Well...this is probably pointless, but I'm sure that someone who reads this thread will have posted in a thread last year that was titled 'Worst question a Windows user has asked' or something along those lines. Well oddly enough, a very uninformed and fanboyish report I wrote was referenced in that thread! I think it's amazing that it showed up there, but anyways, for anyone who read it, I'm sure it makes me look like an uninformed Windows fanboy. Well I still am, minus the uninformed and change the fanboy to user. Now I gotta say that that lame report I wrote was on pure performance, and I compared the two top end machines at the time. Now the person who said something about the document was obviosly a fanboy, ever touting the 'eyes can't see faster than 60 fps', and saying it didn't matter. Realisticly, it doesn't, but the benchmark showed performance. I'm just defending my conclusions. Now I could go on a lot more, but fact is, the situation is still the same today. Now this is the part where I attempt to throw a few things back at the poster who made me look stupid. Here's the quote I'm referencing, by barefootchef: They compare a Dual Processor G4 running at 1.42 GHz per processor to a single processor Pentium 4 running at 3.06 GHz. Right there there is already a problem. The total GHz of the G4s equals only 2.84 GHz. That's 220 MHz slower than the pentium. Second, no matter how efficient the operating system utilizing the multi-processors, some of those Hz will always be lost in the process. It used to be a whopping 50% of the processing power of the second chip. I believe it has since gotten down to 10-25% lost. At the least that's another 142 MHz lost. So, already the processing speed is 362 MHz slower. It doesn't sound like much, but it all adds up. Well lets use that excuse now. A P4EE at 3.2GHz and and Athlon 64 FX-51 at 2.2GHz. Hmm...they both bested the Dual G5 2GHz in a 12 benchmark test run by Maximum PC Magazine. The Dual G5 2GHz (which, just to say, adds up to 4GHz!) is bested in 8 out of 12 of them, by both x86 chips. Now going by Barefootchef's calculations, these speeds mean that the Mac should win, no? Well, no matter, I think that someone should've checked if speed mattered just as much as architecture...oh wait...it does. Anyways, I don't want to start a flame-war, just trying to make myself not look like a total loser...seeing as the thread...actually the exact post...shows up on the first page of a google search. Feel free to diss me, I probably deserve it. But let it be known that I still think that the PC is the best deal for the money, and the better performer when it comes down to the same price. The PC also takes the lead at the top end. Anyways...peace out. Maybe I can learn something from the persons who reply to this post.