[Yawgm0th]

He's wrong about one thing: Macs are not fast. Even the high-end models were not all that fast, and the Mac software is incredibly slow. It is well-optimized for both architectures, but that's the only thing that made it usable. In any case, anyone who ever bought a Mac for the hardware is ignorant. The hardware was never very good. At one point in time it did excel at video encoding in comparison to high-end X86 processors, but that was a long time ago, and the software was more of an issue than the encoding speed.

Both the high point and low points of the Mac are it's software. Mac has some unique software (Mac OS itself, FinalCut Pro, etc.), yet as Darth said it also lacks quite a bit of good software. Many people also buy Macs as a sort of "lifestyle" statement. Basically, Macs have lots of aethetic value. My personal opinion is that anyone thinking more about the appearance of a computer than its internals is uninformed. Granted, there is something to be said about eMacs being a monitor/desktop in one, but it's not much harder and quite cheaper to stick an LCD to a mATX or mBTX case and call it an ePC.

Also, in a fairly unrelated point, Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 don't run well on X-Box because of opimizations alone. You could run both just as smoothly on similar PC hardware (700MHzish P3 or P3 Celeron, GF2 video card, though you'd need more RAM just to meet minimum requirements), except the PC versions don't go down to 480x320 resolution, which is what consoles render all games at internally. Additionally, most visual effects are turned down, which helps performance and makes both games look quite crappy.