zerospace wrote:

Let's hear it for the Apple IIe - whoooo hooo!
Ahh... Macintosh.. I was hopin' no one would bring them up. lol.. sorry folks, I'm not a big fan of Macs, but I will say this--the G5 is pretty nice. But, anything less than that is worthless as far as Macs go, IMO. (I really really despise the IMac)
*slinks away before a Mac-person starts throwing rocks at her*
Wasn't going to bring up the Mac Option, but since someone else did, I'll also put in my 2Yen.
I grew up on PC's (after the TI99/4a and TRS80), but currently have a G5 PowerPC and an IBook (G4). Also use a G4 at work, in addition to a Sun workstation, and remotely run few Microsoft terminal servers, a G5 cluster and a Silicon Graphics. I'm not a system builder or administrator, just have to run some intense simulations.
Agree about the G5. Benchmarked my home unit against the 8 processor SG at work (which was a few years older) and found its two processor performance was nearly twice that of the 8 processor tool at work, for the applications we run. It definitely screams, and looks nice doing it.
G4's are definitely an old architecture, but probably not as bad as people think. Not all of the application really take advantage of the architecture, and the machines with the G4 don't often come with a fast bus, or memory. In general performance vs. price compare pretty closely with the PCs and Macs. It just depends on what you like and what you want to do. Because of the new Unix platform (glad OS9 is long gone) system crashes are almost unheard of on a Mac, though applications can still crash.
If you want to game, and don't have time to do a little research to find appropriate software, I wouldn't even consider the Mac. If you don't care about gaming, but like ease of use, do heavy graphics processing, or like programming in Unix (:)), then I would consider a Mac in the comparison. Off the shelf you can get similar price vs performance, but the Mac's price probably wouldn't come close to what you could get by building the PC .