I don't normally fancy ranting about computers, but a recent dicussion has got me all riled up to bang the world to rights.

Macs.

I take photos, therefore, i need a Mac.

It's not a question of choice.

Macs are better for photos.

End of.

Not a PC?

Nope.

Mac.

Ok. I'l point out the first serious flaw with this obscenely annoying 'Mac mentality'.

I'M POOR!

I love using a Mac for photoshop use, but it's the same as using my Pc for photoshop use. It's the same bloody program!!!!

I needed a new machine to edit photos. The ONLY machine i could afford with the money i spent was a Mac Mini with an aftermarket screen. I *could* have gone upto a 20" iMac for £140 more, so lets assume i did that. And now i have a pretty box with a whopping 1Gb of ram, a Radeon 2400XT and a 2.0ghz Core2Duo. Actually, i would have gotten a student discount, so say i would have gotten that £140 back.

The base spec MacBook has a higher frequency processor. AND IT'S A LAPTOP! The grand total that £800 iMac could have ran upon opening a few decent size raw files? Fuck all.

Honestly, the sooner people realise it's as much about the SPEC as the fact it says Mac on the box the fucking better. I'm almost at the point of buying one and putting up with the piss poor performance just to shut everyone up!

Well i have a new idea.

The more photographers who go out and blindly spend money they don't have on iMacs.

The more will go out of business.

And the more business there will be for me.

You simply will not make people see sense. It's like trying to persuade a vegaterian a Minskiis steak sandwhich is the shit. It is, but they'll never buy it. So i'l stop trying. Fortunately it is me who has to put up with my PC at light speed, and not the person with the slow expensive iMac. CS3 being Mac native really will only account for a certain performance change. Macs are still powered on PC hardware, and they still need quick hardware to operate, you guessed it, quickly. The sheer fact people buy a £800 computer with a 2.0ghz dual core, 1GB of ram and £30 graphics card astonishes me.

I realise im opening myself up to all manner of insults and Fanboys but i simply do not care. If you've gone and brought one of the aforementioned iMacs and are genuinely impressed by its performance, great. I'm not sure what else you've been using, but great. But if you even attempt to defend Mac from the price issue do remember,

1) The cpu costs about £70
2) The ram costs about £30
3) The gpu costs about £30
4) The HD will cost a maximum of £70,

So you're spending a whopping £600 on a fancy case and a screen with a colour problem! Even if my prices are out by £100, or £200, you're still spending a LOT.

Mac, release that same £800 20" iMac with a quad core cpu, 2GB of ram and a graphics card that isn't older and slower than my nan, and i'l buy one. I promise.