You seem like a bright guy. I want you to examine this:

Practically, this means that you can buy a used last-year's-model Mac for roughly 20 percent less than it sold new, and you can probably use it for most of your tasks. You can get last year's Windows machine for even less than that, of course, but again you run in to the same problem -- its resale value plummets faster than the Mac's. If you're buying last year's Mac now, you can sell it next year (when it'll be two years old) and get a bunch of what you paid back.

and take the time to identify the failure of elementary logic going on in it. Seriously, do that. Honestly. The shifting goal posts here are stunning.

I was intrigued, I admit. I was wondering what insight there was. Would the author add the price of anti virus software and subscriptions? Would he calculate the hours spent dealing with Windows bugs and multiply by some hourly pay rate to add to the Windows price?

Imagine my surprise when it came down to resale value. Good grief. I know of NO ONE who sells old computers every year and buys new ones. All of us keep computers until they break, and if we buy a new computer every year, we keep the old one too, or give it to family or friends.

It reminds me of those laughable Hertz computations of how much cars cost, based on the idea that you trade in every year. Who still does that?

Or other car comparisons how Mercedes are actually cheaper than Chevrolets, once you account for retaining more of their trade in value. Besides assuming you keep the car in pristine condition and never ever let a dog or baby ride in them, and never ever let anyone eat in them, or even wear dirty clothes, I simply do not know ANY ONE who trades in cars every year, nor who has the spare money to invest in a Mercedes merely because they can sell it a year later for the same price, and then have to turn around and lay out even more money for yet another new one.

How about some realism? On second thought, maybe this *is* realism for a Mac fanboy, and maybe I should just stick with my Linux boxes and leave you high thinkers in peace.

I've had it almost 10 years, it's been "in the shop" twice, once for maintenance and once for an update. I don't even remember what I paid for it, and don't care.

...as I write this (on my iMac) I'm installing a new Ubuntu build on an old laptop.

I still believe that Apple makes some of the best software and hardware around, but I'm starting to have my doubts about the company and its commitment to its customers.

I've been with Apple for so long that when I think about computers, I'm not thinking Microsoft or Dell or IBM, I'm thinking about Apple. The first one I ever used was a brand-spanking-new Apple II Plus, brought home by my dad. Later we moved on to an Apple IIe, followed by the first Macintosh and the Mac II. He bought me a Performa when I was in college and I eventually moved on to a Quadra 700, which was a killer machine at the time. The list goes on, up to my current iMac and my wife's older iBook G4.

I think it's fair to say that I have Apple street cred. So why have I been experimenting with Linux over the past few months if Apple has been so good to me over the past nearly three decades?

It's because I think they're starting to show the early signs of evil empire-ness. Locked iPhones; serious booting issues for users who just upgraded to 10.5; system updates innocently described as 'bug fixes' that actually address major security issues; the continuing existence of QuickTime Pro, which is obnoxious; iTunes and DRM; and the general, ongoing focus on the iPod, which, I fear, is distracting much of the company's talent away from actual computer development. There's more and I could go into a lot more detail, but this is already tl;dr.

For sure, I'm not abandoning Apple. The Mac OS is still far superior to Windows (though that's not really saying much), and I plan on using it for years to come. But I feel the need to get to know something different than today's Apple, something that more resembles the Apple of years ago. For me, right now, at least, that's Linux/Ubuntu.

It's not that Ubuntu is generally superior to the Mac OS. It's not. I'm upgrading to the second-latest version right now, and I don't expect any fireworks. But Ubuntu does most of what I need, it's very speedy on a rather old machine, and, most importantly, it's totally open source, totally free, and the antithesis of operating systems created by big money-making machines... a term that increasingly applies to Apple.

In Steve Jobs' defense: that old machine that runs quite nicely with Ubuntu? It's an eight year-old PowerBook G3.

Why on earth would I buy an 80G 512MB crummy processor computer for MORE than another computer that has twice as good specs? Because I can sell it for more in a year? Thats ridiculous.

Not only would I keep my computer for more than a year (realistically, probably somewhere around 3-4 years, and many people buying a computer for home use who are older than Gen X would very likely be keeping their computer for somwhere in the neighborhood of 5-6 years...), but for the time I did have that computer, I would be using a machine that was TWICE as good for $100 less.

I can't quite understand how the resale value stacks up against the better specs of a PC for the same price. Even if you ARE only going to keep your computer for a year - isn't it worth the $300 loss in resale to have gotten a better machine to be using during that year in the first place?

Macs have some advantages over PCs, but price simply is NOT one of them. Not if you're going to keep your computer for longer than a year. Afterall, I can't imagine the market for a 5 year old mac is all that great (even if it is better than the market for a 5 year old PC).

The unintended point of this article seems to be that if you want a REAL bargain, buy a 1 year old PC off ebay. You'll get the same specs as a mac, but for around $300 instead of $800. Sure you can't sell it, but hey, you paid $500 less in the first place!