For what it's worth, I find myself much more productive on my Mac which is about half the clock speed of other PCs I work with. Don't think I'm inexperienced with PCs, though. I've had access to and worked with Macs since 1987 and PCs since around 1988. I've used Mac OS 2.0 to 10.2 and MSDOS and Windows 3.0 to 9x to 2000. Admittedly, I've only had a little first-hand exposure to XP, but I think I've made my point.Anyhow, remember that it's not *only* hardware architectural differences that make Apple computers different; it's also about differing desktop metaphors and user interface concepts and guidelines. Some people think that the only UI differences between Mac OS X and Windows XP are superficial things like "the taskbar vs the dock" and "global menubar vs window menubar". True, those do play a part, but there's much more to the differences when you see how different things *interact* with each other. What Andy mentioned above is precisely what I am refering to. For myself and people I know, the overall "feel" and UI design of the Mac OS makes the workflow faster regardless that the CPU clock and bus speed is slower.As far as the price goes, yes, I'll be the first to agree that they are overpriced -- *especially* in countries outside of the USA. Apple has long had the highest profit margin in the PC industry. There's no denying this. However, it should be noted that Apple's computers are time and again being reported on average as being cheaper to maintain than PCs and having a much longer lifespan than PCs. Does this long term savings adjust for the higher initial cost? Some people say yes, that it's well worth it.Of course, I could go on and on with a long discourse on the "PC vs Mac" subject, but it's probably not worth the effort here.
(actually, I'm probably repeating myself now -- I didn't bother to re-read my earlier posts to this thread. whoops.)(Edited by Bradster at 7:31 pm on Oct. 23, 2002)