I find this disingenuous. I am an IBMer using an IBM provided Macbook, and the main reason the Mac is easier to use than IBM's PC (Lenovo, Toshiba) internal offerings is because IBM has made a genuine attempt at making it a good user experience, I assume 'because it's a Mac', and because of the ongoing 'IBM+Apple' alliance.<p>They've created a 'Mac@IBM app store' to install common programs like Notes, Flash Player, Java - this effort didn't exist for Windows (any IBMers reading this - ISSI is completely different).<p>Getting a license for something such as Microsoft Office is as simple as opening this Mac@IBM App Store and clicking download. On Windows you have to use a Lotus Notes form to request licenses, justify your business usage, wait for approval, then take your machine to the help desk.<p>They use the system internal networking configuration to handle networking. The Windows images use convoluted third party programs with non-intuitive interfaces.<p>They offer a simple, public facing URL (which I won't add here) which downloads a small .dmg which when run, downloads and unpacks everything you need to take a Mac fresh from Apple into a productive IBM machine, including VPN. The only way to reimage your IBM provided PC is to take it to the help desk.<p>Even the internal online help for OS X vs Windows is better - the OS X help site is neat, well laid out, and holds your hand through configuring everything. The Windows site is a mash of poorly tagged wiki pages and broken links.<p>There are definite issues. Sametime and Notes have the same problems they do on Windows. Sametime crashes silently. Notes - I still don't actually know how to close it without using Force Quit or the command line if I'm already there. The Mac@IBM store doesn't actually seem to be able to provide updates to software that it's installed - just throws an error. We are responsible for the security of our laptops at office locations and are provided Kensington locks for this, but Macbooks don't have a Kensington lock slot.<p>I could go on but I'm not trying to disparage IBM here, just point out the logic behind some of the commentary in the article.