Owner as in my work bought it for me. I love it. Would I pay for it myself? Probably not. I build the systems I use at home, and I just can't stomach the investment.

Your example is lame. Resale value. What was the % drop for both? The windows machine started out lower, ended up lower. What is the %, is it significant?

If you don't have that kind of information, you're only Once and For All proving your headlines are misleading. Just like that damn pilot guy - headline about farting and when it comes time to talk about it he's too shy. I felt misled.

To the guy with the Quadra in 1994, congrats on using telnet...LOL.

I used Macs loyally for more than a decade, but I switched because of exactly the opposite reasons Farhad makes. My Macs always got slower, and slower, crashing more and more, getting more "gummed up" as you say. I'd have to do clean installs of Mac OS, but they would eventually stop working -- sure, like any computer. But a Mac is much more difficult and costly to upgrade, because the hardware is all proprietary and held by one company. It's not open. I can't go and replace one of the machine's failing organs -- or heck, even its shell -- by buying a new hard drive or a graphics card from a dozen different companies.

Then I switched to Windows, around the time XP came out. I've never had a single software crash, unlike earlier days of Mac (although I understand recent versions are more stable). I've never had a single problem with viruses or spyware, and I use the internet all the time and don't have any kind of expensive virus or anti-spyware software, just freeware. I really don't understand how people end up with that stuff on their computers, although I know they do -- I've cleaned the gunk off relatives' machines. If you're someone who's plagued by spyware and viruses, I can see why you'd want a Mac, although if they do get more popular, I'm sure you'll see more Mac spyware and viruses. It's the lack of numbers that have kept Mac users safe, not the fact that Apple's security is impregnable.

I have had my current machine for almost seven years and it's still humming along great, playing the latest games. I haven't HAD to buy a new machine because when something goes wrong, as it always will, I replace the hard drive, or the motherboard, or the graphics card, although even that I've been using for four years now without too much of a problem with games.

Farhad's whole argument is built around the idea that you have to buy a new computer every two years. Sure, that's fine if you like to throw your disposable income around and clutter the environment with disused computer parts. Don't fool yourself by thinking that you're an amazing recycler for reselling your computer; if it only lasted you two years before you "needed" the latest model, how long do you think it's going to last the slightly poorer person who you hand it down to for more than they'd pay for a used Windows machine? Look at it from the used-computer buyer's point of view too, jerk.

Macs also wear out and become obsolete, and eventually the whole thing lands on the junkpile. But with a PC, I just replace parts occasionally, a much more steady and low cost, and it's not that hard to do. I don't have a background in computers or programming or electronics of any kind -- I'm a writer and graphic designer. If we want to move away from the "toss the old one and buy a new one" mentality that creates landfills viewable from space, we have to focus more on repairs, and do-it-yourself ones if necessary.

I remember the moment when I first realized that I had been duped by Apple's reputation as an outsider challenging the hegemonic might of Bill Gates. I am not a big Microsoft fan, and would rather run Linux one of these days, but Apple is just another corporation, and their hardware monopoly is actually more insidious than the fact that Microsoft's software is the most popular. Apple is the only place to go when Apple hardware breaks down, which is becoming more common in the era of the disposable iPod (remember the scandals with the first version?) And they just want you to buy a new one. Just like Farhad does.

Shame on you, telling people they have to buy a new computer every two years! I've never found that necessary to run the latest software or be free from technical problems, even with a Mac -- we should expect all computers to last five years at least.

A very real cost of having a Mac is that one can no longer take the install disks from school/work/friends and install them on their computer. I realize there are free alternatives to just about everything now, but things like Matlab CAD programs just don't exist in the free software world (that I know of). I know this is piracy, and if already installing from someone else's disks, why wouldn't someone just torrent the install? But really, that's riskier. Your friend isn't going to turn you in, or piggyback a virus. I think this is a large and unreported factor in weighing the cost of a new computer.

I have been running a Linux desktop for nearly two years now, first Suse 10 and now Ubuntu 7.x. For those who have not been watching, Linux on the desktop is all grown up now and ready to take on almost any task with open source software that will be at least adequate for 90% of personal computer users.

Of course, I could say that Unix-Linux actually extends to the Mac since Apple no longer develops an OS, but simply puts it's GUI on top of BSD Unix. That is really not much different than what Novell [Suse] and Canonical [Ubuntu} are doing.

I also have to observe that most personal computer users do not replace their systems every 2-3 years. Two decades ago that was common and continues to be common for enthusiasts. For the more typical user, upgrades and replacements are postponed until they are absolutely necessary. Here, Linux and maybe the Mac have the advantage of a small and efficient OS kernel that does not require massive upgrades to run Vista or whatever succeeds it.

Just don't continue with the old MS vs. Mac paradigm. Linux has grown up and is here to stay.