I don't know what you're smoking, but I want some. A quick check between the Apple store and Lenovo's site will show you that the lowest model Mac Pro is $500 more than a Thinkstation E31 with all the same hardware, except 12GB of RAM in the Thinkstation as opposed to the 6GB the Mac comes with. I've done this over and over, every time a Mac fan tries to make the point that you are buying high end hardware not commodity hardware. I always find Lenovo has a better price, and you don't get much higher end, or reputable, than Lenovo.

The issue as I see it is MS is pushing for UEFI on ARM devices. This could be beneficial for developers, since there is no firmware standard on ARM devices currently. (at least from what I've read, I could be wrong). With a standardized firmware developers have an easier time of putting other kernels on the device, MS included, since you now have a standard api (could be the wrong term, but you get my point) rather than having to write for every single hardware platform. This would be beneficial to MS, but also scares them, especially since they are moving to a "walled garden" approach more like Apple with their Metro app store. So they will be getting more revenue if you can't change the OS on the device. Even taking into account your argument that they could make an Android device n the same hardware, it doesn't justify the efforts. Once you purchase the device there shouldn't be artificial restrictions placed on it. It may be purchased knowing it's a Windows device, but later decided that the user doesn't like Windows, and wishes to change it to something else. In my opinion there is no excuse for these added measures to restrict that. It's purely an attempt to artificially bolster future revenue streams.

Do you mean the same Ubuntu that's been crashing on distrowatch ever since Unity became the default interface, and check Mint's site again they use Gnome Shell, though highly customized, it's still Shell.

I continually see trolls posting how Gnome Shell (Gnome 3 is the framework Gnome Shell is the ui) is an aborted interface meant for touchscreens. I challenge you all to prove it. Is everyone just afraid of the changed desktop metaphor? Do you really want to stick with the antiquated MS designed paradigm? I've found it to be incredibly usable. Having used it as my main DE since it was in early beta I've watched them polish and improve many areas. The devs have responded quickly to many of the issues raised. If there are real problems you have why don't you say what they are so they can be addressed, rather than just saying "It sucks, I hate it." If that's too much to ask keep your useless opinions to yourself, and quit trying to spread FUD about what some of us see as the first truly innovative DE change in years. I do see it as an attempt to merge the desktop an touchscreen interfaces, but not at the cost of usability of it on the desktop. Unlike some *coughMetrocough*