Amen, brother.

I've said for years that most people plan their computer spending upside-down. They buy a computer and get an OS, then they look at software for it, they pick one and then they try to do their job.

Upside down.

First figure out what job you want to do, then see what software exists to do it. Find the best one (criteria are up to you, and may include cost and usability as they matter to you...) , and the best OS for it, then buy a machine that meets the requirement.

I'm happy with my mac, If I had to program in VB at home, I'd have a PC and it'd be what I needed. Anyone who chooses a computer any other way is shooting craps without knowing the rules--you may win, but you won't know why...

"You use a PC? Must be a Republican. You use a Mac? Must have voted for Nader."

I just love that quote, because both Rush Limbaugh and Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballs.com use Mac. Even a step further, Charles uses a mac with linux on it.

It's time to stop this foolishness. The Macintosh was a great machine.

In 1984.

The only argument I've ever heard a Mac-eral make in favor of the Mac OS is, "Man, Apple was doing that years before Microsoft. Then Microsoft does it and everybody thinks it's cool." Hey! Wake up and smell the coffee! So what if Microsoft is just following Apple's lead. The question is, "What has Apple done this year with the Mac OS that Microsoft is going to duplicate five years from now?" The answer is: Nothing.

That's right. The Mac OS (for all you Big Blue / Microsofties who never bought a Mac) has pretty much been sitting still ever since I got my first Mac in 1989. There are no significant new features to speak of. In the meantime, Microsoft copied some of the basic look and feel of the Mac but did it better, hence the raving press that Mac fanatics complain about.

And of course Apple stole their basic look and feel from Xerox, so they can't even claim moral superiority over Microsoft.

Some things that IBM / Microsoft got right:

The look of an application, with its own menu inside a window that floats on the desktop. The Mac has one menu at the top of the screen for the "current" application. You can't put two (or more!) apps side-by-side.
"Sticky" menus. On the Mac, you have to hold the button down while you drag down the menu. (Win95 is even better - it highlights the menu items even if the button is up... clearly indicating what will be activated when you click.)
Two (or more!) mouse buttons. (Hey, I still have three fingers on my right hand I'm not using...)
The convention of "OK" and "Cancel." Oftentimes, a Mac application gives you only the close box to exit a dialog. How do you reverse your changes? Or will they be reversed when you close the dialog? Similarly, ubiquitous "Help" buttons are a Windows phenomenon.
One "Enter" key. The Mac has a "Return" key and an "Enter" key. Each does something different. On my Mac, my "Enter" key is actually on a separate keyboard which connects to my main keyboard with a pendant cable.

Sure, there are plenty of nice things about the Mac. My wife set up our first Mac, and she knows very little about computers. Networking Macs is really easy. Some Macs turn on when you press a key on the keyboard. That's kind of cool.

And then there's the Newton MessagePad. Not a Mac, but a really neat Apple product (technology stolen from GO Corp, former corporate home of Bill Campbell, present CEO of Intuit).

So let's look at that argument again: Windows is everything the Mac used to be. But so is the Mac. There's ten times as many software titles available for the PC, and hardware is tons cheaper. In my opinion (nay, in actual fact) - the IBM / Windows combination wins the war.

Now, I want no more discussion of this nonsense.

What has Apple done this year with the Mac OS that Microsoft is going to duplicate five years from now?" The answer is: Nothing.

what microsoft will one day 'duplicate' is the production of a rock solid OS. something they don't even come close to having.

Well, I have usually been bi. Platform, that is. Back in the day, that could really be something. My home network was a feat in itself. Remember when you had to have Timbuktu, DAVE or that other third-party ap just to make a go of it, Mark? Now, with OS X, most of the compatibility issues Wintel users think still exist are history.

Using a Mac only for music, Jason? You are wasting at least half the potential of the machine.

Help buttons, Frank? They annoy me. Also, I usually turn those pesky Microsoft wizards off. Furthermore, Mac used to have lots of nearly useless Balloon Help built-in. I'm glad they discontinued it.

The future for Apple? The success of the G5 and the iPod seem to point where it is going. Perhaps more diversification into multimedia compatible with Wintel and Macs. And, some success in small to medium office enterprise. Heck, there may even be more Mac super computers coming soon. I don't see Apple as non-innovative or about to fail at all.

Now, would y'all like to discuss Gateway?

for platform stability, apple made a great decision in going with bsd unix as the base.

i rememeber back when i programmed exclusively on sun machines running bsd...the only time you ever had to reboot was when you put more memory in.

The reason I use the Mac exclusively for music is because the Mac is a mission-critical piece of hardware in my studio. I don't care to introduce any conflicts between software by adding programs that have nothing to do with music production.

I know that there shouldn't be any conflicts, and Mac purists have told me that the Mac is stable enough to run Pro-Tools, PhotoShop, all the cool plugins etc etc all at the same time without any problems. My experience dictates otherwise, on various Macs in various studios. The problem isn't with the Mac; its with the various small-shop software vendors.

Thanks for all the cool comments!!