That is, no anti-virus required for the MAC. This saves users money, and, importantly, avoids the resource-hogging reality of AV software. In addition, the hassle of buying and installing (and waiting for the incessant updates of AV software) are avoided. This whole issue is a huge plus for the Apple machine.

Over the years, I've bought more than a two-dozen Macs and PCs for my office. The only word I have for a three-year-old PC is "disposable". I've never had a Dell last longer than three years without havingto replace the hard drive and/or completely reinstall the operating system. I laugh whenver some PC-head tells me how easy it is to swap to a new drive. Just finding a new drive is a daunting experience, as there is such a robust market for spare parts. I can't stand the idea of launching the old and infirm PCs on a charity, so I have to make regular visits to a PC recycling center. I hope Apple gives the PC makers a true run for their money. Parallels is a fantastic program and it runs Windows effortlessly. With my Core Duo iMac I can run both systems simultaneously and have exceptional reliability with both.

I bought a top-of-the-line MacBook Pro 17" in February. Great machine - I wouldn't trade it for anything, and plan to use it as long as it works, seeing as how it cost me an arm and a leg.

Six years ago I bought a top-of-the-line Vaio desktop. Still does what I bought it to do quite nicely (mostly audio editing for a radio show, though I'm using the Mac for that more now). My son has our previous computer, which I had for ten years (upgrading it myself as I went along). Next move is probably to give him the Vaio and get a Windows laptop for my wife and I.

Nice to be able to buy a new computer every year, even if you don't need one. Most of us can't or won't. So what if the Mac's "trade-in" value is a bit higher? That doesn't make it less expensive to purchase.

Macs hold their value because other people want them and there are significantly more PCs out there. So, if more people buy Macs, then the demand is reduced for used Macs. Prices equilibrate. This is how capitalism works.

PCs are a better value because they are infinitely variable. Macs have a small set of components that are more expensive. The idea that you need to justify that Macs are cheaper suggests an inferiority complex on your part.

Regarding the argument "Yeah and BMWs are cheaper than Fords because they have a higher resale value", what is important is not the resale value itself, but the difference between the price you pay for it and its resale value. I haven't done the research for either computers or for cars, so maybe BMWs really are "cheaper" in this sense than Fords, but the point of comparison is not just "it has a higher resale value" but that "the total cost of owning it for X years is less because the difference between purchase price and resale price is less". Which many protesters have glossed over.

Yes, I know - my dad's an Apple fanatic. Then again he's an engineer with more icons on his screen to oversee the innards of his favorite toy than actual applications he runs. So I know Leopard can run Windows programs these days. In theory. In practice computer gamers are the folks who buy new computers because the need the power to run the latest games. And those games don't always run very well on native Windows PCs much less on the Apple. Some do. Some don't. It's a crapshoot from what I've read.

If all folks need is to surf the internet, send mail and look at their photo albums or run numbers through spreadsheets they don't need much in the way of power. So who is all this power for? All the video editors out there? I don't think so.

It's for gamers. While PC gamers are a smaller bunch than console gamers we're still part of a huge industry and we're also the early adopters for PCs.

So if Apple wants us it better get some good games that are created for Apple PCs. Because we're not going to wait a couple years for a fraction of the titles available on the PC to filter over to the Apple.

The reason I still use the Vaio for some audio editing tasks is that Adobe Audition (actually, for me, Cool Edit Pro 2, since I have seen no need to upgrade to the latest iteration, as CE2 works just fine) is not available for the Mac. I'm stuck with an OK piece of freeware, Audacity, that does a lot, but not all, of what Cool Edit does, but kludgier. Of course, I could spend $900 on ProTools for Mac...nah, I couldn't, that would be a moronic waste of money.

As other dual-machine users can attest, there's a lot you can't do with a Mac (or do as easily) because the software isn't there. just as Macs get fewer viruses because it makes no sense to write a virus for a niche machine, Macs get fewer software choices because it makes no sense to write a program for a niche machine (especially if the program has a limited market itself).

Will this debate never end???

To compare the initial costs of Macs vs. PCs go to - http://systemshootouts.org. What this site does is compare computers from major manufacturers that are similarly configured. What you'll find is that the initial costs of similarly configured Macs and PCs are about $20 apart in cost. Save the automotive comparisons. When Macs and PCs used vastly different hardware, it was near impossible to make a fair comparison. Now that both systems use virtually the same components, comparisons can be more easily made.

To compare ongoing costs of Macs and PCs download this (virus-free) spreadsheet at http://www.machelpdesk.com/winnsTCO.sit - and then plug your own numbers into it. You'll be amazed. I was.

However if you want to compare a DIY (Do-It-Yourself) computer to that of a major manufacturer, the DIY will always appear to be less expensive. Of course, once you add in the time it costs to research the various components, purchase, assemble, troubleshoot, and provide your own warranty for that DIY wonder computer, the costs are also similar. [Unless you're willing to work for less than $5/hour]