PCs and Macs are basically the same.

1. VMWare is essentially an emulator - adding another layer of things to go wrong between the OS and the secondary UI. My point about adding another layer stands - there's simply no way to run both OS's at the same time without turning off the computer unless you build a custom Tandem system, which is hideously expensive to do. I suggest you research Alienware laptops and then tell me those are not gaming computers. Desktop Macs may come with a multi-button mouse - that makes them passable for gaming purposes. But not if they're running Mac OS... there are still hardly any major titles released for both PC and Mac at the same time. 2. Again - you're missing my point. To build a normal machine... it's cheaper to build a PC than a Mac, unless you're building a system capable of running both OS10.5 and Windows - in that case, it's entirely dependent on the cost of the OS. Building a machine to specifically run Windows only is cheaper than building a machine to run Mac OS only. Although, anymore, this point is really moot because Mac OS is now designed to be able to use traditionally PC components. 3. Vista shouldn't be compared to OS 10.5 - Vista is still a complete PoS - XP is much better, especially in terms of system performance. And I believe XP is cheaper than OS 10.5. 4. Once more - you misunderstand me. OS 10.5 is ONE Unix OS. It is not the ONLY Unix OS - AIS, Solaris, Linux, Tandem's NonStop - all Unix OS's. I shall clarify a statement you had issue with here - "Mac OS is a pain for any IT professional THAT I HAVE WORKED WITH." Next 2. 3ds Max 8 is old hat - there are 2 versions after it - Max 9 and Max 2008. From my experience with both, Maya is useful for high poly/mesh and biped modeling. Max is catching up, but beats Maya everywhere else. Perhaps it is not a matter of opinion that Max is more widely used by video game professionals - For example - Halo 3 was made in Max, not Maya. But personally, I prefer Max anyway. As far as monitor support, I suppose that depends on the system. I believe a standard system in both cases is capable of dual monitor support unless using onboard graphics. For example - my laptop has VGA and DVI out for dual monitors. 4. One would assume that everything I say is my opinion. It's like when you eliminate personal pronouns in formal writing style - it's already assumed to be your opinion. So, yes, it's my opinion and the opinions of the people I work with that the Mac OS is not natively intuitive. As for your ridiculous assumption that since October was the release date for Mac OS, we couldn't be using it in our lab... We needed to overhaul the lab's connection to both the video processing suite and the recording studio's mainframe to make it and optical connection between there and the lab's network drives, so the lab has been down all semester for classes - it works, but there just aren't any classes scheduled to use it. So we're not upgrading mid-semester per se - we're performing a semester-long upgrade. See #1 about running Mac OS and Windows on the same machine... Yeah, you get the "best of both worlds" if you want to shut down the PC or use VMWare and destabilize it somewhat - but that works both ways - it's an entirely different system, not a PC or Mac, and is really irrelevant to this debate. The advertising gimmick is that most Mac commercials artificially make Macs seem cooler by portraying Windows as an old, broken-down man, which it is not. Also consider that Windows doesn't need to have commercials to keep its sales up. I would agree that Windows and OS on the same machine would be beneficial. But I would never do it via dual boot or VMWare because of the hassle and degradation of system performance. However, as I said before - that's a completely different system - not Mac or PC and is irrelevant to your topic. On price - A standard Mac is more expensive than a standard PC. However, a standard Mac has better hardware than a standard PC. When you compare computers of the same hardware, the price is essentially the same. A standard Mac and PC will both do basically everything the average computer user needs. Considering that, why would you pay more for a Mac? Hackintosh machines are basically the same thing as a built PC, although probably illegal based on the Mac EULA concerning Apple-licensed machines. Why bother debating a Hackintosh when it's just a Mac OS on an Intel processor - something that's been around for a couple years now? If we're going to debate performance and specs of hacked OS's - then I put my vote in for XP Black... Considering I can offer you no PROOF I work with Macs, I'm not sure how to change your opinion here. I see no misinformation about Macs. Where you assume I'm lying - I know you're not getting the whole story. Considering most Mac users don't have the new Mac Pro desktops, I think the one-button mouse is a valid point. Most of the Macs in our labs have either the older one-button mouse, or a Microsoft USB mouse - depends on the lab. If you read the previous text - you will not see any place where I made the "...claim that all Macs use a one-button mouse." You're putting words in my mouth. I would wager that of the Macs being used today, MOST of them are using the one-button mouse. Whereas ALL the PC's being used today have a two-plus button mouse. In the end - as someone said below here - it probably is a subjective decision. But like I said - for the average computer user - PC is the way to go (in my opinion) mostly because of price. If I had the money, I'd buy a Mac Pro and wipe it to run Windows - like a reverse Hackintosh or something - a Hackindows. My opinion stands - Macs are for people that either need some additional performance in a specialized area beyond what a PC has, or for people with lots of money to spend so they can look cool.