It's a bit like the story in Animal Farm after Napoleon has taken over... you start to distort history so that the masses never quite remember what the actual events really were. In this case, I remember the early days of Macintosh when the Gates brigade poo pooed the windows interface. After each and every improvement to the Mac OS there has come one from the Gates stable, and quite and improvement it has been. What the flock tend to do though, is forget how crappy their OS was before the latest release and concentrate on how good the new one is when compared to the Mac.
Water off a ducks back though. Us Mac users know how good the system is and are quite happy with it. It obviously irritates some PC users that the probable ratio of satisfied users to confused/unhappy ones for the Mac far outshines the figures for Bill Gates brainwashed flock.
Don't even get into the argument when it comes to 'power users'. As was pointed out in the article, the worst bit of software for the Mac turned out to be none other than Bill Gates own software. Hmm... didn't seem to register with the reviewer that there were some other suites of software that were infinitesimally better than anything that could ever come out of the M$ stable.
For me the moral of the story was that the Mac OS was a bit better than the Windoze version and everything was quite good except for the M$ products that were available for it. In other words, if its Microsoft then it sucks.
I shall now sit back and wait for the sheep to start bleating the equivalent of "two feet bad, four feet good" which would probably sound something like "Mac bad, PC good".
