Mac vs. PC....I NEED to be convinced. :)

<p>I have a MacBook Pro. It's a wonderful machine. It's almost as fast as many new computers you can buy at the store today (though at much cheaper prices than I paid for my Mac), even though I bought my computer more than three years ago. It's a 2.33 Ghz machine with a 160 GB hard drive and a 17" screen. I'm amazed at how long this system seems to be a powerful system. Yes, I know the new computers have faster RAM and longer battery life. I know the new 17" MacBook Pro is lighter, thinner, and has a brighter better screen, and I know my computer is old, but I don't think upgrading to a new computer would be worthwhile. The new ones just aren't that much faster. I've been thinking I'd like a smaller computer, which would be more portable, because I'm planning a trip to bike through southeast Asia with a backpack. I might just not take a computer though, because frankly, I can probably just buy a bunch of 4 GB memory cards for much less money. What do I need a computer for anyway? My camera does half the stuff I need to do to my images, and I can post some of my photos by using a card reader with computers at internet cafés.<br>

With all that said, I frankly can't believe there is no quad-core MacBook Pro. Maybe Apple knows something the rest of us don't, but I know an advanced computer programmer who travels the world with a quad-core Dell notebook computer, and he's had that computer for about a year now. He swears by it, and he could own any computer he wants. Yes, the systems he programs for are running Windows XP, so maybe that's why, but in my opinion, running Windows XP Professional on a quad-core system with Adobe Lightroom would be your best bet, especially considering the fact that you could get such a system for hundreds less than you'd have to pay for a Mac. Remember, I switched to Mac three years ago from an old Dell system of my own (and at that time Mac was the best I could buy), but now I look at what this guy is using, and I wish I had a computer like his, and I'm not impressed with the latest Mac notebooks, nor the incompatibility issues I've had with Aperture and Nikon RAW files (.NEF files).<br>

Frankly, I'd get a Windows 7 system, Lightroom, and deal with the Windows issues. Of course, maybe I'm just forgetting about all the problems I used to have running Windows. I do still have an old desktop system running Windows XP at 2 Ghz with 1 GB of RAM (which I rarely use), and that system is bullet-proof. Seriously, if the system is good, it will be reliable. I built that system myself, and I LOVE it. It's just too old and slow, and therefore it just can't compete with my dual-core MacBook Pro. Maybe I'll build a new quad-core system and switch back to Windows with Windows 7 Ultimate. Then, when a good quad-core i7 notebook comes out from Dell or HP, I'll buy it for $1,000. Then again, maybe I'll just get a small MacBook Pro, when they finally get a Windows-compatible quad-core processor, and install Parallels or some other Windows compatibility environment, and then I'll have the best of both worlds. Hey, maybe I can just do that with this system and do my heavy processing on my home computer! (when I build a new one)</p>

<p><em>With all that said, I frankly can't believe there is no quad-core MacBook Pro. Maybe Apple knows something the rest of us don't...</em></p>

<p>Not sure who "the rest of us" are, but I know MacBook Pro's come with i5 and i7 cpu's. Both of which are quad core.</p>

<p> </p>