivies) were also open architecture. Very ungradable and lots of third party supply. Yet with the Mac, Apple went in the completely opposite direction. Closed architecture, and very hard to get close to the hardware. Everything the Apple II (and the PC) wasn't. Yet, Apple enthusiasts seemed to be just as religious about the Mac as they were about the Apple II?? Yet the PC/AT was a lot closer to the concept of the Apple 2 than the Mac?
This mystifies me? Either, people were just sold on Apple, come what may (i.e. the machines didn't really matter..it was the fact it was an APPLE that was important) OR it was a totally new breed of fanatic, but opposite to the one before. The breed was not interested at all in what was going on...they just wanted an appliance and had no interest in getting close to the metal so to speak. Usually people don't get so smug and superior about appliances though so I suspect it is the former.
I dunno. I've never been one-eyed about a particular computer brand so it's hard for me to figure out why people are like this?
Tez