The greatest problem that I have noticed is one of operating system knowledge, for example, I would like to believe that I know Mac OSX fairly well, and I hardly know the Windows opertaing system. I think there is a certain "one upmanship" going on. For example, I go to LAN parties, and the Mac vs. Windows debate breaks out (with the occasional Linux involved) and being that I am the only Mac user at the LAN parties, my ability to effectively defend Mac is seriously diminished, since I have no supporters. Usually what happens is where I say where Mac is better, then one of the 6 others say something in response. Like, "well Mac doesn't haven't to worry about viruses (to the extent of needing x amount of virus scanners)" and then the Windows users say something like "well that is because Mac isn't popular (which does hold truth) and so they aren't targeted, plus, Mac does so poorly with compability, gaming, etc." The down-whirl spiral of arguments then insues, and from there we end with some agreement almost like those of religious debates "you like what you like, and I like what I like."
I think the solution, although not very easily obtained, is one where an individual looks at all the pros and cons of each operating system AND what they want to do with the computer, and also their knowledge of computers, and then make a decision based on that. Furthermore, it would be counter-productive to argue when one side (or in my case) both sides have very little knowledge of the opposing operating system, so one should research, or better yet, run the opposite opertaing system for a certain period of time, then makes arguments and assumptions about said operating system.