The thing is people use computers for different purposes, and in a vast majority of cases a house appliance with a screen and a keyboard is all they need. You do not need a real computer to browse the net or send email, or write an occasional document. My mom uses her computer for MSN Messenger and picture viewing only. She is using PC, because it was so much cheaper, but a Mac would be perfect…

In my case – for work I need a powerful processor, a huge screen, a super-fast HDD and a full size keyboard on my notebook. A 256MB dedicated memory integrated with real graphics chip that generates untold amount of heat and needs its own fan was also a plus.

My notebook weights 10lb and lasts 40 minutes on battery – but that is OK – all I need is to be able to carry it to a nearest coffee shop with an electric outlet, or to the office. I do not work "on the go" and a Mac is a seriously limited and ultimately useless item in my prticular case.

So, any Mac, slim, or not is a great applince for mom & pops who need to access their e-mail easy. Kids can feel cool with it too like with their new sneakers. DTP people would feel lost without their desktop Macs with 32" screens.

For an engineer a Mac is useless. PC is the way to go. Engineers need computers.

If you are truly an engineer, I hope I never have to use something you designed. You have indicated that you can't even perform minimal research in the search of specs of competing products.

Here are some specs from a Macbook Pro:

2.6 Ghz Intel Core Duo

4Gb of 667MHz DDR2 memory

800MHz frontside

Support for hard drives up to 250GB (5400 to 7200 RPM)

15" and 17" screens

NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT

Illuminated keyboard

And it weighs about 7 pounds.

PC magazine wrote that Leopard (OS 10.5) is "by far the best operating system ever written for the vast majority of consumers."

Oh, and did I mention you can run windows on a Mac? In fact, PC World claimed "The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year (through 10/25/07) is a Mac. Try that again: The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year--or for that matter, ever--is a Mac."

All that said, my work is sadly primarily PC-based and I, therefore, continue to use PCs. A MacBook Pro is not cheap and even though I can now run Windows on it, I cannot justify the purchase at this time when my current Dell does the job I need perfectly well.

"If you are truly an engineer, I hope I never have to use something you designed. You have indicated that you can't even perform minimal research in the search of specs of competing products."

Well, specs don't matter one bit if the software you need to use to perform your job is NOT written for Mac. Engineers and accountants are two professions that do use proprietary software that won't run on them. I have to support two accounting programs that aren't written for any Mac OS.

And Vista running fast on a Mac? It's a little too early to tell how many problems that can cause. Vista is probably going to be crappy for awhile no matter what it runs on. It's like they released a Beta again.

I am a GIS (geographic information systems) professional and the leading GIS software (made by ESRI) is PC-centric. I am well aware of the limitations of using Macs in this regard--and I said as much in my original post.

The original poster said, though, that Macs were "appliances" that could not keep up with PCs in speed and performance. This statement is simply incorrect on so many levels.

As for the Vista on Mac--the fact that it is already out-performing comparable PCs with Vista, whether earlier in the game or not, speaks volumes.

"Oh, and did I mention you can run windows on a Mac? In fact, PC World claimed "The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year (through 10/25/07) is a Mac. Try that again: The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year--or for that matter, ever--is a Mac."

PC World rated their top 10 laptops. the mac scored 81 all the other ones scored 80. However, the mac had double the memory, a faster processor and cost twice as much money as the number 10 rated computer.

I am forced to use a Mac at work, but I would never buy one.

Ah, the timeless Mac-vs-PC argument. It's always seemed like a cultural thing to me -- there are Mac people and PC people and that's that. The Mac people tout faster performance and a better interface and the PC folks remind us that not everything runs on a Mac and a PC is cheaper.

Did I miss anything?

there are Mac people and PC people and that's that.

There are indeed. However, like virtually everything, there are things a Mac does better than a PC and things a PC can do better than a Mac. Because you can now run Windows on a Mac, though, the line is becoming hazer. It is no longer a Mac/PC thing, rather an operating system thing.

With the latest generation of Macs, you can now have a triple boot--Mac OS; Windows; and any flavor of Linux. Currently, with a PC, you can get a dual boot--Windows and Linux. Sorry, that's pretty damn cool if you like using multiple operating systems (as I do).

The biggest obstacle for Mac at this moment is price. Mac's are damn expensive--but many people find it well worth it.

Mac IS an appliance. It is built in in the very philosophy of how Macs are developed. The difference is like between Caddilac Escalade and Ford F250. One is made to be cute, slick, likable and make the owner feel like he achieved some status. The other is designed to do the danged job - period.

The Mac you described cost 3 times as much as a comparable PC. If you need to buy 200 of them it is a problem you will not be able to justify to the accounting of an mfg plant.

Mac's do not run OPC, they do not simulate PLCs and good luck developing your own C compiler for prioprietary microcontrollers under Mac OS.

You do not know what you are talking about buddy.

No, "buddy", what he doesn't know is what YOU'RE talking about, because you're so confused you aren't really saying anything.

Because Macs don't run the particular software you use doesn't make them "household appliances."

And actually, they DO run the software you use if you boot them in Windows.

They do not run any particular software any scientist or engineer is using to do their job.

Booting it in Windows "natively" immediatelly kills the whole argument on the grounds that now you have a Windows PC, not a Mac. A very expensive Windows PC.

Your argument does not make any sense, because it does not prove that the Mac philosophy is that of creating a workhorse computer - it only says that if you turn Mac into a Windows PC, than you have a workhorse computer. But it is not a Mac anymore, so why pay $3000 for an average Windows PC with an Apple on it?

"so why pay $3000 for an average Windows PC with an Apple on it?"

That's the catch. it's not an average Windows PC. They're some of the fastest PCs on the market. And if you spec out putting 8 cores in your Dell, you'll discover Apple aren't all that expensive either.

Except the Dell can't boot OSX ..