Okay, by now you should realize that things between the PC world and the Mac world aren't so black and white now. XP & 2k are much more crash proof than 9x, have become more user-friendly and have become a better value than the Mac in some ways. The major issue right now betwen PCs and Macs isn't any of those however, it's raw speed. With Intel approaching 3Ghz by November, the fastest Mac at 1.25Ghz (duals or not) is just not loking very speedy by comparison. Granted, they're not THAT slow, but they're far from where they could be. There was a time when the Mhz myth was valid, then CPUs started to hit Ghz, then twice that, now at 3Ghz. If I'm shopping for a speedy computer right now, what looks fastest, a dual 1.25Ghz G4 or a single 3Ghz PIV? Even Photoshop, long favored on the Mac platform is going to render faster on a top of the line PC. Now, don't get me wrong, there are a lot of reasons to choose a Mac over a PC at the moment, but speed is not one of them. My question to you is, whose fault is it that we have this problem? Is it Apple's for not pushing Moto to make faster chips? Is it Moto for not giving any intrest in making faster chips? Is it Intel, for making consumers think that Mhz is a valid measure for performanance? Could Apple have threatened Moto with moving over to IBM chips much earler to get them to crank out some killer chips, or does Moto not care too much about selling chips to Apple because they make more money in the embedded chip market? Could Intel have resorted to a better marketing move than cranking up the Mhz every chance it got? You decide. Sticking the blame on someone and complaining about what should have been done isn't going to do much now, but in the future we can hopefully use this knowledge to make sure that this doesn't happen again.