I'd like to suggest that increasing market share is an important goal for the future quality of the user experience, and it goes beyond what may affect the Mac user of today.
It is IMHO the small market share that discourages the development of certain software to be ran natively on the Mac (and Linux) and helps perpetuate the dominance of MS Windows, with implications in other fields: have you noticed that job ads ask for people who know how to use MS Word, instead of asking for people who are proficient with word processing software?
Moreover, the lack of market share and the "alternative" status of the platform leads to bad decisions as clueless users will follow "the easy way" and make more decisions that favor proprietary solutions. just check out how many people post on this forum about using NTFS on drives meant to be shared between different types of computers.
Great post.
As part of a Computer Fundamentals course I teach at a two-year college, I created a discussion with a link to Apple's "Hello, I'm a Mac" commercials and asked if any felt that there is a superior platform among the two. Although several students had no experience with the Mac platform at all, several others were convinced that Macs are unduly expensive or that they are actually
harder to use than Windows PCs. Dominance leads to familiarity, so anything that doesn't follow the same procedures as the dominant form seems difficult even if might have been more intuitive to them had the point of exposure been the same for both forms.
Many colleges and universities are locked into deals with certain vendors (mostly Dell) that would prevent the use of anything but Microsoft Windows and Office as the tools used to teach computer fundamentals. To some extent that makes sense -- since the majority of computers in the field will have those interfaces, it pays to know them right off the bat and not have to adapt immediately. However, we're already seeing the changing nature of interfaces in the transition from Office 2003 / 2004 to 2007 / 2008, so the more conceptual and broad-based computer education is, the better.
I was told that my predecessors had given some of the typical standardized tests that asked which menu or toolbar a certain item could be found on -- what difference will that make when the next version moves everything around or even eliminates some of the points of entry (such as menus)? What's important here is for the students to have a level of comprehension such that they feel confident in any operating system, word processor, web browser, etc., not that they know the placement of tools in one particular version. To that end, my tests have been along the lines of "create a document that has these features", or "modify this document to give it the following attributes".
I'd love to have a lab full of Macs in which to teach and to expose my students to computing, but I realize that it's not always in the financial interests of the school, so my goal is to make sure that they know that what they're using on campus isn't the only platform available. Hopefully they'll be afforded the opportunity to try various platforms and make up their own minds.