Originally Posted by Arainach
No, they're not. The point isn't "what does an equivalent machine cost". It's "what does a machine that does what I need cost". I'm a software developer and an all around high-end user; I haven't used a machine that cost more than $600 in a decade. I can get a laptop that does what I need for $500 and a desktop that does what I need for less. The cheapest Mac laptop is $1000. That's huge.
Different people have different experiences, which tend to lead to different opinions and preferences. That's cool. Personally, I haven't been able to find a laptop other than a Mac that I didn't want to throw out of the window after using it for any reasonable length of time. (And I used PC's for many years before I switched to Mac's to save my sanity.) The PC desktops I have used (and still have to use at work) have fared a little better relatively speaking, but, IMO, can't compare to Mac in terms of ease of use and lack of regular problems. In terms of aggravation, opportunity costs (i.e., the costs of time), software costs (e.g., anti-virus software), and product useful life, I think Macs are cheaper for a lot of us.
But everyone is different, and as they say, your mileage may vary.