... just like a couple stuck in a loveless, boring marriage, people hold on to the familiar with a death grip that astounds reason.

...in my experience... people don't switch over to Macs because they're expensive but because they don't want to learn new short-keys.

Put a regular PC user in front of a Mac & they go all deer-in-the-headlights wondering what to do. Some won't even make the effort to figure out where the On switch is located.

Most people (not you guys on this page, OBVIOUSLY) use the computer at work, in the privacy of their cubes, to perform the same tasks day after day. Once they get home, they want nothing to do with that TV with a keyboard. That's for the kids to do their homework & for husbands to look at porn once the S.O. goes to bed.

So in conclusion: The real reason why people don't switch to Macs is because they have PCs at the office & don't feel like dealing with a learning curve when using a Mac at home.

The secret is to tap into that cheap Windoze secondary market, that's where the real bargains are. And let's face it, it all becomes junk at some point!

Reading some of these posts it struck me--I really much prefer John Hodgman to Justin Long. But I couldn't remember his name so I googled "mac guy" and guess what--apparently my take is rather universal, and Apple is getting rid of the character after the Christmas ads.

According to this article:

http://radarmagazine.com/exclusives/2006/11/apple-ditches-mac-guy-in-new-ads.php

"Virtually everyone who watches it comes away liking the "PC guy" while wanting to push the "Mac guy" under a bus," and "Why was Long dropped, specifically? Perhaps for striking people as a "smug little twit," in the words of Seth Stevenson, ad critic for Slate."

I think most of us realize that whether it's because we use one at work or for whatever personal reason, our computer choice is simply that--a choice, based on our own reasons--and not evidence of moral or intellectual superiority or inferiority. But it's fun and interesting to read so many comments that are in keeping with the attitude of a smug little twit. And to note which side the smugness seems to be mostly on.

To use a piece of shit OS like Windows. Buy a used Mac. Live long and prosper.

I've spent the better half of two hours reading some of these posts. I need a break, or something better to occupy my time.

I just finally came upon the latest post from Chickadee, talking about smugness. I couldn't agree more about the Mac guy. I'm glad he's gone. But I actually think a vast majority of the "smugness" here comes from the PC/Windows side and not the Mac side. Surprising. I mean, it's as banal as that time a couple of years ago when people were arguing over which ice cream was best. I fully would expect the Mac crowd to be more smug, but here, in my opinion, the opposite is true in spades.

Can we talk about something that matters now? Kucinich vs Paul?

The many comments I've read by (assumed) Windows users have some good points about the false malware argument, and about current reselling being such a small niche market (in fact, Macs are a lot like BMWs there - the parts are worth even more than the whole). But the denial about the economics are patently wrong.

First, except for bargain basement crap, Apple is priced almost identically to Windows PCs. And have been for about 5 years. No, you can't get a Mac for 500 bucks, but those El Cheapo's are not really a "computer" by today's standards, they're just Internet terminals. And that's all my 80-year old mother needs, so I bought her one, not a used Mac (warranty/support was important). But if you want anything that does more than surf and email, you're looking at $900, including a decent monitor. And those PCs are roughly comparable to a Mac mini, which costs about $900 with a decent monitor. And it matches, feature for feature, spec for spec, right up the line - except as you get more demanding you may have to pay extra for an OS (Vista's many iterations) that meets your demands.

But here's the real economy that the Windows PC crowd misses: A WinPC needs to be replaced about every 2 or 3 years. Not because there's any Spyware proiblems, but because the demands of newer software and peripherals outstrip the machine. Each version gets more bloated, more resource intensive, and less collaborative with older software and hardware. In order to keep your apps from bogging down you have to replace the system. Apples last 5 or 6 years before they can no longer support applications. Photoshop 9 works just as well as Photoshop 6. Same for Filemaker 8.5 and 6. iLife,mail, even OS X. 10.5 (Leopard) works just as well on my 4+ year old PowerBook as did the 10.2 it came with.

So even if I don't calculate resale into the cost of my computer, if I replace it this Christmas it will have cost me about $400 a year. But the comparable Dell notebook I decided not to buy and likely replaced two years ago would have cost $700 a year. Even if I kept it, I'd have had to replace it early this year to run Vista, and it would have cost $500 a year.

Maybe this explains why, going all the way back to the very first comment, Humanities majors are so relatively poor. Spending the extra $100 on the Mac would have saved you from spending another $1000 before your 4th year. You'd still have - and be very happy with - your Apple Mac. There's a real crash course in Economics that everyone (even Sociology majors!) can understand

I've bought my Windows XP Professional computer from Gateway in spring, 2003. It has never once crashed, and never once given me a single problem. I've upgraded Photoshop twice and upgraded Office once. No problems. And the rest of my software keeps working just peachy for the many things a writer, nature photographer, radio producer and web content producer needs.