Just for starters, I love Mac OS X, the OS, but the hardware Apple uses, now that's a different story. It took me a while to figure this all out, but, I know I'm going to get flamed, and I'm sorry, I've never really been a fan of Intel products. Why Apple chose to go with them is beyond me. Here's what frustrates me about Macs now (remember I used to have an iBook G4 and post here all the time): 1. Intel Processors, processors get better on a month to month basis, but Apple uses older hardware for 4-8 months before an "update". 2. Cost - If Apple is using older Processors why is the cost still through the roof? I wish I could afford a new Mac, but I've went ahead to building a Quad core PC (AMD Phenom). A lot of you are against Pystar, but I hope they win, just because I'd rather pay $5xx for a Mac than pay $1,xxx for one. We're not all as rich as we'd like to be. Like I said, Mac OS X is still my favorite OS, just the hardware is still lacking. I personally think if Apple would have went with AMD And ATI they would have been better off. If you look at the 780G chipset on an AMD mobo, you usually get an ATI HD 3200 Integrated Graphics chipset, which is amazing when playing 3-D Games, even on Vista. I'm not a big PC user, I'm actually using Linux right now. It's cheaper to make a quick easy PC than it is to buy a Mac. But if Apple would have went with AMD would the cost of the Mac still be the same? No offense, but I think Apple should release it's OS as OpenSource or release it for all AMD, Intel, and Via Processors. More people want Macs, but its difficult to get the money to buy one. I'm still a Mac OS X fan, just not big on Apple products any more. I miss the old days with the G4 and G5 processors. They performed better than any dual, tri, or quad core processor I've used.