I’ve been hot off my laptop purchase and I really considered purchasing a MacBook. But as with any penny-pincher, I found it just a tad bit too pricey for me. Besides, I won’t do some hardcore multimedia stuff with it. The most multitasking I’d do with it will probably be an image editor and my web browser, a MacBook would probably be an overkill for those tasks.

But how about in general, strip off the issue of purpose and get down to the real numbers. Computerworld probes this issue yet again, to surprising results. In an article on Mac vs. PC costs, former-Windows-expert-turned-Mac-Daddy Scot Finnie points out several issues where the Mac is just a better value than high-end PCs. Here’s his bottom-line on the high-end laptops.

Assuming that you want a high-end notebook PC designed to work, play and be your everyday machine with style, the MacBook Pro is a surprisingly good value. The models that I compared it with, the Sony and the Dell, had some extras here and there, but they were also more expensive. The key to the perception that Macs are more expensive is that Apple offers very few in-between models.

As for the midrange, it is still a domain for PCs price-wise. Price-wise the value of lower range PC laptops can’t be beat. But as for value, Macs are a better choice for the midrange. And this is somehow justifiable given that Macs have a limited product line with none really bordering in the realm of the cheapest laptop PCs.

In the long run, I agree that the Mac will just be of better value. Vista is just a resource hog and demands that you own a high-end (ergo expensive) laptop to fully experience it. OS X (with its next release) runs perfectly on Mac laptops. This just gives Macs more oomph for the months to come.

Thanks to Forever Geek a heads up on this one