Do you have any analysis, or are you just spreading old FUD?

Here's a 2006 link finding that a Mac Pro was cheaper than a comparably equipped Dell of the time. (Though, as you can see, you can spend all day arguing about what "comparable" means.)

http://www.macworld.com/article/52540/2006/08/dellmacprofoll...

Here's a 2007 Computerworld analysis:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewA...

Of course, the difference is that Apple simply stays out of low-margin markets. So it's definitely possible to get a box with "PC" stamped on it for much less money than the cost of any new Mac. The most conspicuous current example of a market which Apple does not deign to enter is the netbook market.

Also have no intention for starting PC brand war here. One can go visit a PC vendor's web site (say, dell) look at the notebook/desktop/workstation hardware configuration and prices and then compare with what one can find on say, Apple Store.

This year, I recently purchased a gateway laptop: http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529668231.php

(17" HD display, 64 bit Intel Core 2 Duo 8400 2.26 GHz CPU, 4 GB DDR3 RAM, 320 GB 7200 rpm hard disk, NVIDIA® GeForce® 9800M GTS Graphics with 1GB of GDDR3 Discrete Video Memory).

I got this for $1270 after tax. For the same amount of money I also bought a Macbook: http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html (13.3" display, Intel Core 2 Duo CPU 2.0 GHz, 2 GB DDR3 RAM, 160 GB 5400 rpm hard drive, NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor with 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory).

I would like to point out that I love both of these notebooks. I would give Apple extra points for build quality, fit & finish and better user experience. That said, one can very well see, item-by-item, how do the technical specs compare between the two mentioned here.

When a for profit company has to make a decision, cost of purchase becomes a big factor and that is the only point I am trying to make here.

We might not be "Enterprise" yet but it works well for us.

Macs may seem more expensive up front but the cost of buying the machine is not its whole cost. Total cost of ownership is important. Downtime for highly paid employees is just as bad if its their desktop as if it is a server.

Mac's have fewer problems and have fewer downtime. Over 3 years we've never had a Mac desktop go down. I can't imagine a similar statement coming from a similar sized business running Windows.

In past 10 yrs I have used Unix (Solaris, IRIX, Linux and OS X on x86) as well as Windows (XP & Vista) and have never had downtime on any of those, except for explicit and deliberate OS patches/upgrades' installation time.

I have come to believe that the computer downtime is usually a function of the hardware, people managing the infrastructure and sometimes, the users.