PS3-Mac comparison is fair, at the moment at least, Macs don't have a lot of games, neither does the PS3, Macs are overpriced, so are PS3s, Macs are used for lots of multimedia purposes, and what do you know, so are PS3s!

Don't worry about the extra RAM, go with the hard drive space or possibly better graphics, or you could save your money for Leopard which comes out in December, or even better, in stead of spending over a grand, spend $600 (probably a little more Canadian dollars for some reason) and buy a brand new gaming desktop, it might not be the very best gaming machine but it will have better specs than the Mac, you can even (illegally natively, legally through emulation) run OS X on it!

xcal - I defiantely want a Laptop though. I'm going back to school next year and it'll really help. Also, if I got a new Desktop, I'd really have to get a flatscreen monitor as well, which would add a fair bit. Oh yeah, and like I said, I really want a mac.

As for the RAM, the price is the same for 2 gigs ram and 160 hard drive, or 1 gig and 120 hard drive. I'm currently using about 37 of my 40 gig hard drive, so I can't imagine that I'd have problems with the 120. That's why I'm considering the extra Gig. 

You really wont notice a difference between 1 and 2 gigs, but you will want more video RAM, especially with Core Animation in Leopard, try and get 256MB if you can, also make sure the processor is 64 bit, it should be but it might not, especially if it's an older Mac Book, because Leopard is a 64 bit only OS (and trust me, you will want to upgrade to Leopard).

 Any reason in particular?

http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/

Click take a tour, oh and it comes out in October, not December like I said before.

It's all around better than Tiger and it will be supported with updates while Tiger will be a thing of the past...

So you are saying that Macs, because they cannot play games, are not good? Perhaps you should tell that to Nobel laureates in mathematics and physics, who use their Macs for calculating problems that wind up winning them Nobel prizes in the first place, eh?

Again, you are going on perceived value, and for that, there are plenty of people who think that Macs are fine computers, and don't need a computer for any kind of gaming - at all. What you perceive as value in a computer is obviously different from what stof perceives. Or are you just wearing those horseblinds again and think that the only reason people buy and use computers are for games, or whatever reason you alone may have?

Who's being "blond" again? And stop being offensive towards blonds or do I have to remind you that half of Sony's western management are "blond"? Yeah, I guess that explains why the PS3 is selling the way it is, then...

Actually, you want a 64-bit OS if the applications you are going to use support 64 bits; otherwise there isn't much to gain at all.

The only problem with Intel integrated graphics is that it will use part of the 1GB pool for graphics. So you can assign 256MB to graphics, but that leaves your system with 768MB. However, again that should not be an issue because you a) don't need the fancy animations (as they are system hogs) and b) you can set your graphics to 128MB and system ram uses the remainder, because for what you plan to use the computer for you will be able to do all your tasks with aplomb.

Typing this from a Macbook and I love it haha. Macs are just so much easier and...fun to use. and if you ever feel that you need windows for something you can easily put it on through parallels.

Honestly I ask why you are buying a mac instead of a Linux laptop?

Macs are not pricey that is just something people use to try and dissuade others from buying a Mac. In reality there have been many articles showing Macs with the same setup costing less than their PC counterparts.

So NightStalker, what do you think about my two original questions?