Jax2: I can appreciate your argument, however several points in your argument are inaccurate. Having used PCs for years and always wanting a Mac, I recently purchased one about 6 months ago; this has given me sufficient time to gather an evaluation on the Apple platform.
Yes, there is absolutely no doubt that OS X provides a better user experience than Windows XP. It looks nicer yet seems to be equally intuitive. I cant say that OS X is more intuitive than Windows XP, because this all depends on which type of interface a user is used to. There are other points of your argument Id like to address:
I suppose if you want to deal with an inferior operating system, vastly increased vulnerabiltiy to viruses (if you use the same computer to surf the Net), general instability, chop-shop reliability (should you choose that direction to save money), and worst of all the likes of Microsoft software, well then yes; you'd save a bit of coin with a PC.
In my opinion, if you are going to use this computer as a dedicated music transport, it should not even be on the Internet. Regardless, OS X is more secure overall than Windows XP, mainly because of the OS design and the fact that Windows is a bigger target for hackers. However, your statement that Windows XP is unstable is not true. Ive used Windows XP just about every day since it came out back in 2001 and consider its reliability to be far from chop-shop. If you were referring to an earlier version of Windows, I would have to agree; but Windows XP has proven to be extremely stable in my experience and the experiences of other computer users that I know.
They certainly are capable of streaming music just as good as a Mac, and indeed do cost less money in general, though I find that, as in most things in life, you get just what you pay for. Fast PC's tend to cost just as much as fast Macs. Cheap computers indeed have limited capabilities, and streaming music does not take any sophisticated for ultra-fast processor, nor an abundance of RAM.
These first two sentences appear to be contradicting in that you first say that PCs cost less in general, but that a fast PC will tend to cost just as much as a fast Mac. This also is untrue. Anyone who follows the prices of PCs and Macintosh computers will be able to tell you that Mac hardware costs more. Period. There have been dozens and dozens of arguments on Tech sites between Mac Zealots and PC owners, and one topic I see repeatedly is I would buy a Mac, but I can get a PC thats just as fast for much less. Now, you wont be getting the great experience that OS X can provide, but you will get an equally fast PC at a much lower cost.
The Mac-Mini is a great suggestion by Rsbeck. At $599 with a free keyboard, all you really need is a small monitor and external drive. For a grand you'll have a dead reliable computer interface that's as easy as pie to use and will be more than useful at other applications, and not take up much room to boot.
This is definitely a good idea. The Mac Mini is very affordable, and it will do fine for simply playing music. The unit should also run pretty quietly, and should integrate nicely into a system with its sleek look. Keep in mind that you will want to upgrade the RAM from 256, unless you dont mind OS X running very sluggish.
A used or factory refurbed Mac iBook will set you back about the same but you won't need to spring for the monitor. I work with an old 12 inch G3 iBook which typically go on eBay for around $400. It does everything I need it to, is very portable and streams music effortlessly through iTunes.
A PC laptop purchased for around that same price will give you much better performance.
So yes, you are right in saying that you get what you pay forbut only to a certain extent. I believe that this is limited to the experience of using the operating system itself and the sleek look of Apple hardware. So if you arent going to be surfing the web, editing photos, or creating web pages on this machine, the user interface may not be as much of a factor when considering price.
