There are very few games for Mac's. Also, the myth that Mac's don't get spyware or viruses is just that, A MYTH. Fact is, most Mac's rarely used to get viruses because the Mac users were such a small portion of the home computer market that it wasn't worth it to make them. Now, with more Mac's out there, the virus and spyware industry has also increased dramatically. But, just remember this....you can spend $1,500 on a new PC right no that will play almost everything at 30FPS. And in a year, when you the new games come out, simply pop in another video card, run them in SLI, and you double your performance. Try doing that on a Mac.

How can you guys say that Vista is a better gaming OS than XP?? Look at the numbers. When you can get TWENTY+ frames per second more on XP than Vista, the proof is right there. I have used Vista many times, but I still have XP on my machine, because I don't have stability problems and I want maximum performance. Installing SP1 actually slowed down Vista in a couple instances! Way to go, Microsoft. Ya dumb bastards.

Strange. According to those charts, Vista doesn't show any FPS gains between 2GB and 4GB of system RAM. It's odd how there seems to be a cap in performance. The article doesn't mention why this happened, but I'd like to know why there's no performance gain above 2GB of system RAM. Any ideas?