"ultra-portable"?
What are you - a psion shill?
... ah forget it, I'm too busy to attempt a FoTW... ;)
I would suggest that the Mac Air is ultra-portable, but Apple doesn't play in the ultra-cheap market, be it for portables or desktops.
Mac users are generally home users, therefore they don't need compatibility with a zillion and one business apps. iLife + OpenOffice pretty much covers most home requirements and offers much more useful and easy-to-access home-user functionality than a windows pc + ms office, so yes I would expect Apple users to be happier with their systems than their windows counterparts. "It just works" applies to the software, but more importantly, it applies to the computer handling what the users want to do. For all the new features in Vista, "it just works" will never apply because MS haven't gone much beyond the basic OS. Indeed, they may not be allowed to, but they can't because they don't control the hardware.
Then you've got the self-selecting halo effect. Creative media types who buy Macs probably take good photos of their kids, edit them well and so they make good calendars which Apple print and which turns up in the post. We all like to receive packages and they come out well, so bonus satisfaction points for them and Grandma too. All this is received gratefully, with Apple branding.
Relatively cash-rich and placing a great deal of importance on their photos, they know about time-machine so backups are made and disasters are easily overcome too.
By focusing on what is profitable rather than mergers, acquisitions and being the biggest, Apple have successfully differentiated themselves using OSX. Yes Mac's are pretty and pretty expensive, but the real achievement is not fighting MS (as Novell tried to do) and keeping the discipline of maintaining focus on the market which makes you large sums of money. Their whole business model is predicated on being different.
No-one in the Windows world can differentiate their hardware with software. If anyone bundles cheap software on Windows to differentiate their hardware, there are a million other systems out there to which the software can be, er, "ported." By having its own OS which it ties to the hardware, Apple sidesteps this issue. Having moved to an Intel architecture, however, it has become more of a problem, which is why it can't allow Hackintoshes - it would end up in the same place as MS.
I'm eagerly waiting to see KDE 4.2 stabilise further. It is much improved over 4.0 but I'd like to see the gui be as stable as the OS underneath it. It certainly now compares (favourably) with Aqua for prettiness and features. I've long held that KDE has the best infrastructure but Gnome has the applications. Hopefully with 4.2 onwards, with akonadi and so on, the case for having native KDE versions of firefox, openoffice etc will become compelling.