If people get paid to write stuff like this, I really am in the wrong field. A CNet writer writes a ~2 page article about how it's much harder to switch to MacOS X from Windows, and 90% of his complaints revolve around the fact that there are a lot of differences between the apps written for the respective platforms. A perfect example of what I'm talking about:

On the other hand, Office 2008 for the Mac bears little resemblance to Office 2007 for Windows. I've just gotten used to the new Windows version of Word and Excel. Now I have to learn a new suite for the Mac?

Imagine that. Microsoft actually adapted the interface of Office 2008 to be mostly compliant to Apple's user interface guidelines. What's ironic about this complaint is that MacOffice 2008 is pretty similar to Microsoft Office 2003 and earlier in its interface.

One thing I've learned along the way, so far, is that there is little meritocracy involved in people getting published like this. I've written submissions that were very well-received by an editor, but then turned down because it came a little too late, only to find later that they published a few more articles on a similar subject from more prominent writers.

On the other hand, software engineering tends to pay a lot better than writing >:)