Personally speaking i've used both over the course of many years.
As E.P posted, Win 3.11 was circa '92, back then if you were into making music, DTP, or graphic design; you were left with little choice. Or you could botch something together with an Amiga >.<
I can see both sides of the 'argument' however it's really misplaced loyalty for the main part.
Both parties have brought much to the table.
I guess Apple's view is they innovate new technology, and M$ simply copy it.
After all, Apple had the GUI way back in '84, it took M$ 8 years to 'catch-up', and it was a poor comparison, and blatently a hijacked idea from what they'd seen Apple do.
While i'm not knocking command line interfaces - they still hold a valid place to this day in many many guises -The GUI held the key to getting the PC onto every workplace desktop and into the homes of millions.
Conversely, Apple's decision to not franchise their technology initially gave M$ the public exposure necessary to facilitate global domination of the PC market.
Apple's products are traditionally expensive, and required practically bespoke components. They utilised a SCSI bus over Parallel. They had a 32 bit system years before M$.
Apple wanting control over all hardware and software aspects of their machines led to a poorly supported userbase. Both in hardware and 3rd party software.
The lack of support, and upgradability really was a non-starter
They backtracked later with the introduction of PowerPC macs etc but it was too little too late.
Apple really do need to emphasise what makes a Mac the preferred choice over a PC nowadays, and after years of competition they still haven't grasped this.
They were always geared towards giving an intuitive UI, and performance for their users. The Mac was more a tool to work with, not work on.
The lack of software support for the Apple OS is largely due to a superiority complex and an air of enigmaticism.
Being mysterious about your products and hoping they'll spread by personal recommendation is a huge gamble.
You may have created a computer that's better than the next guy's, but you have to tell people why.
It seems pretty simple, if you want PC users to convert, then inform them. Get software devs onboard to deliver they apps they want/know.
Never insult them, as that will only drive them further away. Especially if the other guy has a product everyone is familiar with.
Ironically, Apple cut their own throat somewhat with the i-Mac release.
This put a spotlight on one of the major differences between the two camps.
Sure, people were bored with beige PC's (geared to fit in with late 70's decoration) and Apple mass marketed the i-Mac...an 'Apple Lisa with attitude' This fed a market that was screaming for an individual PC.
Something that didn't sit like a cumbersome lump of beige in a modern home environment.
This need to move away from the beige box spread beyond the small modding community and into mainstream PC userbases everywhere.
Now we see all manner of overclocked, water-cooled behemoths around with all the lights you'd find at a 70's disco, nevermind the 70's living room decorations.
In essence, this meant; if you wanted true if you want individuality, then go for a PC-
Customise the box, the components, and hell, even skin the UI..the list goes on.
Just for the record, this is posted from a machine running XP.
I'm not even going to touch on the whole Linux issue.
I have no allegience either way, both Apple OS and Windows based machines have merits and flaws.
It's simply down to personal choice.
Sadly Apple seem to be concentrating their influence with regard to people's choice in the worse possible way with these ads.
Now group-hug all, let's move on
