> > Buy a IBM.
>
> That isn't very productive. Even with the inexpensive cost of PC hardware
> why should someone have to change platforms simply to do development.

Historical note: it's not so long ago that the only advice available
would have been "pay through the nose for the vendor's proprietary
hardware and software".  In comparison, "buy a PClone" is pretty nearly
painless, and vastly much less expensive.

> While I understand why Microchip has standardized on a single platform
> I fail to understand why someone doesn't realize that there's a niche
> here and attempt to fill it.

Perhaps because they believe the niche is too small to be profitable?
Frankly, I don't know anyone who uses a Mac for software development,
though I know a good number of developers who prefer to use a Mac for
doing documentation, artwork, & all that DTP-ish side of the job.

> I'm a fervent believer that hardware, OS, and applications need not be
> mated at the hip together. One should be able to development on the
> hardware they like, running the OS they like, using the applications they
> like.

It's a lovely sentiment, but it has never been so, and probably never
will be so.  The problem is that most interesting programs have target
system dependencies, and in the general case require significant effort
to port from one traget to another - and someone has to pay for that.