How many have Switched to Mac since OSX

[VaxoP]

Originally posted by azazel-

You don't get it. You just don't get it. Does a Playstation 2 become obsolete as more games come out for it? Um...no. Why? Because the developers know exactly what sort of hardware capabilities to code for, hence it is optimized to fully utilize the capabilities of said system. Apple is able to do this because they manufacture the hardware *and* software. Hence, the more revisions of the OS they go thru, the more fine-tuned it will become? This is why Jaguar is faster than the initial releases of OS X. Can Microsoft do that with XP? Um...how are they going to optimize their software for the billion possible hardware and software combinations that are available for the PC platform? They can't. It's a miracle they have XP running as well as they do. Nope, they'll just keep raising the system requirements of Windows, and you'll keep buying new processors, motherboards...adding ram, getting larger HD's. Keep living in your delusional world of performance...it's all relative.

*nix is meant for the PC? Oh really? So AT&T designed unix to run on hardware that didn't exist yet when they initially started developing Unix? Um...ok? Sun designed Solaris to work on PC's? Good lord child...do you even pay attention to what you're saying? There is more to *nix than that hodge-podge mess called linux.

And I'm not really flaming Infobar, per say..I just think Winbar is far better.

youre a loon. how come, first there was nintendo, then gameboy, then gameboy color, then super nintendo, then nintendo 64, then gameboy advance, then gamecube? because, as time progresses, newer games come out and technology improves that requires a faster machine capable of spitting out more colors, more 3d animation, a higher resolution etc.

apple makes its products for mac? oh you mean things like quicktmie (do they make that?), and small petty programs like a mac office or something. but see, these dont need high cpu speed, ram, video card and the like. sure, any company can create programs for its software, but theres a limit to how much you can use. for example, microsoft came out with office 2000 - a program that i can run just fine on win95. theres msn messenger, also i can use just fine on 95 still. theres windows media player, also that i can use fine on 95. these dont require a good computer, they are basic apps.

but try creating a dvd on a win95 for a 200mhz pc - it cant be done. same thing with creating a dvd on the mac that came out in 95. you NEED updates. if it wasnt for the pc, wed still be playing super nintendo. the pc has created companies like amd, intel, ati, nvidia, etc etc that have changed the speed of a computer from 40mhz to the current 3ghz. you need to update, because newer apps/programs are coming out that will not work properly on older machines. i want to see you try ut2k3 on a mac - let me know how it runs. it willgo at 15 fps or so - why? cause the hardware is outdated.

can microsoft update their software to make it better? i know they can - look at service packs and second editions.

and see, not only i have to upgrade my things as time goes on - the programs that come out require higher end hardware/software. you cannot use something created 5 years ago and think it will still suffice. but see, as newer software comes (mainly games), i will need to upgrade, and so will you. except, i will pay $200 for a new chip, but you will pay $2000 for a new computer.

PS: and your point about how can MS optimize their os with a billion different combinations of hardware? simple - they dont. the companies that make the hardware release drivers that do that.

[RomeoXP1.0.8.6.]

...of the whole computer market. That in itself says a lot. I used Macs before and then used PC. Since that time I have only used PC cause Macs are just too expensive for the lousy performance you get from it. So what if M$ puts out an OS every 2-5 years. At least they do put out service packs. As for performance, sh*t with only a 500 K-62 processor with XP on it, you can blow any Mac away. I know cause I set one up. The thing was freakin amazing. It did almost as well with Win Me, that's right Windows Mellenium. Having a Mac compared to a PC is like buying an expensive foreign piece of crap car and buying a really good domestic car. Not saying foreign cars are crap, I have one. The idea of just having something exotic for that sake.

MS expensive? oh yeah, but there is the Devil's own (hem).

[azazel-]

Mind telling me how MS "optimized" XP with Sp1? I've yet to notice anything faster...

Game companies create new consoles because they are competing with each other. Simple as that. They want to sell products. You won't see system requirements listed on a Playstation 2 game, because it was coded for a PLAYSTATION 2. There's no minimum sys requirements. Nothing to upgrade. Your logic is flawed. Computer game manufacturers can dictate whatever they want, hardware-wise, and you don't have a choice. If you want to play that game on your pc, you either already have the hardware to support it, or you go out and buy it. Simple. Granted, this scenario exists for Mac as well, but to a lesser degree.

Macs don't have much software? Have you bothered to check? Probably not. But hey, if all you want to do with your system is play ut2k3 on your system, more power to you. How much did that new nVidia card set you back? What about the P4 chip that you just picked up? D'oh, better hope it doesn't require a new motherboard/ram combination. God knows Intel wouldn't do anything to screw over it's consumer base like switching the formfactor of it's chips. Do a cost comparison sometime...you might be surprised. But probably not...you seem pretty content believing what you want to believe. That's ok. 6 months ago, I thought the same way you did. Then I got my priorities straightened out and stopped wanting to deal with the Wintel BS. But hey..go ahead and get all the cutting edge performance you can handle...this week. Because next week, half your hardware will be obsolete.

And I'm the loon? :right:

[thingsforjason]

i haven't. :)

ok. back to the ranting and the raving. :D

[azazel-]

Originally posted by RomeoXP1.0.8.6.

...of the whole computer market. That in itself says a lot. I used Macs before and then used PC. Since that time I have only used PC cause Macs are just too expensive for the lousy performance you get from it. So what if M$ puts out an OS every 2-5 years. At least they do put out service packs. As for performance, sh*t with only a 500 K-62 processor with XP on it, you can blow any Mac away. I know cause I set one up. The thing was freakin amazing. It did almost as well with Win Me, that's right Windows Mellenium. Having a Mac compared to a PC is like buying an expensive foreign piece of crap car and buying a really good domestic car. Not saying foreign cars are crap, I have one. The idea of just having something exotic for that sake.

MS expensive? oh yeah, but there is the Devil's own (hem).

Uh-huh...and what were you trying to do to compare the two?

Your comparison is like trying to compare a honda civic street racer with a BMW. Both cars, both fast, but one just looks a hell of a lot better and more "grown up" getting there.

Devils0wn...yeah...forgot about that. Don't even think about paying for something you support. Good call.

[Dashel]

So who is up for a game of Battlefield 1942?

OS X is a great OS and I'd love to have a new iMac chillin in my living room.

I do find it funny that Mac users bitch about MS 'bloat' yet think they need to load their machines up with 1GB or more of ram. Plus the fact that X.2 is the first usable version and it DOES require a hardware upgrade. My poor little cube just can't hack it till I replace the POS ATI 128 that came with it.

[Jafo]

Used too be a Apple/Mac fan till I woke up. Its a windows word right now.

[Dashel]

LoL, and the stupid car analogy finally rears its ugly head. Funny, I drive a BMW yet use a PC...hmmmmm.

Why not switch? Cause I like BOTH platforms and don't have some superiority complex in that one is BETTER in all regards than the other. They each have their own stregths and weaknesses. But to market one by comparing it to the WORST horror stories of the other is just silly.

[VaxoP]

Originally posted by azazel-

Mind telling me how MS "optimized" XP with Sp1? I've yet to notice anything faster...

Game companies create new consoles because they are competing with each other. Simple as that. They want to sell products. You won't see system requirements listed on a Playstation 2 game, because it was coded for a PLAYSTATION 2. There's no minimum sys requirements. Nothing to upgrade. Your logic is flawed. Computer game manufacturers can dictate whatever they want, hardware-wise, and you don't have a choice. If you want to play that game on your pc, you either already have the hardware to support it, or you go out and buy it. Simple. Granted, this scenario exists for Mac as well, but to a lesser degree.

Macs don't have much software? Have you bothered to check? Probably not. But hey, if all you want to do with your system is play ut2k3 on your system, more power to you. How much did that new nVidia card set you back? What about the P4 chip that you just picked up? D'oh, better hope it doesn't require a new motherboard/ram combination. God knows Intel wouldn't do anything to screw over it's consumer base like switching the formfactor of it's chips. Do a cost comparison sometime...you might be surprised. But probably not...you seem pretty content believing what you want to believe. That's ok. 6 months ago, I thought the same way you did. Then I got my priorities straightened out and stopped wanting to deal with the Wintel BS. But hey..go ahead and get all the cutting edge performance you can handle...this week. Because next week, half your hardware will be obsolete.

And I'm the loon? :right:

but see, with the playstation games, it says "playstation 2" - THATS the requirement. you may not play this on a playstation 1, it only works on 2. same goes for software. requirements - 1.2ghz processor - you need that or you will not be able to properly play the game, or run the app. with mac, to get that 1.2ghz it will cost you $2000, for PC, $500. in 2 years time, a game might require 1.5ghz - but that chip will cost me $100 to get to 1.5ghz where as you need to buy a new mac.

ooh so mac has some titles to download - 14 were released from the end of august till now. let me show you what pc software is - www.download.com. 156 titles were released YESTERDAY. that nvidia card (geforce2) cost me $100, that ad 1.2ghz chip cost me $100. thats $200 and my system can run the newest games just fine even though my cpu speed is 1/3 of the current newest model. i paid $200 since 8 months ago to be able to play the newest games. how mcuh will you have to pay to be able to play ut2k3? hmm?

i just saw this and it was pretty bizarre:

Mac - newest "best" model.

$4,999.00

Dual 1.25GHz PowerPC G4

256K L2 cache

& 2MB L3 cache/processor

167MHz System Bus

2.0GB PC2700 DDR SDRAM

120GB Ultra ATA drive

SuperDrive & Combo drive

NVIDIA GeForce4 Titanium

56K internal modem

lets see how much that would cost for us pc users..

dual Athlon XP 1700 (yes 2 of the chips) $118. (and 1700 much greater than 1.25ghz)

Motherboard with the 256k L2 cache etc.. $100

2GB ram (unclear about what mac is selling - they say "DDR SDRAM - is that ddram or sdram??) - $255

120GB HD - $174

GeForce - $130

Modem - $10

total: ~$800. thats more than 6 times cheaper than a mac (in other words - 6 of those pcs capable of doing everything a mac can do, at the same speed, with more software, SIX of those will equal the price of one mac)... tell me - how long do you think that dual 1.25ghz processor will be usable? i think a year max. but when that computer gets outdated, ill need to sped $300 to upgrade to the top of theline computer, when you will spend $5000

[Chad]

Well I am a switcher. I sold my Dell laptop (latest in the line of pcs i have owned) and bought a Dual 800 PowerMac. I went cold turkey and have loved every second.

I was once young, immature, and confused like VaxoP, RomeoXP1.0.8.6., and a few million other pc users. (It's pretty obvious you two have never used OSX or any Mac for that matter). I thought Macs sucked. I thought they were slow. I thought they didn't have any software. I thought they were too expensive....yadda yadda.

It did take some time to get used to OSX and how Macs work. All these crazy things like shortcut keys for EVERYTHING. Instead of being totally mouse orientated like Windows (which takes longer), you can do keyboard shortcuts. Very nice.

And yes, it does feel faster than any pc I have used...1.5Ghz AMD. All these simple apps. Take iPhoto. On the pc, what program can you just plug your camera in and it takes the pics off automatically? NONE!!! You'd have to dl driver after driver. Bleh. iPhoto is a wonder. Bluetooth. Just getting into this with my T68i. All I had to do was plug in the bluetooth adaptor and it found my phone. You can't do that on Windows.

Gaming. That is what kept me from getting a Mac for a while. And I started to not play games as much, so it really wasnt a big deal. But now all these great games are on the Mac. Warcraft 3, Medal of Honor, Snood, etc. What I like is Mac just gets the best games. If they come out on the Mac, you know they are going to be good. I could care less if it takes an extra month to port.

Now if any of you Mac bashers would even use a Mac for once, you would know that a Mac can do EVERYTHING a pc can do, but a pc CAN'T do everything a Mac can (see above). Mghz to Mghz, a Mac beats any pc hands down. IE, an 800 Mhz iMac beats an 800 Mhz pc anything. In fact I would say that a Mac is roughly equal in performance to a pc with twice the processor speed. IE an 800Mhz PMac is equal to a 1.6 Ghz pc. Give or take a few Mhz anyway. Any app on the pc has a Mac app that is as good, or better. I've had to replace Trillian, CuteFTP, mirc, etc, and I have found much better alternatives.

SOOO...this post got kinda long. As I see it, there are 4 kinds of people in the world...

1) pc users who don't have a clue about Macs. They spread lies about Macs and probably have never even used one.

2) pc users who only use a pc because they can't afford a Mac

3) Mac users who don't have a clue (IE Apple can never do anything wrong)

4) normal Mac users

[Wing]

VapoX, you make me laugh so ****ing hard, you troll, har.

Mac processors are not slower than x86 ones because one is more mhz than the other, as we learned with intel vs. amd , performance does NOT equal mhz. They aren't faster or slower, they're DIFFERENT. get that through your head. They are two different processor architechtures. Apple is known for making the best out of a little.

Apple has alot of games, and all the apps I'll EVER need. Apple has just one or two processor architechture to worry about optimizing their programs from, when they believe something is legacy, it's cut off, so in reality, they can optimize the source when they build it for only 1 or 2 processor architechtures, so it IS optimized. Microsoft has to worry about pentium, 2, 3, 4, Athlon, there is no way they can optimize for ALL of those arch's, so the only thing they can go for is the general architechture of i386 to i486, which is slow. i386 is pentium, I believe? and i686 are what Athlons and P4s are, correct me.

Yeah, OpenGL must suck, YEAH EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD. DirectX is good, if implimented well, as OpenGL is, OpenGL is on windows, nix.

Apple or x86 are not better than the other one, they're just different. remember, Apple has Nvidia and ATi too

I want to get an iBook, because I believe Apple has a superior OS, and they take time in what they do. I think Apple cares more about it's users than MS, that's why they release Source Code without completely hindering what you can do with it, like MS does. I will admit that Apple does have some flaws, but MS has much more, Apple is the lesser of two evils.

[Tim Dorr Veteran]

I'm very much a Mac user now. I switched just a month ago, and I've found just about every app I used on PC on the Mac, and often times I've found better on Mac. I'm in love with the interface and how the mac literally just "works". I rarely have apps crash, I've never had the OS crash, things run just fine. And I've found from working with a Mac that the whole interface is just more efficient and faster to work with in general.

I'm a happy switcher. Goodbye windows.

[Wing]

Originally posted by VaxoP

but see, with the playstation games, it says "playstation 2" - THATS the requirement. you may not play this on a playstation 1, it only works on 2. same goes for software. requirements - 1.2ghz processor - you need that or you will not be able to properly play the game, or run the app. with mac, to get that 1.2ghz it will cost you $2000, for PC, $500. in 2 years time, a game might require 1.5ghz - but that chip will cost me $100 to get to 1.5ghz where as you need to buy a new mac.

ooh so mac has some titles to download - 14 were released from the end of august till now. let me show you what pc software is - www.download.com. 156 titles were released YESTERDAY. that nvidia card (geforce2) cost me $100, that ad 1.2ghz chip cost me $100. thats $200 and my system can run the newest games just fine even though my cpu speed is 1/3 of the current newest model. i paid $200 since 8 months ago to be able to play the newest games. how mcuh will you have to pay to be able to play ut2k3? hmm?

i just saw this and it was pretty bizarre:

Mac - newest "best" model.

$4,999.00

Dual 1.25GHz PowerPC G4

256K L2 cache

& 2MB L3 cache/processor

167MHz System Bus

2.0GB PC2700 DDR SDRAM

120GB Ultra ATA drive

SuperDrive & Combo drive

NVIDIA GeForce4 Titanium

56K internal modem

lets see how much that would cost for us pc users..

dual Athlon XP 1700 (yes 2 of the chips) $118. (and 1700 much greater than 1.25ghz)

Motherboard with the 256k L2 cache etc.. $100

2GB ram (unclear about what mac is selling - they say "DDR SDRAM - is that ddram or sdram??) - $255

120GB HD - $174

GeForce - $130

Modem - $10

total: ~$800. thats more than 6 times cheaper than a mac (in other words - 6 of those pcs capable of doing everything a mac can do, at the same speed, with more software, SIX of those will equal the price of one mac)... tell me - how long do you think that dual 1.25ghz processor will be usable? i think a year max. but when that computer gets outdated, ill need to sped $300 to upgrade to the top of theline computer, when you will spend $5000

the thing is Macs dont have outlandish sys requirements, like PCs do. Processor optimization means alot, look at Gentoo.

[azazel-]

You're still failing to see the point. How often does Sony come out with a new platform? Every 3-4 years? Around the same time Nintendo does. When a signifigant advance in technology and hardware has come down the line that justifies the research and development of a new platform. There's no Playstation 2 SE or Service Pack 12. It's just Playstation 2, playing playstation 2 games, until they release their new system. Would you consider the pentium 4 2.8 ghz a signifigant advancement over a pentium 4 2.6 ghz? Probably not, yet they still release new clock speeds near monthly. And how much is that Pentium 4 2.8 ghz? Cheapest I've seen is $491. For one component. Excluding the cost of a new motherboard, possibly new ram needed as well. Maybe a powersupply. See what I'm getting at? The hardware you purchased isn't anywhere near cutting edge anymore. An nVidia GeForce 4 Ti4600 alone costs more than what you spent on your upgrades. Yet I see countless threads about people running out and buying them...then next month, it'll be something else. Look at the system requirements for the games available for the Mac. Well within the range of any of the systems they are currently selling. PC hardware manufacturers rape their consumers, over and over, all because of the performance myth.

And how many of those downloads would I want, or need? Just because there is a lot of something, doesn't mean most of it isn't crap. It just means there's a lot of crap. And you keep bringing up UT2k3...well, if and when I ever decide to start liking FPS games, I'll let you know how it plays. Fortunately, different people use their systems for different things. But that also seems to be a concept you have problems with.

[VaxoP]

the most important thing is performance right??

look at this you ignorant mac loving kiddies:

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07...cw_macvspc2.htm

looks like the p4 2.5ghz was a LOT faster than the mac machine. the mac machine costs $2499, where as the p4 computer would cost $650.

please, wheres your excuse now?

[Chad]

Originally posted by VaxoP

but see, with the playstation games, it says "playstation 2" - THATS the requirement. you may not play this on a playstation 1, it only works on 2. same goes for software. requirements - 1.2ghz processor - you need that or you will not be able to properly play the game, or run the app. with mac, to get that 1.2ghz it will cost you $2000, for PC, $500. in 2 years time, a game might require 1.5ghz - but that chip will cost me $100 to get to 1.5ghz where as you need to buy a new mac.

ooh so mac has some titles to download - 14 were released from the end of august till now. let me show you what pc software is - www.download.com. 156 titles were released YESTERDAY. that nvidia card (geforce2) cost me $100, that ad 1.2ghz chip cost me $100. thats $200 and my system can run the newest games just fine even though my cpu speed is 1/3 of the current newest model. i paid $200 since 8 months ago to be able to play the newest games. how mcuh will you have to pay to be able to play ut2k3? hmm?

Sorry for the double post, but I couldn't resist. Byte magazine did some research not too long ago. They looked into how long the average computer can be used until it needs to be updated. They found the Mac can go 4 years. The pc? 2 years.

Fact remains, while staying ahead in technology, Apple doesn't bloat OSX up like M$ does to Windows

I buy a PowerMac now. Say dual 867. This will easily last 4 years. Will run the newest version of OSX, and run the newest apps and games.

Now take your precious 1.5 Gig Amd/Penium, whatever. Now seeing as Intel/Amd spit out chips like rabbits spit out babies, this processor will be obsolete, oh, tomorrow. Once M$ comes out with their new fangled bloatware in a year or so, the minimum requirements will be pretty high. Probably current processor speeds. But there will be games that will be dead slow on your precious 1.5 gig. So you have to update your computer. New mboard, new processor, new ram, new video card. And probably a new sound card for kicks. This computer plays the best games for about a year. And then M$ spits out yet more bloatware. Time for a computer update since they are in bed with Intel. Driving up those processor speeds and bloating windows so you have to upgrade your computer.

In the end, you will have updated your computer at least 2 times, probably more. If your a heavy gamer, it's an update maybe twice a year. And here I still am, running the best os with the same computer I bought 4 years ago. With a video card upgrade or two in there.

See, Apple only introduces new Powermacs usually 2 times per year. So things go out of date MUCH MUCH slower. And since they will be tweaking and optimizing OSX until the cows come home, and huge upgrade won't be necessary for awhile. Meanwhile, with every new Windows, you have to buy new hardware. And with every new processor, you have to get a new motherboard, ram etc. In the end, Mac is easily cheaper. And throw in the time you have to troubleshoot windows or hardware, it's no comparison.

[azazel-]

2GB ram (unclear about what mac is selling - they say "DDR SDRAM - is that ddram or sdram??) - $255

Since you seem to be the expert on PC hardware, technically DDR is DDR Sdram. Double Data Rate Sdram. Wow...difficult concept.

And where are you getting a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 for $130? The back of a truck?

[VaxoP]

ill have to upgrade every 2 years?

ok fine. lets see how mcuh we spend over 8 yeasr

to upgrade, it will cost me initial + 4(upgrades).. or, $800+4($200)=$1600.

you will upgrade every 4 years?

thats initial + 2 upgrades.

or $2500+2($2500) = $7500. do the math then complain please.

ok thx bye

[VaxoP]

Originally posted by azazel-

Since you seem to be the expert on PC hardware, technically DDR is DDR Sdram. Double Data Rate Sdram. Wow...difficult concept.

And where are you getting a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 for $130? The back of a truck?

oooh im so sorry, lets add $1000 to cover that cost shall we?

total - $1800, compared to $5000. do the math please then complain. ok thx bye.

[kagaku]

Originally posted by VaxoP

Mac is based on *nix. *nix is meant for pc - your arguement is completely void because *nix is available (and meant for) the pc. and yes, windows/*nix has optimization - why do games run a LOT more efficently in windows than on mac? same can be said for thousands of apps. (remember, we are not just talking about windows, but *nix too).

Explorer is using 15mb right now - even if it was 40mb, can you not afford 256 ram for $25? - but - you can afford to pay $2000 for a mac system. i get it. and microsoft rushes releases out the door? please - how long have they been working on xp? i think 2 years before it was released, with 2600 builds and 200+ available for beta testing.

It's the the point that I can't afford more memory, I've got 512MB of RAM right now, the point is, it simply shouldn't need to use that much RAM. It's poor coding, period. Also, it might not seem like they're rushing it, since it took ~2 years to develop, but keep in mind, some of the best games are in development for 4 years. You'd think Microsoft would spend more time optimizing the operating system that runs a good 90% of all consumer computers..

I currently use LiteStep, an alternitive shell for Windows, and it's considerably faster then explorer, uses less RAM, and yet, has more features.. Infact, alot more features. For what explorer does, it shouldn't even use half the RAM it does. As I said, poor coding.

[azazel-]

Originally posted by VaxoP

the most important thing is performance right??

look at this you ignorant mac loving kiddies:

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07...cw_macvspc2.htm

looks like the p4 2.5ghz was a LOT faster than the mac machine. the mac machine costs $2499, where as the p4 computer would cost $650.

please, wheres your excuse now?

Taken directly from the site:

Finally, the Dell Precision Workstation 340 as tested currently retails for $2875, the Mac dual G4 for $3000, and the BOXX dual Athlon 2000+MP for $4000, including a full complement of Sonic Foundry content creation software.

Can you even read? Where did you get that $650 ammount from?

[sOma]

It seems to me that the majority of Windows users are still using an outdated OS; Windows 98, and refuse to switch to anything more current (and more stable). This is just an example of the stubbornness and ignorance of Windows users. Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a Windows user because of this.

As for Mac, I wish I had one... I'm getting bored with PCs.

[VaxoP]

Proof PC>Mac

the most important thing is performance right??

look at this you ignorant mac loving kiddies:

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07...cw_macvspc2.htm

looks like the p4 2.5ghz was a LOT faster than the mac machine. the mac machine costs $2499, where as the p4 computer would cost $650.

please, wheres your excuse now?

ill have to upgrade every 2 years? and mac 4 years according to the study?

ok fine. lets see how mcuh we spend over 8 years

to upgrade, it will cost me initial + 4(upgrades).. or, $800+4($200)=$1600.

you will upgrade every 4 years?

thats initial + 2 upgrades.

or $2500+2($2500) = $7500. do the math then complain please.

ok thx bye

[VaxoP]

Originally posted by azazel-

Can you even read? Where did you get that $650 ammount from?

im getting the prices from pricewatch. these are current prices for products. mac: $2500 (yes CURRENT for same configuration) and $650 for oc (same configuration, CURRENT price)

[kagaku]

Originally posted by VaxoP

Proof PC>Mac

the most important thing is performance right??

look at this you ignorant mac loving kiddies:

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07...cw_macvspc2.htm

looks like the p4 2.5ghz was a LOT faster than the mac machine. the mac machine costs $2499, where as the p4 computer would cost $650.

please, wheres your excuse now?

ill have to upgrade every 2 years? and mac 4 years according to the study?

ok fine. lets see how mcuh we spend over 8 years

to upgrade, it will cost me initial + 4(upgrades).. or, $800+4($200)=$1600.

you will upgrade every 4 years?

thats initial + 2 upgrades.

or $2500+2($2500) = $7500. do the math then complain please.

ok thx bye

You just repeated the last few posts you made.. And also neglected to mention my post at all.. Is it because I was right?