Just for the record, hp doesn't make downright shitty machines, at least to my knowledge. You probably won't regret buying it, you'll just regret not having bought a mac ;)

You're exactly right, toshiro; it's trying to use an HP after having gotten used to a Mac that gives the impression that they're shit. ;)

I'd like to add in something I forgot to mention earlier- the software is also an issue, and can make a very substantial difference. Most complete computers come with a lot of software you don't need. A gutting of the startup process so you don't load anything but drivers, your firewall, and your anti-virus can kick you up a good notch. There are also a wide variety of system tweaks you can try that may enhance your performance, just make sure you know what you're doing and keep a startup disk handy.

Aye, I've heard of Vista having some things that most people dont even need that would make the computer go faster if they were just disabled. I'll try that.

Thanks for the help guys :)

Hp are not bad, as notebook manufactures go. And spare parts are quite easy to find, as they put part numbers on everything! Avoid Sony and Asus like the plague, Asus actually built most of the Sony Vaio line of laptops, and quite honestly, although the build quality is not bad, they do not sell spares direct, which puts up the price of repairs should you need one. Dell are also pretty good with spares and part numbers, but I would prolly go with HP.

Gateway are now owned by Acer, which are known to use the cheapest parts, and usually have a shoddy build quality, I know, I work for an Acer supplier ;)

I've only used PCs since the 286 came out; I did the 286, 386, 486, then to the AMD or Intel (whichever I decided) MHZ processors. I remember the slot processors (ugh) and breaking the processor when I put the heatsink on my AMD and the core cracked (dangit!!). I've been an avid user of PCs and never gave a thought to Macs as I always considered them for art design/CAD use and the like. But in the past year or two I decided to actually look at them seriously and wow. I never had anything "bad" to say about Macs, I just never looked at them. But their speed, quality, stability, usability, etc outperforms any PC and I will seriously be looking at a Mac when my current laptop dies; which will probably be a few years. But by then I'll actually have cash to pay for a high end, top o' the line laptop. Their stability is what I like the most; I'm tired of running an app for hours on end and it takes 20 minutes once closing the app for performance to go back to "normal" (okay, so I'm stretching it, but still). I switched from windows to Linux for a while, but couldn't keep up with the programming/how to install windows apps, but I loved it while I used it because the apps would run for days and days, then when I shut them down the machine would press on as it should. Anyway, I, as a current PC user, will be switching to a Mac when this laptop dies.

.. dun dun dun... another one bites the dust!

woot

You guys sound so full of crap (no offense)but seriously My brother built a PC a year ago for 500 bucks with a 22" screen and its way more powerful than a bran new $2000 MBP

Hell Ive been running an Amd athlon Xp desktop for 6 years with 768 megs of DDR400 ram and an AGP X1600pro and it runs better than an $1700 Imac from 05, It cost me half the price to.

If you're going to buy a portable the Macbook is worth it, but if you're going to build a desktop, don't even think about buying a mac.

Lord~spidey
And perhaps that's where I should have noted (I won't edit my last post) that I am refering to laptops now. Sorry, a bit much, okay a LOT of wine (very tasty), prior to posting and I did not proof read to see if everyone understood what I was talking about. In my world (it's got flashing lights!) it made sense, but I see through my blurred vision right now that it doesn't. Folks, I made the switch a while back to a laptop and got rid of my desktop. I go TDY a lot (Temporary Duty/military) and good ol' lappy here helps me get my job(s) done. The desktop didn't cut it, cause I can't drag it and the dang monitor across the ocean very easily. But, my last post was refering to laptops and actually looking at a Mac lappy. So, in conclusion, Lord~spidey I agree on the portable Macbook vs PC lappy and if getting a desktop stick to da PC cause of $$. Back to another glass o' wine. Oh dang, I'm all out....RUM and coke!

You're full of crap spidey. It's not much faster.. at all. And that's a desktop, we're talking about laptops (not netbooks either).
Both iMacs and Mac Pros are very nice computers, but spidey projects a lot of anti-apple onto computer-related arguments because he/his family hasn't used a Mac extensively before.

EDIT: He got the monitor a couple months ago, not a year ago.

yes it is, the benchmarks i ran scored much higher on gnomes pc than the scores the MBP has.
I didn't say they weren't nice i'm just saying there extremely expensive for what they are.

There are more factors for some people besides price, portability, and power.

Also, real-world situations suggest my MBP is close in power to your brother's gigantor PC.

you mean like playing crysis?

Sure, there are still more Windows games than Mac, but that's changing, and there's an important factor you're leaving out:

MacOSX >> Windows

hes not talking about the OS, he runs windows for games on his MBP hes talking about the quality to price ratio really, apple are very nicely built computers but I really think there too expensive even for shineyness of it all.

Your math doesn't add up Spidey. Low end 22" LCD's (I'm assuming it's an LCD) run at $150. Which leaves you $350 to build your PC. At retail prices, it's not likely...

And your reference to the '05 Mac is irrelevant considering they were still Power PC's, yet to utilize the Intel chip. I'll agree, they were more expensive for a comparatively benchmarked PC. But it's never really been about that for true Fan-boys, it's just a nice change nowadays :p

Change of subject, PC, while I agree the change to Intel has made porting games to Mac easier, I actually don't think it will make much of a difference considering that most Mac gamers quickly jumped on Bootcamp (myself included). I've yet to see this actually work to the advantage of more games being ported to Mac. Considering the specs for some of the newer games, you pretty much need a newish Mac to play them anyway, so the developers know you've access to Windoze anyway.

http://www.ncix.com/mobile/

right well why are PCs with better hardware and that in my opinion look pretty damn good, priced at 1.2k?

the PC was 500, the 22" lcd cost us 180.

Snax, you misunderstand me. That more games are coming to Mac has nothing to do with the Intel switch other than that the ability to run Windows on a Mac is making it easier for PC users to switch to Mac. I simply mean that Apple's market share is growing and also getting more notice from developers, and Intel chip or not there are more and more games for Macs every year. iPod and iPhone help this, too.

When Apple announced the Intel switch, I read a couple articles worrying that it would be the end of Mac games, since everyone would just run Windows on their Macs; but I think there are enough people like me who even with Boot Camp would choose a Mac native game over a Windows one, and people like my wife and a half-dozen Apple convert friends who switch to Mac and find they prefer that OS to Windows, that the demand for Mac native games is growing and healthy.

Plus, it's surprising how many times a Mac will manage to play a game even if it doesn't quite match the "minimum" system requirements. Of course, you might have to turn graphics options down but they'll work surprisingly well. If I recall, I had Halo running very smoothly on one of the first white iBooks way back, and it only took setting it to minimum sound variety, low textures and minimum particles. I don't remember the specs, but hey. Games like CivIV work great on my MacBook, too.

Spidey, you will still have a hard time comparing those, since in my experience a 2GHz Mac will tend to outperform a 2.4GHz or better PC. You really do get what you pay for, and I'd consider the $1600 mid-range MacBook a better bargain than any $1000 PC notebook I know of, especially since I'd expect it to outlast the PC by a couple years. Plus, as I said, fewer headaches in MacOSX. I use Windows daily at school, and it can be a nightmare sometimes tracking down my GIS files. Plus, it irritates me that it's so difficult in Windows to do simple things like put unique characters in filenames. Sometimes when I share music with friends I have to go through and take all the é's and œ's out of my Icelandic stuff. Windows is the product of lazy programmers, and it sucks.

I don't know if you've made your decision or not Shadoen, but this is a pretty good article. This guy says that if you absolutely don't want a Mac, to get a Lenovo T400 Thinkpad, but that if you can afford it Mac laptops are the best on the market and worth the money.

http://www.freep.com/article/20081212/BLOG01/81212032?sr=hotnews