Buying a Mac

Student Lounge College Life
61

<p>Yeah were way slacking by only having the X800... oh well. First of all the 3.8 wouldnt, second your overclocked cpu would be making so much heat the fans would be goin crazy, meanwhile my comp is the quietest thing in the room even when running games. And this "cream of the crop" as you say, tell me what it is so i can tell you which Apple-made software is better than it. And as far as virues, sure you have roughly a thousand times more security flaws but you know what at the end of the day when a new virus plague is being announced i know im not being hit. oh and btw 4.5 gigs of ram means just that i can run as many programs as i want or as few as i want and ill never hit a performance wall because i just dont have enough ram. </p>

<p>Anyways, for those who know what theyre doing and enjoy building their own, hey thats your cup o' tea, but Macs are definitely just as good in many respects and better in a few.</p>

62

<p>No one needs 4.5 gigs of RAM right now. In fact, you probably don't even need 2 gigs of RAM. By the time you get up that high in RAM the bottleneck of the CPU would prohibit the system from running very efficiently.</p>

<p>Apple's are such an overpriced, underpowered system that anyone in their right mind would not buy one for regular price. You can get comparable PC's for almost half as much.</p>

<p>Give me a PC with an Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz Processor with Hyper-Threading (which could easily overclock without any effects), 2 GB of DDR2 PC2-5400 RAM, a NVIDIA GeForce 6800GT 256MB card, and a 200 GB 7200RPM SATA hard drive. I would blow your little Apple out of the water. Just remember that you probably couldn't play the game I am playing in the first place because it isn't made for Mac! HAHA.</p>

63

<p>mac are much better. No crashes. Not nearly as many spyware and virus. Aren't these the main reason why people get macs?</p>

<p>I have beena long time pc user and i must say that my powerbook is so much better than my pc.</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
Word has never crashed in the four years I've used it on this PC with XP.

[/quote]

Out of all of the hundreds (thousands?) of people who's computer (PCs) I've fixed, out of all of my high school friends that use PCs, out of all of the college professors I know that run XP, out of all of my college friends that use XP, and out of all of the knowledgable computer people I know, you are the first person to say that (and no, I'm not necessarily putting you in one of those gourps :D). I'm going to take a stab and say that I think you're lying. OK, I'll give it to you though as that will take us no where. Let's say you're not lying. You're probably the only person on earth that has been that charmed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
PCs ever since XP almost never crash for me, but I know how to maintain them.

[/quote]

As mentioned above, many of my friends who are computer experts have their PC crash quite frequently. Sorry, bro it's inherent in PC's--I think even when Bill Gates was presenting XP for the first time to the Board (or whatever) it crashed. Even if we take the benefit of the doubt, and say they don't crash for all people who know how to maintain them, what percentage of computer users is that?</p>

<p>
[quote]
When it comes to new technology, the PC is likely to get it first.

[/quote]
. I'm going to pretend you didn't say that. Mac's are... First to have a floppy (and first to get rid of it). First with GUI. First laptop. First to have USB. First to have Firewire. First to have a flat screen. First to have a burner. First to have wireless built into notebooks. etc. etc.</p>

<p>
[quote]
PCs are FAR cheaper when you build them yourself, forget about Dell.

[/quote]
. I agree! In fact, I just built myself a nice living room PC. But, how many people in the world who want a computer have the time, resources, and know-how to build a computer? Even after that they have to worry about the other PC flaws that we've previously discussed (as the adage goes: when buying something, spend the extra money on something that will work).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Macs are equally open to viruses, there are just fewer made.

[/quote]
Sorry bro, this is wrong. Windows is inherently flawed with security holes. Service Pack 2 and a number of updates have tried to fix this with minimum success. I think any OS expert will concur, so I'm not going to go into detail, but this is one of the bigger reasons I advise people to switch to Macs. OS X is based off Free BSD, and is a very secure operating system not just because few people make viruses for them.</p>

<p>By the way, have you ever even used a Mac (that runs OS X)? I was a lifelong PC user, and I still use PCs on occasion (e.g., now), but I bought a Mac iBook. I'm not saying PCs are terrible, but what I am saying is that the average computer user shouldn't get one. I'm not sure why the more advanced computer users wouldn't want a Mac (except for the cost when they could run Fedora, or whatever, on a PC). I can see why gamers would want a PC, as there is more of a selection. That's a valid argument to make. But, it only works for gamers. Everyone else shouldn't buy a PC because they have a good game selection. I think my general argument is against Windows, though I would like to defend Apple's excellent hardware and engineering.</p>

<p>Portrait - As videogamer said, you could have formatted and reinstalled XP. That's the general solution of most repairmen for any PC problem, unfortunately. </p>

<p>Wow 4.5 gigs of RAM, that's awesome dude!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Apple's are such an overpriced, underpowered system that anyone in their right mind would not buy one for regular price. You can get comparable PC's for almost half as much.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I disagree entirely. I'll agree that Apple's are pricey, but so aren't Ferrari's; you pay for quality. Hardware aside, compare the two operating system OS X v. Windows (although the hardware is top-notch too). I'm sorry, but in my opinion, there's no contest.</p>

65

<p>
[QUOTE]

Quote:
Word has never crashed in the four years I've used it on this PC with XP.</p>

<p>Out of all of the hundreds (thousands?) of people who's computer (PCs) I've fixed, out of all of my high school friends that use PCs, out of all of the college professors I know that run XP, out of all of my college friends that use XP, and out of all of the knowledgable computer people I know, you are the first person to say that (and no, I'm not necessarily putting you in one of those gourps ). I'm going to take a stab and say that I think you're lying. OK, I'll give it to you though as that will take us no where. Let's say you're not lying. You're probably the only person on earth that has been that charmed.

[/QUOTE]

I run a minimal configuration, meaning that I have disabled every single unnecessary service and program, including XP themes, defrag, run virus and spyware scans with full updates frequently,all hardware driver updates, do all security updates (except SP2...yech), and run the most recent version of Firefox. The system still has the same install of XP as when I put it on, and Word (office xp update from 97), etc</p>

<p>I've had a handful of system crashes that were only caused by faulty programs.

[QUOTE]

Quote:
PCs ever since XP almost never crash for me, but I know how to maintain them.</p>

<p>As mentioned above, many of my friends who are computer experts have their PC crash quite frequently. Sorry, bro it's inherent in PC's--I think even when Bill Gates was presenting XP for the first time to the Board (or whatever) it crashed. Even if we take the benefit of the doubt, and say they don't crash for all people who know how to maintain them, what percentage of computer users is that?

[/QUOTE]

The percentage is the same percentage that should be using PCs for anything beyond word processing. To argue whether macs or pcs are better for word processing is idiotic because even a pentium one can handle a word processor. The group that is advanced enough to experience any significant difference between the OSs should know enough to maintain the PC.

[QUOTE]

Quote:
When it comes to new technology, the PC is likely to get it first.
. I'm going to pretend you didn't say that. Mac's are... First to have a floppy (and first to get rid of it). First with GUI. First laptop. First to have USB. First to have Firewire. First to have a flat screen. First to have a burner. First to have wireless built into notebooks. etc. etc.

[/QUOTE]

Ok, so Macs had some firsts, they are not horrible machines. Still, how about the latest graphics cards, ram speeds, hard drive/graphics interfaces, fastest processors, the latest burners, etc. Macs can only innovate based on the direction of one manufacturer, while PCs have a gigantic number of competing innovators.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

Quote:
PCs are FAR cheaper when you build them yourself, forget about Dell.
. I agree! In fact, I just built myself a nice living room PC. But, how many people in the world who want a computer have the time, resources, and know-how to build a computer? Even after that they have to worry about the other PC flaws that we've previously discussed (as the adage goes: when buying something, spend the extra money on something that will work).

[/QUOTE]

It's just the opposite - building it yourself lets you research each part and manufacturer so that you can choose the best quality at the best price. When ordering from a company like Apple or Dell, there is no choice and prices are all inflated (more so with Apple, though :D)</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

Quote:
Macs are equally open to viruses, there are just fewer made.
Sorry bro, this is wrong. Windows is inherently flawed with security holes. Service Pack 2 and a number of updates have tried to fix this with minimum success. I think any OS expert will concur, so I'm not going to go into detail, but this is one of the bigger reasons I advise people to switch to Macs. OS X is based off Free BSD, and is a very secure operating system not just because few people make viruses for them.

[/QUOTE]

I've talked to OS experts on this and they agree that the overwhelming reason for spyware and viruses on windows is volume compared to OS flaws. Macs are much harder to target because there is less gain and more work required (since there are no precedents to build off of). Open source and limited hardware also contribute to protecting Macs. When a Mac is infected, it does not nearly as easily propagate malicious code because there are simply fewer Macs. XP's perceived instability is really a consequence of its versatility; it must accomodate a much larger user, software, hardware, and networking base.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

By the way, have you ever even used a Mac (that runs OS X)? I was a lifelong PC user, and I still use PCs on occasion (e.g., now), but I bought a Mac iBook. I'm not saying PCs are terrible, but what I am saying is that the average computer user shouldn't get one. I'm not sure why the more advanced computer users wouldn't want a Mac (except for the cost when they could run Fedora, or whatever, on a PC). I can see why gamers would want a PC, as there is more of a selection. That's a valid argument to make. But, it only works for gamers. Everyone else shouldn't buy a PC because they have a good game selection. I think my general argument is against Windows, though I would like to defend Apple's excellent hardware and engineering.

[/QUOTE]

The average person isn't going to need the features that differ between the OSs, not nearly so to overcome the price point. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Apple's are such an overpriced, underpowered system that anyone in their right mind would not buy one for regular price. You can get comparable PC's for almost half as much.</p>

<p>I disagree entirely. I'll agree that Apple's are pricey, but so aren't Ferrari's; you pay for quality. Hardware aside, compare the two operating system OS X v. Windows (although the hardware is top-notch too). I'm sorry, but in my opinion, there's no contest.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Except that's a poor analogy. It is like paying twice as much for the same Ferrari in a different (but better looking) color with foreign engine parts.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]

I run a minimal configuration, meaning that I have disabled every single unnecessary service and program, including XP themes, defrag, run virus and spyware scans with full updates frequently,all hardware driver updates, do all security updates

[/quote]

Thank you for proving my point. Not only does the average computer user not know how to do any of that, but most don't have the time to worry about it. Also, in other words, you do all of this work to get (at most) something Mac users already have without doing any of it.</p>

<p>
[quote]

The percentage is the same percentage that should be using PCs for anything beyond word processing. To argue whether macs or pcs are better for word processing is idiotic because even a pentium one can handle a word processor. The group that is advanced enough to experience any significant difference between the OSs should know enough to maintain the PC.

[/quote]

So only people who know how to maintain PCs should use them? Well, since 9/10 PCs on the Internet have spyware, I would say that's a ton of PC users who shouldn't be using them. The average computer user (persumably the person who started this thread and everyone else who has inquired) does <em>NOT</em> know how to do any of the stuff you've previosly mentioned. Nor should they have to waste the time. I'll agree that many users use their computer for e-mail, www, and world processing. But, they often <b>can't do that on PC's</b> because of spyware/viruses. Look at Portrait's post. That's a prime example of what is happening to all of the PC users who aren't as knowledgable as you are.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's just the opposite - building it yourself lets you research each part and manufacturer so that you can choose the best quality at the best price. When ordering from a company like Apple or Dell, there is no choice and prices are all inflated (more so with Apple, though )

[/quote]

That's great and I'll agree that when you buy from companies prices tend to be expensive, but <em>NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO BUILD THEIR OWN COMPUTER</em>. I think you are doing a real good job defending your use of a PC, and a real bad job defending everyone else's, which is the point of the discussion's digression (if that makes any sense, hehe).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Macs can only innovate based on the direction of one manufacturer, while PCs have a gigantic number of competing innovators.

[/quote]

Um. I don't think that's very true. Although Apple is a great innovator, it does use other companies' components. I'm not up to date on the latest video cards, but I'm fairly sure Macs have fantastic graphics cards available to them. Even if we accept your point that PC's have the absolute latest and best hardware, isn't it a tad superfluous? The only people who would need the latest and best that are only an edge above the other cards are those with giant egos. But, I do not think PC's only have the latest and best. BUT, since I do not know the specifics (can you post them?), I'll take your word and concede this to you. Perhaps in the case of the absolute best components, PC's have the video card that is a notch better than the Apple's. But, does that really make a huge difference? Even if it does, to what percentage of computer users does that apply? We're discussing what computer the average user should get here.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The average person isn't going to need the features that differ between the OSs, not nearly so to overcome the price point.

[/quote]

If a person spends $500 on a PC, but they can't use it because of all of the viruses and spyware, how is that a better decision than buying a $1000 Mac that runs perfectly? Oh and by the way, the Mac Mini is an outstanding computer and is only $500. I don't think your cost argument works.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Except that's a poor analogy.

[/quote]

Well, if you accepted the analogy, you wouldn't have posted :)</p>

<p>Well, we could argue forever on this (as computer experts far more knowledgeable on the subject than both of us have been). But my point is this: the average computer user should buy a Macintosh primarily because Spyware, Adaware, and viruses will probably contaminate a PC so badly that they will either have to pay to have it removed (multiple times) or will be unable to use their computer. However, they will appreciate some of OS X's other features (sleek GUI, spotlight, widgets, speed, etc.). I do believe Windows has its advantages, however, if you do not know how to maintain your PC (as videogamerx2 has described), you are going to have an awfully difficult time using it. I know this, as nearly all of my work iincludes some spyware removal, and a lot is solely attributable to spyware.</p>

<p>I'm headed to study Electrical Engineering/Computer Science and Business Management in the fall, and I bought myself the 12 in iBook (~$1000); I do not believe you'll run into any roadblocks because of your specific major with the computer. I would recommend the 12 in iBook to any comptuer laymen who is buying a laptop for college.</p>

67

<p>When it comes to PC parts, an isolated card doesn't mean anything. It is just that PCs nearly always have the latest edge in developing parts (although not always with introducing brand new types of parts as with Macs). I think that the stuff I mentioned is easy enough for anyone to learn, although not to figure out, necessarilly. In that case, the PC is better. But yes if someone doesn't use those tasks (which can be automated I believe) then yes a Mac is probably better. I do think that people who don't run those maintainance operations at least monthly should not use PCs very often that connect online. A little PC knowledge and common sense go a long way. The main point of disconnect here is between the value of the pc and user, so our circular arguments connect between the two by addressing each systems advantages in each.</p>

<p>In regards to cost, the $500 Mac is alot crappier than the $500 pc, and this is true at every price level (except maybe in high-powered nongaming applications that don't usually involve the end user, where the prices are close). My point is that spyware and viruses are easy to prevent with a few simple and quick steps (leaving a prog on during dinner or sleep is easy enough). Perhaps I am overestimating people because of my own practices, but then again perhaps you are underestimating them because you see spyware mishaps all the time. Maybe the truth lies between both of our ideas. </p>

<p>It is true that besides the processor and graphics card, many components that work for PCs usually also work in Macs. However, there is a delay because of motherboard selection, which is fundamental in part selection. This leads to parts to be developed for PCs and Windows first (generally they also work well on Macs but at a higher cost).</p>

<p>OS X has slower response than XP in optimal configurations (hardware and software in both cases), although you need a quick eye and memorization to really notice it.</p>

68

<p>I don't like to make personal attacks, especially over the internet, but videogamerx2 this is getting ridiculous. Why are you bickering with other people who are only interested in making an informed purchase? This thread is called "Buying a Mac" not "Windows Fanboys: Please stop people from Buying a Mac." The majority of the people on this thread appear to be average users with enough of an interest in Macs to ask others for more information, and while both positive and negative input is necessary for anybody to make a solid, informed decision, you have not added anything to the discussion. Other users talked about the downsides of owning a Mac, yet you decided to only make inflammatory comments that weren't really helpful at any point. Your first post was an attack on Mac users, and all of your other posts have been bashing the people who argued your (narrow-minded) opinion. We understand that you prefer Windows to Macs, there is no need to continue bashing it into our heads. If you are so in love with Windows why visit and post on a thread concerning Macs?</p>

<p>Have you even considered the fact that a pretty good number of people don't care about having the latest and greatest technology for the computer they will use in college? I'm sure the majority will use it mainly for EDUCATIONAL purposes, isn't that the whole point of this entire website, to talk about college and the various decisions it involves? Most people aren't going to get top-of-the-line computers, so many of the technological advantages you cite for Windows are a non-issue. Not everybody needs a pimped out gaming PC to get through school. It cannot be argued that for the average user Macs are much, much more stable, and the basic programs are not that much different across the two platforms. Just let it go man, some people are going to buy Macs when they go off to college, and will probably be completely satisified with their choice. Just shut your fat mouth, enough is enough.</p>

<p>emmitisgod, I agree with much of what you said, but just ignore this guy and he will go away.</p>

<p>For the record, I have absolutely no preference between the two, I am comfortable with both and don't know which I will be buying for the fall. I could care less about gaming on a PC and at the same time I don't need the graphic design aspects of a Mac, so I don't have any strong reasons for either. Sorry for the long post, but hopefully the discussion can progress after this.</p>

69

<p>I said nothing inflammatory. You are taking everything severly out of context, read every post and it will make sense. You will see how I (and others) are reading and responding to the previous person's post, and the conversation evolved in the thread. It can be argued over whether Macs are "much, much more stable" because that is a SUBJECTIVE PHRASE. If you want to ignore me, do it. Or keep posting :D (the thread has 1,941 views and 68 replies as of right now, hint hint).</p>

<p>"shut your fat mouth" IS inflammatory btw and so is your "personal attack"</p>

<p>I am not "bickering" with anybody looking for a purchase, I am simply taking the chance to explore technological concepts with others.</p>

<p>Every sentence you made has already been addressed by me in a previous post. I would love to think that Macs are better, since I am not too crazy about Microsoft's monopoly, but I am not convinced, sorry.</p>

70

<p>"The only people defending Macs are those few with an actual reason, like artists, etc, and those who were duped into buying one."</p>

<p>This was your first post on this thread. You had to know that was going to annoy people when it is a pro-Mac thread. And your conversation has "evolved" into a back and forth discussion of the technical aspects of computers and spyware that are above the interest and computer familiarity of many people, with you repeating the same opinion over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.</p>

71

<p>My post references people with a reason and without a reason - everybody</p>

<p>You haven't offered anything constructive and you still don't see how the conversation went - there are more people than just me.</p>

72

<p>You are correct sir, there ARE more peope than just you. The only problem is that all of the other people (benz excepted) are in agreement that you have an extremely narrow minded approach to this. Deal with some REAL computer users for a while and you might see that not all people are interested or capable of learning how to do the things you mentioned, they want it to just work.</p>

<p>Now really, lets just cut this thread back down to the first few posts that actually refer to the topic (in case someone looks it up) and close it becuase this is just terrible.</p>

73

<p>I agree that intraperson arguing is generally useless, but if there is a better option than a Mac then the OP should know what it is. The OP said that price is a big factor; if price is a factor then a Mac is the last thing you want to buy. Most likely you are going to use the computer for all 3-4 years of college so you want it to have up-to-date technology. With a low-priced Mac you cannot get up-to-date technology because a lot of their hardware is overpriced.</p>

74

<p>
[QUOTE]
You are correct sir, there ARE more peope than just you. The only problem is that all of the other people (benz excepted) are in agreement that you have an extremely narrow minded approach to this

[/QUOTE]
.
My narrow-minded approach is based on my years of open-minded experience. I am still just as open-minded but I personally need convincing evidence to change my stance. Understanding the situation better through discussion is something of value to me. Of course, I am playing the devil's advocate in some instances.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

Deal with some REAL computer users for a while and you might see that not all people are interested or capable of learning how to do the things you mentioned, they want it to just work.

[/QUOTE]

Well I have taught people who have only a high school education and minimal pc experience these things. The "just want it to work" attitude gets a far smaller return with a computer, and I still think it is rather simple with proper guidance to learn these things. Not wanting to do an hour long setup is a ridiculous excuse.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

Now really, lets just cut this thread back down to the first few posts that actually refer to the topic (in case someone looks it up) and close it becuase this is just terrible.

[/QUOTE]

I believe you were the one who used phrases such as "wintel dumbass"</p>

75

<p>I'm sorry, I know I've said what I had to say, but something needs to be addressed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
if price is a factor then a Mac is the last thing you want to buy

[/quote]

This is NOT true. The iBook is just as cheap as any other PC laptop and it's just as capable. The only difference is you won't have to pay for spyware removal.</p>

<p>
[quote]
With a low-priced Mac you cannot get up-to-date technology because a lot of their hardware is overpriced.

[/quote]

What? I don't know where you're coming from on this. My dad has been using the 15 in Powerbook for 3-4 years, and my sister has been using a 17 in for 2-3 years. Both computers are just as capable as my new iBook. Their hardware is <em>not</em> overpriced. Look at ibm.com; their "Economy" Think Pad (1.5 GHz, 256 MB, 30 GB, Combo) goes for $1000. Just as much as the iBook I bought and is at least equal to the iBook (and to address the point above, I <em>believe</em> my dad's and sister's computers have better specs than this even though they are on Apple's scales thou the costs were definitely higher).</p>

<p>And the Mac Mini is $500! And that hardware isn't "outdated". I'm sure doesn't have the latest graphics card, but as has previously been said, no one needs one! That's better than my laptop for gods sake. The Harvard Science Center has been switching all of its lobby computers to the old iMac's (2-3+yrs) and has been following suit in many of the computer labs. MIT even uses PowerPC's (5-6+yrs) in they're computer labs. The outdated argument doesn't work.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Well I have taught people who have only a high school education and minimal pc experience these things. The "just want it to work" attitude gets a far smaller return with a computer, and I still think it is rather simple with proper guidance to learn these things.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>videogamer, I always have to show people how to take care of their computer after a repair. Unfortunately, rarely do they listen/understand. I'm a qualified teacher (have been teaching web design and programming for the past 4 years), but apparently the common Joe is really computer illiterate. And I've also noticed that the more I show them the more they groan and are unlikely to do it. I know people should look after their computer, but they just don't want to. People want a computer that will just work on command, like they're supposed to.</p>

<p>Now, everyone's heard what you guys have had to say; they've heard what I've had to say. I really don't want to bicker anymore... I think we're done. I've appreciated some of the insight you've given me; I had never previously met anyone whose had an intelligent defense of PCs. Why don't we let others contribute to the discussion?</p>

76

<p>Actually with laptops I think Macs and PCs are both great. PCs are still cheaper (the Dell 1200 economy laptop with similar specs to that IBM is $549) although the PC-Mac price-point becomes a nonissue. I would prefer a windows-based laptop but I would almost equally take a comparable Mac.</p>

<p>emmitt those lab pcs are for minimal use - they have outdated hardware but it is sufficient for their function. The same is true with a modern minimal pc. It is when you start to deal with enthusiast applications (upwards of $1400) that the term becomes relevant. I'm sure MIT doesn't use 5 year old powerpcs for processing complicated scientific data, but it is fine for research on the internet, typing, etc. Of course a LOBBY PC doesn't need current hardware. Computer hardware proceeds in generations, so after a year or two down ther line most hardware is outdated. Additionally, most students at Harvard and MIT probably have their own computer.</p>

<p>emmitt, the people who pay for spyware services are likely to not be very enterprising in their computer use. it is likely that the common joe is a tad bit more literate (not much though, or at least more motivated)</p>

<p>computers do work on command unless there is a hardware fault. it just depends on who is doing the command :D</p>

<p>I agree, we can let others contribute</p>

77

<p>well boys and girls, looks like apple is moving to intel chips. jobs announced at wwdc today that apple will be moving from the PPC chips it currently uses to x86s and it looks like the transition will be 2006. </p>

<p>so . . . as someone who was just about to buy a new powerbook (and was waiting to see what the announcement at wwdc would be) and been a loyal mac advocate and the PPC chips for years, I feel slightly let down. maybe it was that I just kept dreaming Apple would miraculously develop a way to get the G5s in powerbooks and would stick with PPC. </p>

<p>whether the advantages that jobs claims about the x86 chips are real, only time will tell; but unfortunately, it looks like macs bought now could be obsolete in the near future as programs will have to recode for the new processors.</p>

78

<p>Who pays for spyware removal? The best ones: AdAware, Spybot, etc. are free. So if you're paying for spyware removal then that has to do with the person not the computer.</p>

<p>And $1000 for those specs is terrible. I can get the same speed processor but double the RAM and double the hard drive space for even less than $1000.</p>

<p>And the Mac mini? It is 40GB hard drive, 1.5 Ghz PowerPC processor, and 256 MB RAM for $499.
Here is a Dell: 80GB hard drive, 2.8 GHz Pentium 4, 512 MB RAM for $498.</p>

<p>Need I say anymore?</p>

79

<p>Well, the mac mini is decidedly smaller and runs OSX and isnt a piece of crap dell</p>

<p>Same with the laptop, IBM Thinkpads are MUCH better than the cheap dell notebooks. Dell laptps just cant compare to the quality of Thinkpads and Powerbooks.</p>

<p>Aso for the spyware, spybot and adaware are great, but they definately are not the "best" and they certainly fail after a certain level of infection. As for paying for it, its been said before, not everyone is that technically inclined or wishes to spend the time to learn. Sure they could do it, but for them, its prefferable to spend the $80 to remove it every once in a while or spend more $$ upfront and get a system that isn't likely to become infected.</p>

80

<p>ima a mac user 4ever now im not goin back i recommend that every1 by a mac they are the best of the best. I know they dont seem appealing when you just take a glance sometimes but trust me you will love them and you will be writing the same thing I am writing rite now on some forum in a few months. If you want viruses, slow bootup times, the blue screen that tells you something just went wrong and you just lost your whole term paper keep or get a pc.
<em>MAC WINS END OF GAME</em></p>