I hear about OS X users choosing Apple because it's got "predictable" hardware, but I have to work really hard to get it working on any hardware that isn't Apple hardware, where as with Linux I can just buy an Ubuntu Certified laptop and it works out of the box, plus I can install it on pretty much anything else I want.
I recently heard about OS Xs multimonitor support and I also found a lot of articles online saying that non-apple monitors can be a pain to get working and that apple typically shuns multimonitor set ups in favor of one big monitor. I also found that the only a few models support 4k resolution (4 models). Is this true? I have a friend who spent $250 on a new monitor with his macbook and only half the screen would display on it, never run into this on Linux unless I was using non-ubuntu certified hardware. He also said everytime he upgrades multimonitor support breaks in OS X, and I found this article that confirms that:
I also found this user who claims that his screen just went blank when unplugging an external monitor using OS X and he had to do a lot of finagling to get it back up:
Is this a common occurrence with macbooks because I was told it literally never happens, but after searching google it looks like it happens all the time.
So is OS X only good if you buy it with Apple hardware, because if so, what's the point when you can buy Laptops made to run Linux?
I'm trying to figure out why so many people say Apple has better hardware/multimonitor support than Linux. As far as hardware support goes it seems OS X is complete crap. OS X is only made to run across a handful of devices and only 4 of those devices even support 4k monitors.
So is there a reason to use OS X if you don't need the creative suite?