At the very least, remember this Greg:

I don't think many people ever have claimed that a PC edit rig is easier to maintain/troubleshoot than a Mac rig. Or in other words...if you jump ship, you'll likely have to straighten out some kinks there as well.

Which brings me to something I learned earlier this year while trying to help a friend transition from Media 100 to FCP...most of his problems were of the learning a new program variety. Old ways of working and assumptions were what was giving him grief.

For instance, in Media 100 when you import media that the system doesn't support, it will transcode it to something that it does, making it a very long import process at times. He couldn't fathom why FCP wouldn't do that for you...that putting unsupported media on the timeline would make you render.

Anyway, I find that new users often have problems of the same variety. Incorrect assumptions about how FCP works often cause weirdness and unhappiness (I think this goes for any NLE, btw).

I appreciate your thoughts about this. I hear you Nate- and I'm sure my inexperience is adding to the frustration level... but I gave it a lot of effort. I'm to the point where I'm convinced getting a laptop was a mistake so I'm getting a desktop specifically to edit with (no internet, no other programs, just edit). I feel that I was misled by Apple people (not just the Apple salespeople but other Apple users who all said this new laptop would fly!) and so do not want to give Apple any more of my money, hence my going Premiere.
This was (still is I think) the latest greatest MBP- core 2 duo, fastest cpu they offer, 2g ram (was going to upgrade to 4 but when I saw it was nearly $700 I decided against), fw 800 drive on the side and a shiny brand new FCP program... which is now old... 5.14. Actually, I bought 5.12 and got the update a few months ago. The 17" screen is probably one of my biggest complaints, and I've read many others are unhappy with it as well. I do a lot of Photoshop work, but not on the laptop :(

The other problem (and it's the main problem) is that HDV has the same bandwidth as DV. It's too compressed and finally you don't really shoot in HD, just a pseudo HD, not to mention that it's interlaced (maybe this is a problem of camera design, not the HDV codec itself)

HDV is a fine entry-level HD recording format and is being used for several popular TV shows plus a lot of independent production work. It's at least as much "real HD" as the signals received by broadcast HDTV viewers and what's on HD movie discs: the main limitation of HDV is the quality of the cameras and lenses designed to record it. And there is a progressive-scan version of HDV produced by the JVC series cameras, using full 720p resolution at up to 60 frames per second. So while it's true that HDV is heavily compressed, it's still a very usable compromise and a remarkable accomplishment for the price.

HDV is a tool - once you learn to use it properly, it yields a spectacular picture! But you have to go through the learning curve and know it's strengths and weaknesses.

I opted for DVCPRO HD, less pain, more quality, but of course, twice the price...