Windows is far superior to Mac OS X. So is Linux.
Having been a user of all three, and a developer on all three, systems for many years, I actually know what I'm talking about.
I would readily recommend Windows workstations and, for some tasks, servers. I would readily recommend Linux for servers. I have written software for both. I would not recommend Macs for anything, as the hardware is unimpressive and not different from anything any other PC manufacturer makes, and the software is stifling and foam-padded so as not to be "unfriendly". Personally, I find that exact quality to be rather unfriendly in and of itself.
So if you need a Fisher-Price computer, and you feel you need to pay double the market rate for it, by all means, buy an Apple. And don't be too sad when your "new" computer is poorly supported, gets cut off from necessary updates, and bogs down under the "burden" of minor software updates over the course of the next two years. Everyone who has ever bought a Mac certainly understands your pain.
I used to be a fanboi like you, and if you don't believe me, check my username.
Hopefully in a journal that is reviewed by skeptics rather than Ideologues.
All scientific journals are reviewed by skeptics.
That's because all scientists are skeptics.
Wacky global warming deniers are not skeptics, they are credulous fools.
Skeptics look at the evidence before making their minds up, and change their minds if new evidence comes to light.
Deniers deny. Disprove one nutty theory and the continue denying with another, often incompatible nutty theory. This sometimes goes around in circles 'till they come back to the first, already disproven, theory.
Regarding collusion in the peer review process:
One of the arguments of "deniers" is that the supposed agreement of all climate scientists is that their funding requires certain conclusions to be drawn, and thus climate scientists are, generally, in lockstep to secure continued funding of their studies. Scare people and get funding. Tell people that climate change isn't the end of the world and start putting out resumes.
Your response is, "Well, there is a peer review process and look, they are 99% in agreement."
They already know 99% of climate scientists are saying the same thing, and keep setting goal posts for the "point of no return," and watching nothing happen. Al Gore certainly didn't help, didn't he say 2009 was the point of no return? Didn't he say hurricanes will be more frequent? Does the sky continue to not fall?
Do you see why that isn't going to sway the denier? Deniers are indeed skeptics, they are just skeptical of the integrity of the people doing the science. That's what y'all have to fix. Continuing to call them ignorant and stupid isn't getting you anywhere.
How many QA engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 3: 1 to screw it in and 2 to say "I told you so" when it doesn't work.