Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. My main Mac runs eight operating systems simultaneously. First of all, Macs are UNIXtm at heart, which also run OS X.11.2 and another HD with OS X.10.5 (which I've run virtualized under OS X.11.2), and to service my clients properly, I also run virtual instances of Microsoft Windows XP, 7, 8.1, and 10. I also run two different versions of Linux because I have a couple of clients who have those. I keep handy files with THEOS, Windows 95, MS-DOS 6 and 3.6, 3.0, and even Amiga OS. I can also run all Commodore 64 software.
There is nothing at all crippled about it, r_barton. I can run far more software on my Mac than you can on your Windows PCs. . . and as I said, much of those OSes can run simultaneously with little to no degradation in operation. I tried it a couple times, once out of curiosity and another time to show a skeptic who refused to believe me. Of course, it helps to have a lot of RAM. . . and an efficient underlying operating system, which the Mac has.
Even rocket scientists and engineers prefer Macs for their work:
The design team of the Mars Landing Curiosity Rover with their MacBook Pro computers.
These NASA engineers and scientist at JPL certainly would not be choosing "crippled high priced products that only work on one companies (sic) plantation" for their critical work, now would they?
Macs are frequently the computers of choice for programers because of that capability and efficient OS. It makes it very easy to test software on practically any platform. You will frequently see PC centric magazine praise Macs as the FASTEST and BEST Windows PCs in reviews.
Nor, r_barton, are they "high priced" when compared with other makers' products with similar high end configurations. You will find that Macs are comparable and frequently less expensive than the competition when you compare a Windows computer that is configured to match what you get with a Mac. I've demonstrated that many times on FR, as have other Freepers. Usually the Mac is within 10% plus or minus, of the price of the Windows computer.
I did one just last week with a computer maker another naysayer claimed would be $1000 cheaper than an off the shelf Mac Pro. . . but once you configured his maker's model with the same grade processors, RAM, graphic cards, ports, etc, the difference was less than 7% (under $200) and his build was a noisy behemoth with fewer ports and no included software.
Frankly, everyone who claims this "high price" mantra, is looking at low end junk, not the high-end components that Apple specifies for its products. . . or are you one of those who believes a $300 plastic laptop has the same survivability as a MacBook that can be run over by a pickup truck or can fall a 1000 feet from an airplane and keep on working?
You have no clue what a "one trick pony" is.