contoursvt, you've revived a very old thread in order to continue its OS war bashing theme. I'm not sure whether this is really a healthy path. We all know that these things can heat up pretty quickly. You're content with your PCs that you put together yourself. You also don't find the fact that you have to use antivirus-software and anti-spyware a problem. Your Windows 2000 Server has a good uptime. Well: Be glad is all I can say. But you're not the average Windows user fed up with all the problems they encounter. I'm pretty sure there are _ways_ to make Windows work as intended, mainly because there _is_ an intended way. I remember being quite content with Win2K myself. But why _was_ it more stable at the beginning? Because Microsoft didn't let it run old problematic drivers and software in the first place. With XP, MS brought some compatibility back, and sure as hell many of the problems came back as well (plus a couple of new ones). I'm sure there are a lot of valid reasons for why Windows isn't that bad at all - even for less tech-avid users than yourself. But this thread's about what's better about Macs. And your personal experience, imho, doesn't defy the points set up by ElDiabloConCaca in June of 2006:
"Better user interface" - I guess there _can_ be a debate about that one. Maybe it's down to opinion. So let's forget about this one, although I *personally* strongly disagree with anyone saying Windows XP or Vista having a better user interface. You mention "no full screen button" for Mac OS X, neglecting the fact that making any app fullscreen kinda kills drag and drop or at least makes it a *lot* harder.
"Ease of use" - Well, that goes with above point, I'd say, so I wouldn't count it as a separate point.
"Don't crash as much" - I'd write "doesn't" instead of "don't", but in my years of experience with unexperienced users of both Macs and Windows PCs, I'd say statistics are with me.
"Spyware/Viruses are virtually non-existant" - You yourself give that point a little validity and I agree with you there. I add some emphasis: It really _is_ a problem for many non-experienced users.
"High quality of craftsmanship" - Skip that one. If that was the _one_ point for decision, I'd be using an IBM Thinkpad by now. Well, a Lenovo Thinkpad, maybe.
"They're aesthetically pleasing" - It _is_ a reason, although maybe not the most important one.
"They last longer" - I think your 8-year-old PC is really a personal experience, and you have given it a _lot_ of not exactly inexpensive hardware upgrades in order to make it still a decent PC. And yet it's not exactly a good candidate for Vista compared to a cheap new PC. But I personally don't really enjoy that old G3 in my signature much with Tiger. It'd need updates as well.
"They can run Windows now, negating your entire argument about quantity of software available" - Heck, that _is_ true, you know. But I'm glad my copy of Windows XP that I can run in Parallels Desktop stays closed for all but the occasional time when I have to test websites against IE. I often decide to let users do that nowadays, though. It's just too much hassle. Start up Windows, hope that the virus defs are not tooooooooo old by now, let Windows do all its updates and let the antivirus software do all _its_ updates, then reboot and finally load _one_ page in IE. Err...