I would think about switching to mac, but there are a few things that keep me from doing it.
1) I can't game at all on a mac. All the good games are PC only.
2) I can't customize a mac after buying it.
3) Halo 2 for PC will be Vista only, so no way in hell that I will be able to run it on a mac.
4) Money
5) I like a 2 button mouse. (I have heard rumors of these existing for mac, but have never seen one)
6) I REALLY LOVE GAMING!!! (I think I said that already)
7) The Mac advertising campaign right now is made up of a ton of lies and over doing stuff. I don't like a company that does stuff like that. I have had a PC for all my life and NEVER made a pie chart on it. I have ALWAYS had FUN with my PC and never been bored with it. Also, I have never seen someone throw a computer off the desktop by tripping over the wires. In my opinion, if you have your wires that exposed, you deserve to have your computer fall off a table.
Rich, this is nothing against you and your mac. I have all the respect in the world for you, I just thik the mac campaign is a little janky

Yep, i know, *Holy thread ressurection, Batman!*
1) Boot Camp / Parallels : Boot Camp allows you to dual-boot windows XP on intel processor macs (any new mac, pretty much.) This lets you play games at native speed. I'm not sure about the specifics of parallels, but I think it's something to do with paravirtualisation (run two operating systems AT THE SAME TIME

)
4) Cost : You do pay a premium for mac hardware, but it's much better built. iMacs are very portable by desktop computer standards. MacBooks have all kinds of nice touches and don't feel clunky or flimsy like some other laptops I've used.
5) Mice : New macs ship with mighty-mice, which are two-button + scroll... thingy. Mighty mice are still really strange and I hate them, but i just bring my own USB mouse (i use a Microsoft Optical mouse i've had since forever

) You can BYO keyboard, too - the logitech k/b I use actually has marking for both windows metakeys (ctrl, win, alt) as well as mac keymappings (ctrl, option, clover.) Pity it doesn't have *nix ctrl, alt, meta, super markings

---------------
Wrt linux :
Photoshop : Yes, the GIMP sucks. GIMPshop sucks just as much. Photoshop is one of the few things i actually miss from windows. Apparently you can run photoshop 7.0 or photoshop CS with WINE without too much hassle - CS2 and CS3 are apparently a little more tricky. VMWare/qemu are not good solutions, at all.
Also : customising linux is a little different to customising windows. Windows customisation usually consists of 'install software Y, muck around with it' (Y = aston|windowsblinds|stylexp...). Linux customisation, as well as the aforementioned 'install and muck around' - like most other things in linux, mainly consists of 'google for FAQs on how to do this'

There's also a healty dose of stumbling across nice software while looking in the repositories for other stuff... i was looking for a word processor and i found a game that consumed my life for a month or so

-------
[micke]
>No-one understood why W95 didn't work, just as they got the bugs sorted out we were forced to have W98 on any new machine, then we were given hundreds of patches, and Win 98SE was the new "world of computing" [ to be honest it was a pretty good system... and should have been the basis for future OS's ] , then it was XP ( w98 patched ).... even that had problems!.... now we are being shunted Vista ( which all new machines in the UK are being sold with ), and it is known to be full of glitches.
>In effect M$ has always been profit based, and only someone with deviuos creditation has been the benefactor!
In this country we would have hanged the bastard for his dastardry!
Win98 was terrible! :| The win-9x/ME branch of windows was absolutely horrible, technically. It had all kinds of fun design issues. Win XP (which descends from the NT kernel line - fwiw, NT is actually descended from BSD, courtesy of the 'do anything you want' spirit of the BSD license) is actually a really good OS, just with a lot of crap on top of it and some questionable implemenation details. I still hold that windows 2000 is the best of the lot

Wrt cost of windows - "<uni student> : you can BUY windows? I thought you could only download it from mininova!"

The cost of windows in no way represents how much it's actually worth. OSX, on the other hand, is a bit more reasonably priced.
Linux has a different kind of cost - it costs you no money, but it does demand that you spend time getting it working the way you want. If your time is worth $10 an hour, say...