I won't get in the Microsoft/Mac argument -- I went to Macs basically because they're more like using a toaster. I don't have to think about what I'm doing (I have little interest in computers per se), and it works because I only use a few programs, like Word and Photoshop and Lightroom. I know from my long experience with Windows, though, that there is a heck of a lot more software out there for Windows -- try to find a really good road-map progam for Mac...
But I'm more interested in Bernard's observation: it's Adobe that really acts like a monopoly, with rapacious pricing and rules. A full Photoshop now costs $700 or so, and several hundred dollars every eighteen months if you want to keep up with the upgrades. And they limit how long you can go without upgrading, before your eligibility to upgrade expires. And what really winds my clock is that they only allow you to run it on two machines at a time, without jumping through your ass to turn off one while you're turning on another, etc. The fact is, many pro photographers and I suspect quite a few serious amateur photographers take two laptops (or more) with them on a shoot, in case one goes down; and they run a Photoshop on a big machine back at the studio. The two iteration limitation sucks; they say it's to keep down piracy, but in fact, they're using their monopoly power to troll for more sales even as it hurts their customer base.
I use Lightroom, and if I had an inclination to say bedtime prayers, I'd get down on my knees every night and pray that Apple keeps upgrading Aperture; I'd like to see Aperture become the most-kick-ass photo program out there, just so Adobe would be forced to keep improving Lightroom. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing Apple buy some fairly-well-developed PS-like program, just to scare the crap out of Adobe, and do something about their ridiculous prices.
Sorry about the spit on your computer screens; I tend to rant about Adobe, even as I buy their products.