To ALL though, and since then, I've learnt that in the 'Mac' system, their 'emphasis' seems to be on simplicity & user-friendliness, without either
the 'need' or desire (Apple don't WANT you to know too much!). You have a 'Document' you've written/created, what is the File-Name Extension??
(Don't worry about it... and look for it in 'Documents'!!). I hate that forced control, but I understand the apparent 'simplicity' for general Home users.
Back before macOS was based on Unix (that is before OS X 10.0, which according to Wikipedia was 20 years ago, March 2001!), Mac OS did not use file extensions in the manner of DOS and whatever to indicate file types. Remember, back in the DOS days, the eight dot three file name was standard because of filesystem limits, and the file extension was more traditional indicator of file type, and DOS actually didn't care (with the exception of .exe and .com for executable files and .bat for batch files). You could give any file any three-letter (or 2, or 1) extension you wanted and the application didn't care. That's all because the file system pre-dated the notion of a graphical user interface, and specifically where you could click on a file icon and that would launch the application meant to edit it.
Mac OS, being a GUI from the start, used content types and magic "content creator" codes to inform the OS what application created a file and could be used to edit it. However, with macOS now being Unix-based, file extensions are actually used, and like modern Unix and Windows, the file extension is not limited to just three characters. Now, by default the file extension is hidden (in the Finder) for most things, as the type of file is obvious from its icon. Display of file extensions is easily enabled, of course. (There is a minor annoyance: being Unix, many applications use "dot files," like .cproject in Eclipse, and by default macOS does not display those files in the Finder. It's exactly like if you did the ls command without the -a argument. Unfortunately, when you select all of the files in a directory, the hidden dot files are not selected. But there's a fix, you can enable that display either temporarily or permanently.)
The 'File' system on a 'Mac' seems to be like looking under the hood of a modern car, for people that barely know how to put some petrol/diesel in it!...
THAT being said, I've noticed over the years, that places like 'Medical-Centres', (and all their networked Doctors etc.), GENERALLY all use MAC Systems??
So I guess that says something about the proven reliability etc of such systems....
The macOS file system is a standard Unix file system. User-created files can be stored
anywhere, of course. Now for convenience, there are default storage locations for most files. Typically, that is in /Users/yourname/Documents because ... well, why not? And the various Apple programs like Music (the former iTunes) and iMovie and Photos have default folders called /Users/yourname/Music and /Users/yourname/Movies and /Users/yourname/Photos, and of course you can move all of those to some other location.
Anyway, Unix users are comfortable with that file structure.
As for why medical offices and others uses Macs? Remember: the IT people select the software that fits the business's needs, and then they buy the hardware that runs that software. For example, a previous employer (going back quite a few years now) ran the BOM and ordering and inventory stuff all on a nice Filemaker database -- on Macs. It was quite reliable and it did what was necessary. Also it was a fuck of a lot less expensive than an Oracle database solution.
I never initially understood why 'Apple' changed years ago to incorporating/using 'Intel' style CPU's ? I'm not complaining either, as it means that 'we' are
now able to utilize such modern Virtualization Software... such as 'VirtualBox'. Although!!... 'VirtualBox' is by FAR in-superior to VMWARE, even using the
totally free version called 'Player'. However, in that case, you DO need the 'UnLocker' patch, freely downloaded, to add such 'MacOS' Guests...
They switched from PowerPC to Intel processors because at the time, there was no roadmap for higher-performance/lower-power-consumption PowerPC processors after the G5 from IBM or Motorola. Intel clearly had products that met that need. What needs to be stated again is how seamless Apple made the transition from PPC to x86. (And they're doing it again, for the third time, with the M1.)
After 20 years of Unix-based macOS, I still don't understand why tools vendors (all of the FPGA vendors, for example) haven't offered macOS versions of their software. Instead, you're stuck dealing with specific variants of Linux and spending way too much time fucking with getting it all to work. macOS presents a standardized GUI and there are obviously multiplatform GUI toolkits that can be used to make the applications look the same across all platforms. All of the standard Linux/Unix development tools work on it, which is why once Mac OS X was released, much of the scientific computing community moved from Linux to the Mac.
Of course, when you ask them they say, "Nobody's asked for Mac support!" and then you can say, "bullshit" and point to many examples: MatLab, Mathematica, all of the microcontroller development platforms based on Eclipse (SiLabs, TI, NXP, ST) and NetBeans (Microchip/Atmel) ...