whymacs?

This is for my own benefit - there's nothing here that hasn't been said before and better by someone else, but it's a necessary part of the mac catharsis I need. I'm going through one of my periodic bouts of technolust, in which my desire for new hardware far exceeds my more reasonable consideration of what my requirements are.

I'm fairly convinced I'm not a lone sufferer; but that doesn't help. My must current obsession is getting an iMac. I made the mistake of going into a PC World (when is going into PC World not a mistake?), and seeing the latest incarnation of the iMac: brushed aluminium screen and keyboard surround, anti-reflection screen etc. It's beyond lovely.

Playing with OSX sank the hooks in further. I use Ubuntu Linux (mostly) at home. It's fantastic, obviously, with the new version (7.10) being really spectacularly stable, attractive, and packed with useful stuff. It lets me tinker. The new desktop effects feel rock solid and add a much-needed element of fun (can anyone still be pretending they are a productivity enhancer?). It has software packages that let me do anything I realistically want or am capable of doing (except for GIMP: when you're used to Photoshop, there's really no going back).

So why am I so consistently drawn to buying a computer that is manifestly not what I need, does nothing that I cannot do on my Ubuntu setup (except Photoshop), and is probably rather overpriced? Is it because I'm longing to think of myself as one of the arty types macs are supposedly aimed at? Is it because I think that if I use an OS that doesn't offer the same scope for tweaking, adjusting, and generally cocking about with settings as Linux I might actually use the PC for something useful? Is it a general desire for something I don't have, no matter how pointless?

OSX is, based on my admittedly cursory use of it, very together, undeniably beautiful, and may or may not enhance my productivity. What really differentiates it from Ubuntu (and puts it light years ahead of Vista) is that it's tasteful. It just feels like it's designed by a company that puts aesthetics at least on a par with functionality, instead of being a product that adds a veneer of graphic design to a collection of applications and functions. I almost feel sorry for Microsoft: how do you instill that kind of culture in your architects and developers?

I guess, as usual, it starts at the top. I'm only guessing, of course, but I'll bet Bill Gates' multi-million dollar mansion is full of cool and innovative technology, while Steve Jobs' place is full of objets d'art. Anyone who loves the technology really shouldn't be in charge of how it gets designed. I'm sure an art appreciation course for Bill and his boys and girls would make a world of difference.

Mind you, fair play to Bill: he's the one who is giving away billions of dollars to fund the eradication of unfashionable diseases like TB, which certainly beats launching a trendy mobile phone in the list of worthwhile things to do with your time.