Buying a new computer... MAC or PC?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Kapn_Kiwi

Flappist, I think you're confusing the two robs here.
sfr_rob's just been asking questions.

Yep you are right, rum attack at midnight........

Sorry for the confusion. SB has it all correct anyway.

[sbcb]

We have a friend who swears by MAC, she does graphic design though. Me i thought her setup was flash but laughed when she said she paid $3600 for this updated MAC setup. My last update saw me go into Dick Smith electronics and just buy a new box (kept the old screen and printer/scanner). $600, easy, even ticked an expand memory box to what I wanted and was away laughing. Her setup was better but not so much as to cost 6 times more to upgrade. To bring all this in line with a car forum, a FPV GT is a bit better than an XR8, but is it 6 times the cost better? I just laughed at her, the more she waffled on about its features, the more I laughed. Basically both machines do the same thing, just different ways, pay more if you must but you should save the dosh and spend it on CARS!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sbcb

We have a friend who swears by MAC, she does graphic design though. Me i thought her setup was flash but laughed when she said she paid $3600 for this updated MAC setup. My last update saw me go into Dick Smith electronics and just buy a new box (kept the old screen and printer/scanner). $600, easy, even ticked an expand memory box to what I wanted and was away laughing. Her setup was better but not so much as to cost 6 times more to upgrade. To bring all this in line with a car forum, a FPV GT is a bit better than an XR8, but is it 6 times the cost better? I just laughed at her, the more she waffled on about its features, the more I laughed. Basically both machines do the same thing, just different ways, pay more if you must but you should save the dosh and spend it on CARS!

No a more accurate simile would be a XR8 and a front wheel drive 10 speed auto diesel/electric hybrid 3 seat falcon with 4 rear wing body kit, 22 fog lights, chameleon paint, 14 inch rims with white wall tyres and a 2kw stereo.

Both are cars, both have their purposes and both can be used to go down to the shops to buy milk.
And to some, the only purpose of a car is to get you to the shop to buy milk, others use their car in other ways.

But one of these appeals to a "special" type of person because it is a "special" car. These people love their "special" car because it makes them even more "special"

[Bill_R]

Originally Posted by sfr rob

So your saying that i can buy a MAC, and if i am unhappy with the Operating System, I can load Windows onto it and run windows without dramas?

.

you can run both at the same time if you want. Just run a Mac with Virtual PC and run Windows as a virtual machine. The hardware profile won't be great but Windows is usable.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by Bill_R

you can run both at the same time if you want. Just run a Mac with Virtual PC and run Windows as a virtual machine. The hardware profile won't be great but Windows is usable.

Virtual PC ay. Then later he can play Virtual Business. Virtual Bankruptcy, Then Virtual Homeless.

Virtual PC on a mac, why not just buy a PC then? Defeats the purpose entirely.
Not only that, but virtual environments are almost always unstable, this is a business platform choice, not a gamers hobby system. It matters if its stable. It matters that its functional. It matters that its robust.

[Bill_R]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Virtual PC ay. Then later he can play Virtual Business. Virtual Bankruptcy, Then Virtual Homeless.

Virtual PC on a mac, why not just buy a PC then? Defeats the purpose entirely.
Not only that, but virtual environments are almost always unstable, this is a business platform choice, not a gamers hobby system. It matters if its stable. It matters that its functional. It matters that its robust.

Weird that you'd say that! Certainly doesn't seem to be based on much experience.
I certainly prefer a PC but Virtual PC but VMWare are options for those who prefer a Mac but want to play with Windows and software not supported by Windows.
I've had no major stability problems with either Virtaul PC or VMware.
On a PC I run both VMWare and Virtual PC and have multiple copies of Windows (including '98, ME, Vista and multiple copies of XP with various software profiles through to 2003 Advanced Server in various configurations including a DC with Exchange 2003). Have also virtualised various flavours of Linux and Solaris 10. I need to because of the support and testing I provide through Microsoft. It helps that all the software is provided by them under license.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by Bill_R

Weird that you'd say that! Certainly doesn't seem to be based on much experience.
I certainly prefer a PC but Virtual PC but VMWare are options for those who prefer a Mac but want to play with Windows and software not supported by Windows.
I've had no major stability problems with either Virtaul PC or VMware.
On a PC I run both VMWare and Virtual PC and have multiple copies of Windows (including '98, ME, Vista and multiple copies of XP with various software profiles through to 2003 Advanced Server in various configurations including a DC with Exchange 2003). Have also virtualised various flavours of Linux and Solaris 10. I need to because of the support and testing I provide through Microsoft. It helps that all the software is provided by them under license.

yeah im a network admin with a million pounds sterling per year budget. what do i know. I must need more experience. please, edumakate me.

VMware on a single system that doesnt need critical uptime in the hands of a skilled tech is one thing, only a brain damaged git would run it on every user system in his business. Giving users VMware is like giving chimps shotguns. Most users can barely run outlook, and you think giving them VMware is a good idea? Most users get confused with one OS, you want to give them the ability to run multiple OS instances? rightio.

[Bill_R]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

yeah im a network admin with a million pounds sterling per year budget. what do i know. I must need more experience. please, edumakate me.

.

Well, if you are a Network admin it shows! Enough said - u need to learn a bit.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by Bill_R

Well, if you are a Network admin it shows! Enough said - u need to learn a bit.

Yeah im stupid, im glad there smart people like yourself out there to show idiots like me how to run a stable network using nothing but macs running vmware running virtual machines to run PC apps. THAT SOUNDS ALOT EASIER THAN JUST BUYING A PC.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Bill_R

Well, if you are a Network admin it shows! Enough said - u need to learn a bit.

Yeh SB you need to learn that you are wasting electrons because if you were REALLY clever you would be a backyard computer geek in the FNNSW swamp.....

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yeh SB you need to learn that you are wasting electrons because if you were REALLY clever you would be a backyard computer geek in the FNNSW swamp.....

maybe I need more experience with the banjo.

[AussieJason]

Just buy PC's.

Yes, Mac's are generally far better, faster, more stable, and far less prone to viruses. In comparison, PC's are a shoddy architecture full of bottlenecks, and everyone knows what Windows is like.

But at the end of the day none of that really matters. You just want these machines crunch numbers, store data and print out bits of paper. You want your staff to do their job efficiently. You want to make money. This will be a lot harder with Mac's, even if you run Windows on them.

With Mac's you will encounter problems you hadn't counted on. It's a Windows compatible world out there whether we like it or not. I wanted a MacBook Pro for my work laptop. I got an Win XP Acer instead. Why ? I need to use it for work, not play, and don't have the time for things I hadn't counted on either.

Get the Wintel PC's for work, and a Mac for home use.

[Bill_R]

Originally Posted by sfr rob

Hey guys, its come time to upgrade the businness PC's and lap top's.
I am getting sick of the windows platform, and the new vista really doesnt tickle my fancy at all..

In what ways doesn't Vista "tickle your fancy"? I'd forget about the impression and look more into what lies underneath.

If you go PC I'd consider 64 bit machines. Surprisingly, a lot of Vista testing prior to the public betas was done on 64 bit platforms (technophiles who got on to the private beta and like to go a little ahead with hardware). I'm currently looking at 64 bit to update official coursework on Vista. In probalby 2 lifecycles Office software will be all 64 bit. You could get away with 32 bit for, say, another 3 years. 64 bit isn't quite consumer ready yet but it's nearly there. The change to 64 bit will need to be made in the future so it might be worthwhile considering it now - a lot depends on just how long you keep machines.

A lot of this is really based on your personal preference and what software you intend to use. You'll find Macs are much more suited to graphics and multimedia but I certainly know of some highly regarded in the industry who use a Mac for business purposes along with Office for the Mac and consult for the same.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by Bill_R

In what ways doesn't Vista "tickle your fancy"? I'd forget about the impression and look more into what lies underneath.

If you go PC I'd consider 64 bit machines. Surprisingly, a lot of Vista testing prior to the public betas was done on 64 bit platforms (technophiles who got on to the private beta and like to go a little ahead with hardware). I'm currently looking at 64 bit to update official coursework on Vista. In probalby 2 lifecycles Office software will be all 64 bit. You could get away with 32 bit for, say, another 3 years. 64 bit isn't quite consumer ready yet but it's nearly there. The change to 64 bit will need to be made in the future so it might be worthwhile considering it now - a lot depends on just how long you keep machines.

A lot of this is really based on your personal preference and what software you intend to use. You'll find Macs are much more suited to graphics and multimedia but I certainly know of some highly regarded in the industry who use a Mac for business purposes along with Office for the Mac and consult for the same.

Vista wont be touched by most major companies until atleast SP1 for vista rolls. This will allow microsoft the time to sort itself out on the backs of the home users suffering continual catastrophic failures. It will also allow most companies time to pay for the expensive hardware platforms Vista needs to provide flowery widgets of little value. Lets look at what lies beneath Vista. Profit, DRM, Bugs.

I wouldnt touch 64 bit with a barge pole for the same reasons as above.

Do you have any business sense at all?

1st rule of buiness network systems, use simple proven technology wherever you can. You do this to protect investment, to protect productivity and to keep your network manageable.

The alternative is to use bleeding edge, watch your users sit around while their workstations bork, while you never get anything done by spending your life fixing the borks until microsoft release the patch of the day.

[AussieJason]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Vista wont be touched by most major companies until atleast SP1 for vista rolls. This will allow microsoft the time to sort itself out on the backs of the home users suffering continual catastrophic failures. It will also allow most companies time to pay for the expensive hardware platforms Vista needs to provide flowery widgets of little value. Lets look at what lies beneath Vista. Profit, DRM, Bugs.

I wouldnt touch 64 bit with a barge pole for the same reasons as above.

Do you have any business sense at all?

1st rule of buiness network systems, use simple proven technology wherever you can. You do this to protect investment, to protect productivity and to keep your network manageable.

The alternative is to use bleeding edge, watch your users sit around while their workstations bork, while you never get anything done by spending your life fixing the borks until microsoft release the patch of the day.

I agree. I kept all our machines at work on Win98SE until XP was up to Service Pack 1A. They are now staying on XP SP2 for a loooong time, until I absolutely have to change it, and when Vista will actually work as well as it was originally intended to.

If you want the latest Windows and 64-bit applications etc..., do it at home not at work.

[Perana]

For a business environment id stick with XPSP2 at this stage.. Mac OSX while a good OS is quite different and would take quite a bit to transition over, and employees will take a fair bit to adjust to it..

Otherwise if a Mac will run the software you want to run etc then i'd go for that, and for the few other things that you need windows for install Parallels or Bootcamp.

For some that say they are overpriced I just configured a PC at Dell to be similar to the 24" iMac.. Quality.. well its like any manufacturer, they all have their problems, but from what i've seen Mac's have been relatively reliable.. certainly no worse than the other major manufacturers, and better than a dodgy cheep backyarder.. As far as iPod reliability.. when you sell 90 million of them your bound to have quite a few cause problems

Originally Posted by GSWXA

Mac OS won't be around for too many more years. From what I have heard it will be very similar to any other brand (dell, hp etc) and use windows. Mac will either do this or go bust. Mr Gates has already bailed them out before.

Obviously you haven't seen the huge anti-microsoft/vista ad campaign by Apple thats going around at the moment...

Also seeing Mac sales have gone up a third in the past year and Apple's growth which if continues will see their revenue higher than Microsoft's in 4 years, as well as Jobs's anti Vista stance. I think it may have been discussed a while back 10 or so years ago when Apple were doing quite bad... but in the future as its going at the moment I really can't see this happening...

BTW A few years ago I would've laughed at the suggestion to buy a Mac.

[kinggee]

I agree with AussieJason.

I've been using a Mac for 11 years now and Windows machines at work (QLD Health) for 8 years. So here is my uncalled for opinion ->

If you have the software you require already, buy Windows (PC) equipment. Especially as you may have to retrain staff, even though the software is very similar (ie Word) there will still be minute differences which will take time to learn.

You can't run OSX native software on generic PC hardware. There are some hacked versions floating around as torrents but you don't want to run your business with them.

Don't buy a Mac to run windows only. You still need a bootable copy of OSX on one partition and there is talk that Bootcamp (which is still officially a Beta) may be obsolete when Leopard (OS 10.5) comes out in the next 6 months.

If you're buying bulk machines, you won't get much, if any discount on your purchase buying Macs. The dealers only make 6% themselves. You may get discounts through others ie: Dell.

The Macs aren't as prone to viruses (yet), but if you keep your virus protection practices up-to-date you shouldn't have too many problems.

For the business I'd recommend a PC over a Mac.

Now for a personal rant (you can stop reading if you want)->
Current Macs are not much more expensive than COMPARABLE PC's. My Macbook Pro is $70 cheaper than the equivalent Dell machine.

Most Windows users I have personally come across think Macs suck is because they haven't had a lot of exposure to them. I think Windows sucks because I don't know as much about them as I do Macs. I run Windows XP on my Macbook Pro for a RC Flight Simulator. Everything else is in OSX.

Most Mac users come across as 'freaks' and obsessive because we are 'enthusiasts' of the software and hardware. Much like, for example, car enthusiasts. We know that not everyone shares our opinion, we know that our machines occasionally have problems, but we don't appreciate people slagging off our opinions. I'm sure most car enthusiasts here would get upset by one of their mates or colleagues slagging off their Ford simply because their neighbour had one in 1987 that had been sitting in the bottom of a dam and it was a piece of crap so all Fords must be crap. Simple Logic right?

What's most upsetting for me is that, with regrads to wether sfr rob should get a Mac for his business, I'm actually agreeing with Sourbastard. Just for different reasons. G'night

Office environment with the need for multiplitude of programs - Windows
Graphics or Video editing - Mac
Your own box for word processing and internet/email - Linux or Windows

Windows XP SP2 Pro will be the industry standard until around 2009 I recon.

[robs_ls1]

So to summarise, Windows is a good choice for running a business for a couple of reasons: Firstly, it is a de-facto standard, so most people are familiar with it. Secondly, it runs on commodity hardware.

Quality, security and robustness aren't even part of the equation.

Originally Posted by El_Poochino

Mac has about a total 5% market share. The reason there are little virus about for it is no one can be bothered writing one for them

This is a commonly held belief. The unfortunate thing is that many of the people who believe it have never even used a Mac and know nothing of the Unix-based security model it employs. Put simply, if you have never used a Unix-based OS, then you don't know what real security is. People don't write self-propagating viruses for the Mac (or Linux or any other Unix for that matter) because it is impossible to do, due to intelligent system design.

Originally Posted by Perana XR8

BTW A few years ago I would've laughed at the suggestion to buy a Mac.

Same here.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

So to summarise, Windows is a good choice for running a business for a couple of reasons: Firstly, it is a de-facto standard, so most people are familiar with it. Secondly, it runs on commodity hardware.

Quality, security and robustness aren't even part of the equation.

This is a commonly held belief. The unfortunate thing is that many of the people who believe it have never even used a Mac and know nothing of the Unix-based security model it employs. Put simply, if you have never used a Unix-based OS, then you don't know what real security is. People don't write self-propagating viruses for the Mac (or Linux or any other Unix for that matter) because it is impossible to do, due to intelligent system design.

Same here.

One of the really cool things about the internet is when someone who has absolutely no idea makes statements it is SO easy to show them up for the dogmatic zealots they are.

http://www.symantec.com/security_res...032311-2042-99

http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/16/app...acescan09.html

Or just use google to find the rest.......

[robs_ls1]

Originally Posted by flappist

One of the really cool things about the internet is when someone who has absolutely no idea makes statements it is SO easy to show them up for the dogmatic zealots they are.

http://www.symantec.com/security_res...032311-2042-99

http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/16/app...acescan09.html

Please. A RedHat Linux "virus" from 2001 and a contaminated zip file are the best you can come up with? Do either of those self-propagate?

Lemme answer that for you:

NO

Dogmatic zealot? Nope. Just someone who uses Windows, Mac and Linux daily and really knows what they're talking about.

Edit: If you're going to post a link, make sure you know what it says first. Both of those "viruses" require the user to download and execute them in order to do any damage.

Edit #2: My music/file server at home has a direct connection to the internet. Apart from a software firewall, it has no protection enabled. In the 7 years it has been running Linux, it has never been hit by a virus. This is a machine that runs 24/7 with no anti-virus protection. Imagine that. One time I installed Windows for my cousin. Connected the box to the internet to download Windows updates, and it was hit with a virus within 10 seconds. That was the first time of the hundreds after that that I saw the Slammer worm. To this day, the exact same thing still happens if you connect a virgin pre-sp1 Windows xp box to the 'net, some 5 years later!

Edit #3: Read this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10...ndows_viruses/ and this too: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10...dows_security/

[flappist]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

Please. A RedHat Linux "virus" from 2001 and a contaminated zip file are the best you can come up with? Do either of those self-propagate?

Lemme answer that for you:

NO

Dogmatic zealot? Nope. Just someone who uses Windows, Mac and Linux daily and really knows what they're talking about.

Edit: If you're going to post a link, make sure you know what it says first. Both of those "viruses" require the user to download and execute them in order to do any damage.

Edit #2: My music/file server at home has a direct connection to the internet. Apart from a software firewall, it has no protection enabled. In the 7 years it has been running Linux, it has never been hit by a virus. This is a machine that runs 24/7 with no anti-virus protection. Imagine that. One time I installed Windows for my cousin. Connected the box to the internet to download Windows updates, and it was hit with a virus within 10 seconds. That was the first time of the hundreds after that that I saw the Slammer worm. To this day, the exact same thing still happens if you connect a virgin pre-sp1 Windows xp box to the 'net, some 5 years later!

Edit #3: Read this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10...ndows_viruses/ and this too: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10...dows_security/

Yes the lion did self propagate, did not require a download because it usually got in on an exploit of BIND or wu-ftp and it did exist because I had several of them in servers at the time which makes your use of the word IMPOSSIBLE a bit silly. But then you are a zealot so you are never wrong are you?

I drive a Typhoon every day but that does NOT make me a FPV mechanical engineer nor does it make me a V8supercar contender, just a guy who drives a car.

[robs_ls1]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yes the lion did self propagate, did not require a download because it usually got in on an exploit of BIND or wu-ftp and it did exist because I had several of them in servers at the time which makes your use of the word IMPOSSIBLE a bit silly.

Is BIND required on the desktop? How about wu-ftp? Show me a Linux virus which self propagated at the desktop level. Please. Just one. Come on.

Originally Posted by flappist

But then you are a zealot so you are never wrong are you?

The only zealot here is you. It's "Windows or bust" isn't it?

Originally Posted by flappist

I drive a Typhoon every day but that does NOT make me a FPV mechanical engineer nor does it make me a V8supercar contender, just a guy who drives a car.

: Riiight.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

Is BIND required on the desktop? How about wu-ftp? Show me a Linux virus which self propagated at the desktop level. Please. Just one. Come on.

The only zealot here is you. It's "Windows or bust" isn't it?

: Riiight.

Oh so you are now changing the situation. First it was IMPOSSIBLE, then it was in special circumstances.

Well the crappiest most vulnerable windows system will NEVER get a virus if it never attached to any other system, the internet and has no removable storage but that is as just silly as your arguement.

Show me a virus that infects a workstation that runs no services and does not have to be downloaded by a user? Does it have to be turned on? Or maybe in a locked steel box with a big dog guarding it?

You said it was impossible, you were wrong.
You said it did not self propagate, you were wrong.
You said it required users to down load it, you were wrong.

Do you see a pattern forming here?

[robs_ls1]

Flappist, calm down man. Don't go bursting a vessel. :

Originally Posted by flappist

Oh so you are now changing the situation. First it was IMPOSSIBLE, then it was in special circumstances.

Since when is a desktop "special circumstances?" By comparison, I bet the number of Linux machines affected by the bug you mentioned could be counted on one hand.

Originally Posted by flappist

Well the crappiest most vulnerable windows system will NEVER get a virus if it never attached to any other system, the internet and has no removable storage but that is as just silly as your arguement.

Calm down dude. What I'm saying is that in general day-to-day (non-server) use, MacOSX/Linux is impervious. You came up with one example of a special circumstance.

Show me another one which attacks MacOSX/Linux desktops. You can't because there is none.

Originally Posted by flappist

Show me a virus that infects a workstation that runs no services and does not have to be downloaded by a user?

OK. Blaster. All you had to do was connect the machine to the internet for a few seconds. It downloaded and executed itself. I was a victim of it, as were 99% of the Windows users I know. It took down millions of Windows systems overnight. Show me one example of such a bug on any other platform. Last time I checked, Blaster is still in the wild.

Originally Posted by flappist

You said it was impossible, you were wrong.
You said it did not self propagate, you were wrong.
You said it required users to down load it, you were wrong.

Well maybe I was. Bear in mind that I was talking about end users with desktop machines. How many users have a DNS server on their desktop?

At the end of the day, everything has it's place. If this guy wants to try Macs in his office, then he should. Yes, he'll have to re-train staff, and yes, it'll be a PITA for the first few months, and yes, it'll be more costly. But in a years' time, he may well wonder why he didn't do it sooner.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

Flappist, calm down man. Don't go bursting a vessel. :

Since when is a desktop "special circumstances?" By comparison, I bet the number of Linux machines affected by the bug you mentioned could be counted on one hand.

Calm down dude. What I'm saying is that in general day-to-day (non-server) use, MacOSX/Linux is impervious. You came up with one example of a special circumstance.

Show me another one which attacks MacOSX/Linux desktops. You can't because there is none.

OK. Blaster. All you had to do was connect the machine to the internet for a few seconds. It downloaded and executed itself. I was a victim of it, as were 99% of the Windows users I know. It took down millions of Windows systems overnight. Show me one example of such a bug on any other platform. Last time I checked, Blaster is still in the wild.

Well maybe I was. Bear in mind that I was talking about end users with desktop machines. How many users have a DNS server on their desktop?

At the end of the day, everything has it's place. If this guy wants to try Macs in his office, then he should. Yes, he'll have to re-train staff, and yes, it'll be a PITA for the first few months, and yes, it'll be more costly. But in a years' time, he may well wonder why he didn't do it sooner.

Oh FFS, Blaster attacks DCOM on TCP 135 and tftp of UDP 69 (from your own link). DCOM & tftp are SERVICES.

But this has gone WAY off topic. The original question was what platform should be used. Usually the means "I want to do work with a computer not play with it and I need the best one that does the job I need it to do".

The question was not "What is the most secure unhackable operating system that is absolutely wonderful but useless to me because all the apps I need to run do not work on it natively?".

You have butted heads here with a number of people who have many many years experience in IT at a professional level, not some back yard "consultancy" in woop woop. They all seem to disagree with you.

You would be surpised who is a member here, what they actually do for a living and how long they have been doing it.

You constantly make make unresearched statements. The lion virus affected a handfull of systems? Well I PERSONALLY fixed about 50 or so and I have 9 staff who were also busy at that time. I am fairly confident that the outbreak was not confined to QLD, NSW & Vic.

I am just wondering what you were doing in 2001 when lion went bezerk? Working daily on Mac/windows/linux?
How about 1991? Unix/Xenix/CCPM/DOS?
Or 1981? CPM/MPM maybe?

[robs_ls1]

Life is short mate. Get over yourself and don't take it so seriously.

[MITCHAY]

I have a PC and even with all the problems they seem to have, I still prefer them over a Mac.

My system seems to be quite stable at the moment, running SP2, router with firewall and AV. Touchwood of course :

More often than not you can attribute people's computers playing up because they don't use them properly like look up porn, read junk mail, use P2P software etc.

[sfr rob]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

If you are buying windows desktops and notebooks, the only two business supplies I would consider are dell and HP. The reason for this is simply their parts retention is alot better then alot of other companies. If you get a 3 year warranty(And yes you should pay the extra for it) you are guaranteed to be able to get the parts replaced if they burn out, rather then being told by a tech, oooh sorry man, they stopped making these boards a year ago, you will need to buy a new laptop/desktop/whatever.

I'd most likely ring dell directly, and setup a business account, and purchase directly that way. Harvey Norman are rape artists.

thanks for the info man, i appreciate the honesty :P
I bought the last Dell over the internet directly from Dell and saved a crap load, so i think i might just order a few more like that.. as i said the Dell has not failed me yet, unlike the HP's not fun having to send the pc's away for 3 months on more than 2 occasions!

thanks again for all your input guys.. looks like i am staying well away from MAC's... I dont own a cardigan, nor do i ever want to.

[sfr rob]

hehehe.. oh what have i started?!