If Gates uses a computer now, it is a PC.  Gates comes from a geeky computer background, and his company is noted for computer languages.  Considering Microsoft makes Office for the Mac, you do see Macs at Microsoft.  They also have Linux running around to.

yes.. they do.. but u missed my point.. I dont wanna buy a pc(disambiguation: mac) in 2009 that has 2008 specs for a 2003 price.

I just picked up a HP HDX lappy for around $1000.. how much does a similarly specd macbook pro go for? $2000+ and thats with a smaller screen and a much more expensive extended warranty and limited 90 day support.

So yea its great macs r quiet. and its great macs have 5 hrs of quoted battery life on the horribly outdated  nvidia 9400 GM but since gateway gives me a system for around a $1000 with a 9800GTS with 3 hrs battery life.. ill take that.

It's always nice to see someone of like mind when it comes to this...

9400 GM is less than a year old.

Barring workstation level graphics loads (on a laptop? why.) or high end gaming (on a laptop? on a Mac? why.), it's more than enough to run everything the typical user will run and do it very smoothly. Without shutting off OS visual effects.

The main thing I question with Apple's current consumer/pro product lapt top tiering is that the two primary differences between the MacBook and MacBook Pro are
1) 13" 1280x800 screen vs. 15" 1440x900 screen
2) 9600M GT discrete video (added to the 9400 GM chipset video)

By essentially using the same high end machined aluminum enclosure on both models with LED backlit screens (premium on PC), unless you really need a discrete VGA card, you're essentially paying $400-700 more for a 15" screen (19-20" monitor resolution), express card slot and a Firewire 800 port (important for professionals, unused by most consumers).

For those who just want a 15" MacBook for general purpose use, you're going to (over)pay for it. Even more for the 17" naturally (which buys 24" monitor resolutions BTW).

Anyway, the vast majority of PC laptops in the 15" range + are heavier and bulkier than bricks which matters to those who actually travel frequently. It's only with the premium PC laptops (with premium prices) that attention is given to form factor, aesthetics, weight and battery life, aspects that are standard with Mac laptops.

There's a reason why Apple is one of the current largest vendors of laptops whether other consumers choose to see it or not.

But need a desktop replacement laptop (regardless of weight) on a limited budget and are fine with Windows? Why even bother price/spec comparing with Apple; it's an exercise in pointlessness.

This is M$ best ad in a longtime...how can Apple counter it?...they can't...in this economy, people are trying to get value, and now that macs use intel processors, all you're paying for is the Apple brand. Even mroe interesting is that Mac OS is cheaper than M$...so that REALLY begs the question of why Macs are so much more than PCs.

If you can tell the difference between a $1000 laptop and a $2000 laptop, both being PCs (ie. running Vista) with very comparable specs, you will understand what all these people are actually paying for (all arguments over which OS is "better" aside).

If not, you probably don't have issue with a 7+ lb. laptop in a matte plastic enclosure, mediocre resolutions/display where actual usable battery life is typically considered a "premium" battery.

Shop around for the nicest PC laptops on the market, and you'll start to understand.

My main issue with Apple's Pro hardware is that for the premium price you pay, the specs should reflect fastest available parts from vendors.

When it comes down to it 99% of Mac and PC owners just bullshit on the web, watch porn, and play music. I'm a computer tech that deals with a lot of customers so I think I have a pretty good idea of typical use.

With that said a standard user can buy the cheapest PC on the market and be perfectly happy. But I'm pretty sure having a Mac will get you laid. I simply can't think of any other reason to buy one.

I will never buy a Mac. Why should, it is inferior from a technical point of view and it is expensive. Mac is for Yuppies. They say an Apple product is worth it, because of "Design". Yeah right. 1000 USD just for the design of a Notebook? Actually I never felt my HP Notebook looked bad.

And Maffka or wahtever, Apple did not win anything, except the iPod and MAYBE the iPhone.

And whats wrong with AMD? they are way better than those greedy bastards known as Intel and are much better in $/performance. Plus in most applications for the common user they are just as good as intel cpu's or in some cases better (battery life).

Anyways actually that wasnt a half bad laptop. Obviously not the best but it was good. I recently bought one very similiar but with a little more awesomeness and its a really good computer. (2.4 Ghz cpu, 4 GB DDR2 ram, 500 GB HDD, Nvidia 9800M, and blu ray player) all for $1200. A complete steal if you ask me and much better than any macbook

That is completely incorrect. If you didn't pull that figure completely from your arse then I would suggest you misunderstood something. Perhaps Apple has 50% of the consumer laptop market?