Alright, I think I can see where you're coming from.

To answer your original question with just one of the possible reasons that people might run Windows - developers specifically in this example - it's because they are developing programs that will integrate tightly into the Microsoft/Windows software ecosystem. Why? Because millions upon millions of business and consumers run Windows. Why? Because it does what they need it to.

Now, I will address the points you made in your answer.

> ... incredibly well-executed integration of hardware and software.

What specifically? In general, that's highly debatable. It's not incredible because I have plenty of other hardware that is tightly integrated to it's operating system. For instance: My Android tablet or phone, Samsung Smart TV, Surface Pro, Google Glass and even my car (Tesla Model S).

Honestly, you'll have to be more specific about what in fact is so well-executed...

Here's my opinion: It's not well-executed, at least not anymore so than at least half a dozen other PC products that I can think of. I have a Macbook Pro and I can't even make the external monitor turn off without having to physically turn it off. Windows has had the ability to turn off the external monitor since 1998 - by switching from a multi-monitor profile to a single one.

Furthermore, what they do offer is extremely limited; bare-bones. For instance, you'll never have an integrated fingerprint scanner in your laptop. You'll never have convenient, clearly-labeled physical media-player buttons (play, stop, ff, rewind, volume). You'll never have a professional Wacom digitizer pen that draws right onto the screen like my Surface Pro. You'll never have the Thinkpad/Lenovo mouse-dot-thing that many people love. Why? Because Apple would rather convince their customers that "less is more" by all means, in pursuit of higher profit-margins on their hardware.

In general, can you think of a reason that people might view "tightly integrated" as a negative though? Just why is it that every financial institution on the planet is running Microsoft software (at the very least) and not Apple?

> ... the huge benefits of open source software.

This is humorous. Apple is the purveyor of one of the most closed-source computing hardware and software ecosystems in the world. Their OS is so closed, that if you wanted to make a replacement for the Dock that doesn't have a particularly nasty bug, you wouldn't be able to. I know this because I did research on that very topic and I found that non-Apple software cannot access the API that the Dock uses to change NSScreen.visibleFrame. Turns out there are a lot of APIs like that in the Apple universe.

At least Microsoft has (historically) left such APIs open. Now thanks to Apple being so successful at fleecing people with their walled-garden salad - Microsoft is following suit in their Mobile/Consumer products.

> Unfortunately, PC hardware has spent the last few years playing catch-up with Apple hardware...

You mean like how Mac Pro users waited 4-5 years for an update? Oh, did you want to limit this to just laptops? What comparisons are we making here? Give me a Macbook model and I'll compare it to something else that was available at the time. There's really no need to wonder about this, the facts are available on this point if we can be specific.

> Apple's only winning the handset war with the closed-source model right now because of their hardware advantage. Microsoft doesn't have that angle.

In what way? Market-share? Profit-margins? Global/National? I'm pretty sure Android is winning in market-share. http://pocketnow.com/2013/06/04/smartphone-os-marketshare-ap...

I'm gonna need you to go ahead and give me some more specifics. A for effort though.