Bwa-hahahahah!

From MacMinute.com:

According to Microsoft Watch, the average system and driver requirements for Longhorn, the next major release of Windows, are: "a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today." While those seem like demanding specs, keep in mind that Longhorn is not expected until the middle of 2006, at the earliest.

Now, take note of that first requirement: a dual-core (not quite the same thing as a dual processor, but not dissimilar) CPU. Given that the Wintel world has been too busy battling viruses to push their processors much past 3GHz for almost two years now, and that such machines routinely sell for $1200 and up (way up -- getting a 3.4GHz will really cost you!) now -- it's not much of a stretch to imagine that between now and 2006 (at the earliest) you'll be shelling out $2K for a new machine if you run a PC.
Not you, you say? You just bought a new machine and you're not going to budge for at least another five years? You may not have any choice. Microsoft plans to revamp Office at least once during that time, possibly twice -- and the new format will require running the new Office, and the new Office may well require running Longhorn. I think you can see where this is going.
Gee, maybe being a monopoly wasn't such a good idea after all ...

Meanwhile, us poor old Mac users cruising along with reasonably fast machines, and while we currently pay a small premium (much smaller than PC people think) for our second-class status, we're untroubled by viruses, hackers, widespread security problems, pop-up/under ads, crappy software, abusive monopolies and ... okay, okay ... decent games. :)

Furthermore, those of us with a bit of dosh to spare (not me, at least not yet -- but soon, baby!) can pick up what can now honestly be called "The PC of the Future" -- a machine with dual processors running at a (combined) 4Ghz, capable of handling up to 8GB of RAM, easily handling more than 1 terabyte of storage, gigabit ethernet as standard, 802.11g etc. Haven't got the video-card thing licked yet, but that's only because such cards don't yet exist.

Now mind you, such a beast would trick out at around $5400 with 2GB RAM and a terabyte of storage ... but that it can be done today is the point. And for people who have firm uses for such computing power to make them money, it's really a pretty small investment. A professional video editor can make back the entire cost of such a beast (plus monitor, software etc -- easily topping $10K) in a week or two. An animation studio or a magazine can make it back in a month. Musicians, web gurus, scientists, etc ... it's (or it should be) a no-brainer.

Of course, I know a lot of people who use Windows for good reasons and bad ... but I've yet to meet very many non-programmers who are actually happy with the path the Redmond Giant is taking them down. When it comes down to it, the main difference between Redmond and Cupertino is the concept of delight. Macs have it; PCs never will.