I use a Mac laptop as my main system. It does everything I need it to do, consistently. It's convenient and easy to carry around and the magsafe powercord has saved many potential trips to the hospital (both people and the Mac). I use my desktop PC for games, because its easier to stay on the cutting edge performance wise. But to use a PC and make it do what you want, you have to have a fundamental understanding of how a PC operates, the interaction between the software and hardware. Often I find myself jumping through hoops to get my PC to do what I want it to, but it does it. But I use my Mac as my main system because it doesn't require thinking. You don't have to know the how and why, just that it does so intuitively. Which is why many Mac users are hardware ignorant. They were already hardware and software ignorant and were tired of dealing with PC's that they couldn't understand, so they weighed the costs of owning a PC (tech support, repairs, maintenance, lost work time, comprehension-based limitations in functionality) and Mac (high initial cost, high cost of occasional repair) and said, "Well, Macs just seem so simple. And they're pretty." A Mac becomes more of a basic, intuitive appliance than how many enthusiasts consider their high-end home-builds. The question becomes: Do you use your computer to do stuff, or do you just do stuff on the computer? Do you drive your car from point A to point B, or do you just go from A to B in your car? When you don't have to think about how to operate something, you can better focus on what you're doing with it. And while many people here may find operating Windows and building and using PCs to be second nature, the vast majority of users find them complex and intimidating. Look at the Rinkworks Computer Stupidities site, and you get a pretty good picture on the lower 50% of the computer-using population. The upper 10% (if that) are the kind who read (or used to read, as the case may be) Tom's, and the remaining 40% are people who are familiar enough with technology to do most of everything they want to do and can take advantage of many higher-end features and conveniences. There really isn't anything a Mac can't technically do; the problem is can it do something particularly well compared to the alternative? Under most circumstances, given programs natively written for Mac compared to those natively written for Windows, the only thing a Mac can't do is play games particularly well. Macs have never in recent memory been particularly strong in the graphics department, despite their primary function at Pixar. But for most everything else, even Unix-style applications (it can operate effectively as a Unix-based system, commands and all), it does it without fuss. Plus, when something does crash, you typically don't end up with a total system lock-up like Windows. But that's the Unix underpinnings. Really, if you think about it, a Mac is just a really expensive, well-designed, well-supported, and user-friendly version of a generic Linux box. (I realize Ubuntu is pretty user-friendly, but you still have some hardware limitations, and the software support is lacking, even compared to Mac)
Plus ctrl-click for right-click. Seriously? Not for the least 3 years. Check the website.
That said, the article was relatively ill-placed on a hardware-oriented enthusiast's site when Mac is all about the software and consumer experience. And relatively poorly written as well, but better than it was last year.