I've been reading a few threads lately about the performance of particular specifications of computer, in particular notebook performance. People have been saying that the Centrino based IBM compatibles perform better than G4 PB's, and it strikes me that there are some serious issues here. I don't feel that it's fair to compare a mac to a pc at all in terms of "performance". The important thing to me, is that for general use, performance is not about raw gigahertz. It's about the symbiosis between the user and the device in question. When I use a Mac, I work far more in harmony with the equipment than when I use a pc. My productivity is increased as I flow through my workload. In that way, the performance of the overall system (of which I am a constituent) is higher. Also, going back to the notebooks. How much time is wasted because various devices crash the windows computer? They're still not plug and play! How much 'performance' is wasted whilst setting up a printer? Another argument that PC users come up with is "okay windows is bad, but I can use linux". What a load of nonsense. The thing that makes PC's appealing is that they have a standard OS, as soon as Linux is used, this is lost. PC users have to stop claiming that the architecture is better based on compatability of a standard OS that they admit is junk, and stability of an OS that is not even their working environment. And I believe, also that I am right in saying that OSX is now the most widely used Unix based OS? I guess what I'm trying to say, is that, as exemplified by Apple's digital hub strategy, a computer is a device for making your life easier. It's a tool for humans to interact with to derive benefit in their lives, and too many people miss the point, that when gauging performance of the system, they have to consider their own interaction with it.