recommend a good computer and digital camera?

Thanks for all the responses. Yea, I've got to give the audio stuff a break for a while. Besides, my computer goes through 3) error messages before I get to windows. And the "return" key on my keyboard broke off two years ago. I just stuck a tootpick in the hole which works great. Most people can't figure out the toothpick so my computer is "hackproof".
The Mac idea sounds good as I really don't like HP either. I can spend 1K on computer with no monitor.I have used them in the past for desktop publishing but I am concerned about compatibilty with my brand new Oki-data LED printer and other software. How is the learning curve for a Microsoft user? I am familiar with Windows (ugh) and have bought Norton firewall/antivirus, word etc., wordstar and DOS programs for CAD drawings etc. Do I have to get a MAC version and toss my existing software?
Otherwise maybe IBM or Sony?
For the digital camera sounds like Canon and Olympus are good for the cheaper $400 range. As someone mentioned, I am worried about the lag before I can take a picture. Also wasn't it only 2-3 years ago that a .5 megapixel camera cost $400? So what happened to them now, Trashcan? Has the development/ price curve leveled off yet?
Finally the ads say I can get 8 good photos or 200 bad ones. I take maybe 50-80 photos on a vacation. Since there probably won't be a Walmart nearby, I will need to buy more memory sticks. I haven't seen prices on these. Maybe a point and shoot Canon which uses film is more pratical if I'm going to take a lot of photos.

Camera review:

http://www.megapixel.net/html/issueindex.php?lang=en

Digicams have come a long way in the last few years. The top consumer cameras are around 8 megapixel and can be had for $800-$1000. Pro cameras are around 14 megapixel and sell for $4000-6000. I saw a prototype 24 megapixel back strapped to a Hasselblanc (hope I spelled that right) last week while in NYC visiting a friend.

Digital film for digicams is inexpensive; I've seen 256MB SD cards selling for under $40.00. That would let you take over 200 pics with a 5 megapixel camera in high-res or over 800 in low res.

Cdc,

Ahh, so you already own a PC? If that's what you're familiar and comfortable with I see no reason you can't accomplish what you want with a similar Windows machine and operating system.

If you're curious about Macs and want to try them out in person, drop by an Apple Store if you have one close by. The eMac, iMac and iBook prices I mentioned all included a monitor. These were close out models all with ample amount of processor power to do what you want.

As people have mentioned before, megapixels don't insure a better picture. The lense and the CCD or charge coupled device which captures the image are probably more important. A 3 or 4 megapixel camera is probably all you need.

Check out these sites:
www.dpreview.com
www.digital-photography.org

Also if you pin down a few models that interest you, check out the user reviews for these cameras at Amazon.com. You'll find out what people think of them after they've been battle tested.

Prpixel, that Megapixel.net website is pretty cool. I see you share the same surname, LOL! Thanks!

Gunbei,

I go to megapixel.net every month to read the new reviews. They know their stuff. Agree with you about the lense and CCD.

CDC,

Sounds like your running an old win95 or win98 machine. WinXP is a lot better.

Gunbei is absolutely correct. Megapixels do not tell the whole story and are certainly NOT an indication of image quality necessarily. There are cameras that produce a with 4 megapixel ccds that will produce consistently better images than cameras producing double that. The biggest jump in image quality you are likely to invest in in the prosumer camera is jumping up to the (physically) larger CCD of most of the (prosumer and professional) SLR cameras, and taking advantage of the RAW file capabilities of those cameras (much larger files which require conversion to use as jpegs or tiffs). Again, even there, numbers don't tell the whole story...use your eyes, consult the reviews. The numbers game, especially megapixels, means about as much in the consumer/prosumer camera market as it does in high-end audio It is used in the consumer market as a marketting gimmick. Definitely consult the review sites and magazines that have already been recommendded by Gunbei, Prpixel and others. If you are limiting your blow-up size to the typical 8X10 inches or so, as Gunbei suggests a good 3-4 megapixel camera can do that quite well.

To clarify a few points in Prpixels post; Pro SLR cameras are available in 35mm SLR body-style from around 4 megapixels to 14. As an example; The 4 Megapixel Nikon D2H is a remarkable camera, as is the 11 Megapixel Canon 1DS. Each tool has it's advantages, and each one produces amazing images for the state of the art today. Both have their advantages and drawbacks. The digital backs used on Hasselblad and other medium format cameras have been around a long while, and just like the consumer market are getting better and better. They are still quite expensive $10-20K on average, and up until recently most had to be tied to a laptop in order to shoot. There are also digital backs available to shoot with large format 4x5 inch cameras. If you shoot a lot of pictures, digital is certainly the cheapest way to go. Keep in mind on digital cards you dump the files onto your computer, wipe the card clean again and shoot over and over. Film still has an edge in overall quality, but the average person will not take advantage and may not even notice or care about those diffferences.

Marco