Arguments resorted to by increasingly beleaguered Windows users to support their choice to remain on Microsoft's OS have been panned as "fudge".

Discussing the Mac/Unix alternatives, LinuxInsider's Paul Murphy asserts: "You'll see that the underlying reason in almost every case where the Mac lost out to Wintel doesn't have anything to do with rational arguments based on cost, performance or functionality. Instead, Wintel proponents are shown as consistently fudging such arguments as rationales for decisions already made."

He describes the common Windows user argument that they have never used any other OS as "odd", and asks why those who have used multiple platforms are forced to defend themselves against an argument based on ignorance.

Apple's market share, Murphy explains, does not represent a failure of the products, but a success: "Apple's declining relative market share measured in dollars has been due more to the expense of Wintel product churn than to a fall-off of interest among Mac users."

The commodity-based PC industry model that survives on Microsoft's effective OS hegemony forces Windows users to upgrade their computers more often, which accounts for the way the sales figures look, Murphy implies.

"If PCs remained usable as long as Macs do, industry-wide total revenues (aka customer costs) would be nearly two-thirds lower," he writes.

He also casts a glance at the difficulty of eliciting a desire to embrace change among IT professionals, who profit from failure, he says: "The other argument you see people make all the time is that consultants and IT staff make money on failure, not success, and are therefore motivated to push Wintel," he declares.

Windows users would be a "lot happier and more productive using a Mac", because they can focus on what they are good at, rather than Windows administration.

"Sometimes rationality and goodwill just aren't enough, and you have to walk away because you can't talk to the willfully deaf," he concludes.