For the last month I’ve been living with Apple’s diminutive MacBook Air as my sole production computer for all professional and personal use. My previous main Mac was a 2007 2.4GHz 4GB RAM MacBook Pro 17 with the highest resolution Apple offers in a notebook. So I went from one Apple portable extreme (highest resolution, most power, heaviest) to the other (smallest, lightest, least powerful, least memory, weakest video). There are a number of trade-offs, but the positive outweighs the negative.

It happened that late April through May is a slow travel period for me, so while I’ve attended local events offsite, I haven’t hit the road yet. But in a couple of weeks, I’ll be on a tour that includes D.C., NYC, Boston, and Miami. The east coast thang. I’ll give the MacBook Air a thorough travel test then. Once that’s complete, I’ll write a full long-term review of the MacBook Air on Computerworld.com.

My biggest single issue with the MacBook Air is something that you know going in: the size and resolution of the MacBook Air’s display. It measures 13.3-inches diagonally and has a maximum (native) resolution of 1280-by-800 pixels. The smaller size never troubles me on the road, where email and Web surfing are the main applications. I’m similarly unfazed by the MacBook Air’s small displays size because it’s connected to a 24-inch external LCD. But when I’m home, sitting on the sofa — where I sometimes spend hours researching, preparing PowerPoints, developing spreadsheets, juggling loads of documents, and writing — I feel the pinch of the small screen size. Like I said, I knew that going in, but the trade-off it’s not as bad as I expected.

It may be a case of just enough screen real estate. After years of using nothing but large-screen, high-res notebooks, I don’t have the “peering through a keyhole” feeling I sometimes got with pre-widescreen Windows notebooks (usually at 1024-by-768 resolution).

Another aspect that may help is the MBA display’s brightness and high contrast, both of which count a lot with me. What I’ve learned over the years is that display specs don’t matter. What matters is how it feels when you spend hours in front of it. The MacBook Air’s thin-film transistor LED technology creates the best notebook display I’ve spent that kind of time with. Though I haven’t spent the same amount of time with the newer MacBook Pro 15 models, the first to support the TFT LED displays, my guess is that they’re equally impressive.

All in all, I’ve adapted pretty well to the MacBook Air’s small display size. Even so, if Apple ever comes out with larger-screen MacBook Pro (such as a 15-inch or 17-inch) with the same incredible thinness, I’d probably break out the credit card the first week they were offered.

I’m also completely unperturbed by the on-paper lack of overall computing power that shows up clearly in the MacBook Air’s specs. My test unit has the 1.8GHz processor with the 64GB solid-state drive. Were I to spend my own money (or my company’s money), I’d get the 1.6GHz CPU and the 80GB 4,200-rpm conventional hard drive. For the things I use my main production machine 98% of the time, I don’t notice any loss of oomph. The 64GB drive is tight. In my ideal world, the MBA would come with 3GB or RAM and a 120GB hard drive, but so far I haven’t needed either.

The biggest problem I wasn’t expecting in the MacBook Air concerns the USB port. I was surprised that apparently Apple didn’t do the proper testing as part of its design work to ensure that virtually any USB device fits its one USB port. Or perhaps Apple just decided that form was more important than function. Either way, not only did I have to buy a new USB 3G EV-DO device for my company-supplied Verizon broadband wireless service, but when I paid extra for the smallest one (smallest in all three dimensions), it didn’t fit the MacBook Air’s USB port. Apple pointed out to me that the largest one Verizon offers has a fold out USB connector that does fit the MBA. But not only does that mean the darn thing flops around, it’s also massive at 3.6-inches long by 1.5-inches wide by .7-inches thick. It’s roughly half the size of deck of playing cards.

Bottom line, I think it’s a weakness in a computer using the name “Air” to refer to its wireless orientation that most USB air cards don’t fit it and it doesn’t have an ExpressCard port. Apple is quick to point out that every wireless broadband provider in the U.S. offers at least one air card that fits the MacBook Air, but to me, that’s not good enough.

Similarly, I have no issue with the MacBook’s optical SuperDrive being an external device, that’s a reasonable trade-off. But the fact that Apple’s device does not work through a USB hub and must be connected directly to the lone USB port is disappointing.

The biggest advantage I hadn’t fully appreciated — despite acknowledging it to be the killer feature of the MacBook Air from day one — is how freeing the small size and weight is. At work, I frequently just grab it and go to meetings. Since my business is Internet publishing, being able to refer to our Web site or those of competitors is a noticeable advantage to me. I haven’t even gotten to the travel part yet.

Stand by for my final Computerworld review in a month or a little more, which will address my travel experiences and also give details about my workarounds for some of the trade-offs I’ve experienced — as well as my final recommendation on the MacBook Air. In the meantime, I can tell you that I’m very much enjoying the research behind this evaluation.

• Mac vs. PC cost analysis: How does it all add up? (Computerworld)

It seemed to me that people who criticized this story missed the key points I was trying to get across:

1. This was a pure, hardware-based, speeds-and-feeds kind of comparison. I was comparing the hardware goods only, including CPU, chipset, RAM, video, display, hard-drive capacity and specs, ports and upgradeability, dimensions and weight, and so on. In other words, I was attempting to make an objective comparison that did not inject any evaluation about the hardware, anything at all about the software, or my personal experience with the operating systems and hardware involved. It was an on-paper comparison.

I did that purposely to lay the groundwork for further analysis about the value of Macs vs. Windows PCs. I started with the objective measures.

2. The main point I was trying to make is that when you compare Macs with comparably equipped Windows PCs, it may surprise you that, overall, Macs sometimes beat Windows PCs in the price/performance comparison. Sometimes Windows PCs do. Overall, there’s relative parity.

There is a time component to this kind of analysis. The Windows PC makers lagged behind Apple for a while on the CPU front, but with the release of the Santa Rosa platform (Intel’s marketing name is Centrino Pro), many are catching up again. The value meter may be tipping a bit toward Windows PCs now as a result. But this ebb and flow is a natural part of computer valuations. It never rests. Pricing is always in flux.

It’s definitely true that Apple Mac pricing has not always approached parity. I’ve made this comparison before. Macs have clearly been more expensive than Windows PCs in the distant past. But if you’re talking about name-brand Windows PCs from reputable manufacturers like Dell, HP, Toshiba, Acer, Gateway, Lenovo, and others, the out-the-door pricing is more or less on par.

There’s an important point of comparison you need to recognize to fully understand the logic of my position. For a direct comparison to be made, there has to be a Mac SKU that directly equates to the exact set of features *you* want. And that’s where we enter into the completely subjective realm and get away from intrinsic value. Just because you don’t want this or that small feature that the Mac has, doesn’t mean that everyone else doesn’t want it. And vice versa. So if your desire is a specific set of features that fits in between a specific Mac SKU and the way it can be configured, then some Windows PC somewhere may, in fact, be a better value — for you.

This point isn’t unique to computer sales. Buy a Honda automobile, for example, and you’ll find there are three or four models for any car type, and the only options are dealer installable. Like Honda, Apple has smartly positioned its specific models.

There’s also a corresponding point to be made: The Macintosh lineup consists of five model lines and 12 basic SKUs (or specific models), each of which offers additional configuration. There are three desktop model lines and two notebook model lines. When you look closely at these model lines, there are economy, middle-of-the-road, and high-end models. Macs are no longer just premium computers. Apple changed its stance on that markedly over the past 10 years. If you’re not that familiar with Macs, you have to open your mind, take a look at the different Mac models, and closely compare the specs to understand.

Dean Abanila, technology specialist at the Rhode Island School of Design, said it well:

“I work with more than a few students and faculty looking for computer buying advice. Many are making PC-to-Mac transitions. Your analysis is dead on. At least twice per week I spec out both Macs and PCs for folks. More often than not, the Mac is cheaper, and this has been the case for some time now. Before I start to sound like a Mac fan boy, let me say that I often recommend PCs, and will continue to do so. I support both platforms here at RISD. As I am sure you are aware, recommendations depend on the user’s goals.”

One last hardware point: I agree with those of you who wrote to say you’re with me on the comparison, but as purchasers of corporate microcomputing hardware they feel Apple doesn’t have a product that meets their needs. I’ve written about this in the past and am contemplating a Computerworld column on the point again. Apple has a huge opportunity right now with the pushback on Vista and the upswing in Mac sales to release a Mac designed for business.

At my company, where there are many new Mac users, the MacBook Pro 15 has become the standard. But that’s a pretty expensive computer for some companies to justify. I think the MacBook might be a solid alternative for some companies, and its pricing is more in line, or even advantageously priced, when compared with small-screen Windows notebooks from Lenovo and others. But there’s room for a MacBook business machine that has a better keyboard, a better-looking case, and probably some other minor tweaks. I also don’t think the iMac is a great desktop computer for business. I don’t like the integrated monitor from a support perspective.

There’s room for Apple do something here, but the real problem for Apple is that it doesn’t have a corporate sales channel to speak of. It’s a retail-oriented B2C company, not a B2B company. Some enterprises are ignoring those downsides, though. Computerworld’s cover story this week is about Tacoma, Wash.-based Auto Warehousing Co.’s decision to dump a major part of its IT infrastructure and PCs in favor of Apple servers and Macs. It does happen.

Software?
So much for the recap from last month. A lot of people have asked me to dive into the software comparison between Macs and PCs. Software needs, however, are far more variable than hardware needs. For example, some people are required to use Microsoft Word, Excel, and/or PowerPoint. They would be forced to either buy or get their companies to buy Microsoft Office 2004 for the Mac, which sells for $399 list.

I know that some of you believe that alternative office products negate the need for anyone to use Microsoft Office for the Mac. That simply isn’t true. There are interoperability issues with even the best alternative office apps. Trust me on this, some of us are required by our companies to use the Microsoft product.

On the other hand, some people don’t have those constraints. They might be very happy, indeed, with a product such as NeoOffice, the free, open-source Mac office suite based on the OpenOffice.org office suite.

So how do we figure this out? Do we tote up $400 or no? It’s much harder to generalize about software. It’s not easy to draw fair comparisons about software on a level playing field. I believe each person has to make his or her own assessment on the software front. Here’s are some factors I think you should weigh in considering the software side of analyzing Mac vs. PC costs:

1. There is plenty of software available from the Mac, both from established software houses and from individuals. Surprisingly, there are more products in some product categories than there are for Windows. For example, every time I turn around, I stumble across another project management tool for the Mac. There are more browsers for the Mac than there are for Windows. I don’t think Windows users realize just how many software product categories Microsoft has come to own. It’s true, though, that in some categories, there are only two or three Mac offerings. All in all, though, there is a very solid, rich spread of software makers creating Mac applications. As a long-time software reviewer, I’ve been surprised by the quality of these applications, too.

2. The $80 Parallels Desktop for Mac virtualization application lets you run Windows and Linux very seamlessly on your Intel Mac and switch between Mac and Windows, for example, with a simple keyboard command. It’s even possible to run Windows applications as if they’re running in the Mac interface, and to associate data files on the Mac with Windows applications. This extremely powerful tool literally gives you access to all your Windows applications on your Mac. Parallels is one of the best software utilities I’ve tested in years. It adds a huge chunk of software value to any Macintosh purchase. Apple’s free Boot Camp beta software is less convenient, but it offers the same ability to run Windows on your Mac. VMware’s forthcoming Fusion virtualization tool for the Mac will compete with Parallels.

3. You don’t need security software. OK, so I’m not one of those Mac users who chortles up his sleeve about security. I take it seriously. And I don’t think the Mac is inherently immune from security threats. But the real-world truth right now is that most security threats are aimed at criminal financial gain, and the Mac’s market share is just too small to be a cost-effective target. I mean, really, which would you pirate? The giant cargo ship with the gangplank resting on the dock, or the buttoned-up tugboat moored 100 yards offshore? Other than software to block spam, Mac users don’t need any of the security products that Windows users absolutely require — antivirus, anti-malware/spyware, identity-theft protection, anti-bot, and so on. (The Mac comes with built-in firewall software.) There’s definitely a cost savings because of this. And I suppose we could work up some numbers based on annual subscription fees and the need to upgrade to new versions of security products every year or two. This does add up over time, but it’s not really a big chunk of change.

To me, the far more important cost is the system overhead, user distraction, system instability, and the need for user troubleshooting that Windows security software entails.

Kenneth Burton, a technical director for a school system, emailed me with the same thought:

“What about the issue of spyware and antivirus software? One of the reasons I switched to a Mac at home two years ago was because of the hassle of cleaning up the computer after my 16-year-old son.”

Another reader, Rudy Wolf, agrees:

“Having just made the switch myself (we now own four Macs), I have to take exception to your [first article in this series]. You didn’t go far enough! Where is the discussion about the hours I used to spend messing with Symantec’s Norton utilities and Windows utilities to keep my Windows PCs running and optimized? I have personally gained one to two hours per week because I no longer have to maintain four Windows PCs. My MacPro is now almost two years old. In that time, I have not run one utility to defragment its disk, optimize the system, or upgrade software. The worst I’ve had to do is press the Enter key a few times when the computer upgraded itself (flawlessly each time). I don’t know about others, but getting back 50-100 hours a year is a savings that has to be factored into the equation.”

4. Software is cheap. Unless you’re talking AutoCAD, Photoshop, or Microsoft Office, software isn’t all that expensive, folks. Just two hours of my time spent working on a Windows PC problem is worth far more than the average cost of most software programs. Even if you’re retired, you have to factor in the time wasted wrestling with problems. The point I’m trying to make is that, OK, so you may have to back your Mac purchase with an investment in software, but you had to do the same thing with your Windows purchase at some point. It’s a cost of doing business. But more important, you can amortize the cost of the software against the time you’ll save not wrestling with stupid PC problems. There is a very real savings there that’s difficult to measure or quantify. That benefit is at once supremely valuable and difficult to quantify. The problems you face with Windows are very definitely a cost to using that operating system and hardware.

Remember the Yugo, a car introduced to the U.S. in 1984 whose main claim to fame was that it was incredibly cheap, woefully underpowered, and highly trouble prone? Yugos spent a lot of time in the shop. In considering the savings on the purchase price, Yugo buyers probably didn’t factor in lost personal time, aggravation, repair charges, and what they were paying for transportation when their cars were being repaired. This is the very definition of penny wise and pound foolish. I’m not saying that Windows is a Yugo, believe me. But reverse the picture: The Mac represents the most reliable vehicle you can buy (perhaps a Toyota?). There’s a hidden value to having far fewer problems than average. And a big segment of the computer-using market place doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge that.

No Lie: Impressive Reliability
The single most frustrating thing about being a Mac user is the disdain with which some Windows users view Macs. Apparently you’re not a real man or woman unless you’re suffering with everyone else.

The thing is, I don’t think Windows users (I know, I was one myself for many years) give much credence to the notion that Macs are far more trouble-free. Because it’s difficult to quantify it must therefore be false. It’s a subjective data point. As a long-time Windows author, reviewer, and expert, I know that I felt that I could solve any Windows problem (and probably could), and as a result, the Mac’s advantages held less benefit for me.

But I was wrong about that. The unexpected advantage I gained is that using my computer is more enjoyable. My concentration isn’t broken periodically by problems, updates, security pop-ups, and the like. I’m not thinking that I’m using a Mac. I’m thinking about what I’m using the computer to do — what I’m reading, writing, figuring, buying, watching, etc. The Mac becomes just so much chrome wrapping the data I’m interacting with. You’re not conscious of your television set while you’re watching it. That’s the way it is with a Mac. I found that much harder to achieve on Windows PCs, which are constantly drawing attention to themselves.

Another reader, James Sugrue, put it this way:

“I’ve been saying this for a while now. If you compare Apples to Apples (pardon the pun) then Macs are more often than not cheaper or at least price competitive. The thing your article didn’t touch on was the value you can’t quantify with Macs: Not having to worry about malware, not having to rebuild your machine every six months because the registry has gotten corrupted, or not having to deal with some dodgy driver that takes the system down. Your article didn’t describe the [overall pleasant] Mac experience.

“A recent switcher to the ‘Cult of the Mac,’ I’ve often wondered why I waited so long. I am a professional software developer, using Windows and Visual Studio, so I have a lot of Windows pain most days. I wish I could do all my dev work on the Mac. I see that being a major barrier to switching for most of my peers, even though there are great apps like Parallels and Boot Camp that could help. There’s a lot of ignorance about Apple for some reason among us technical types. A programmer at work said yesterday that he hated Apple. I asked whether he’d ever used a Mac. Nope.”

James, he’d probably hate chocolate if he hadn’t tried it, too.

Apple’s Mac mini is a Trojan horse (not the malware kind) whose entire purpose is to be low-cost enough to entice Mac-curious Windows users to give the Mac a try. The Mac mini is neither powerful nor portable. But it works just fine and will definitely give you the Mac experience. Or consider this: You can rent Macs. They’re not cheap, but it’s a lot less than buying even a new Mac mini.

You’re not going to believe it until you try it yourself. I didn’t.

I expect to write another installment on this subject. I hope to address Macintosh total cost of ownership (TCO), the average length of time people keep their Macs, and Mac resale values, among other things.

I welcome your input on this subject. What I value especially are fact-based arguments on either side of the question.

For all those people who have ever bought Packard Bell or eMachines PCs — and who continue to believe that great value in a Windows computer is any model that sells for $600 or less — I agree: Apple doesn’t have an answer for you. In fact, I suggest you skip this article entirely. You’re not going to find anything of interest.

It’s the Hardware
For those of you who are left, what my research shows is that neither the Macintosh nor the field of Windows PCs has a lock on good value. If you view this discussion from Apple’s side, what you’ll be doing is starting with Apple’s relatively short list of SKUs (three or four model variations for each of its lines, such as MacBook Pro, MacBook, and iMac) and then looking for Windows machines that are comparable. Apple bests the competition in some spots, though not always. But the pricing is surprisingly on par.

The reality is that there are Windows machines that fit in between Mac SKUs. And in those niches, they represent very good values. But when they Windows and Mac models meet square on, the answer is not so clear cut. That in itself may be a surprise to many Windows people. Only a few years ago, it was a no-brainer that Windows hardware was much cheaper. But if you’re talking name-brand hardware, that’s no longer the case.

As an exercise, I spent an hour working on Dell’s site, trying to find the cheapest notebook that offered everything Apple’s top of the line, $2,799 MacBook Pro 17 provides. That includes a glossy 17-inch screen, 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo processor, 2GB RAM, 256MB video RAM, 160GB 5400-rpm SATA hard drive, 8x slot-loading SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW), Gigabit Ethernet port, 54Mbps WiFi (upgradeable to 802.11n), Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, ExpressCard/34 card slot, three USB ports, one FireWire 800 port, one FireWire 400 port, DVI port, built-in iSight video camera, and a one-year warranty (upgradeable to three years). See Apple’s full MacBook Pro tech specs (since revised, of course).

I was a little surprised to find that Dell’s Inspiron line doesn’t currently offer processing power equaling that of the MacBook Pro. To get the 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo processor, you have to change up to Dell’s more expensive XPS M1710 model with Vista Home Premium.

The Dell has some extra ports and things (six USB ports instead of three, for example), but it also weighs nearly two pounds more than the MacBook Pro and is much chunkier (1.69-inch thick as opposed to the MacBook Pro’s 1-inch thickness).

But here’s the truly surprising number: The Dell M1710 tricked out with only those extras it had to have to compete with the MacBook Pro costs a whopping $3,459, some $650 more than the MacBook Pro.

One important caveat that has an effect on value is screen resolution. Apple’s 17-inch screen has a maximum resolution of 1,600 by 1,050 pixels. Dell’s same-size screen has a maximum resolution of 1,920 by 1,200 pixels. The native resolution of the Dell screen may give some people eye strain, but higher-resolution LCD screens are more expensive. I can’t determine the added value of Dell’s higher screen resolution, but it doesn’t cancel out the significant difference in price between the MacBook Pro and the Inspiron.

I visited Circuit City last weekend to take a look at high-end 17-inch notebook PCs. Like Dell, Sony has a very expensive 17-inch LCD notebook with every conceivable bell and whistle, selling for more than $3,000. But there are models in the $2,000 range from HP and Toshiba that approximate the MacBook Pro’s equipment. The HP Pavilion DV9260US comes with the Intel Core 2 Duo 2GHz processor, a 240GB 5400-rpm drive, Windows Vista Ultimate, and a 17-inch screen whose maximum resolution is only 1,440 by 900 pixels (a major drawback). Circuit City’s price is $2,000.

At the very top of the line for 17-inch computers at Circuit City is the Sony Vaio VGN-AR390E. It sells for $3,150. Like all the other Windows models available at Circuit City, the Vaio’s processor is a 2GHz Core 2 Duo, not as fast as that of the MacBook Pro. The Vaio comes through with a 1,920 by 1,200-pixel screen resolution, a 5,400-rpm 240GB hard drive, and a whopping 527MB of video memory. But like the Dell, at 8.4 pounds, the Vaio also makes the 6.8-pound MacBook Pro feel like a lightweight.

Takeaways: Assuming you want a high-end notebook designed for work, play, and to be everyday machine with extras, 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 more expensive, not less expensive. The key to the perception that Macs are pricey is that people often compare the wrong Windows machines to Macs. It’s easy to make that mistake because Apple offers fewer models.

It’s Similar in the Midrange
In the midrange, where lower-cost 13-inch LCD MacBook models occupy a price range of $1,100 to $1,500, you may be equally surprised. Apple’s recently updated MacBooks more than hold their own on price/performance comparisons with other 12-inch and 13-inch LCD computers from Sony, Toshiba, and HP.

The desktop landscape may also be an eye-opener. Even though the likes of Dell, HP, Sony, and so on have machines with low-end processors and meager configurations priced from about $500 and up, those prices don’t include LCDs (in most cases), and they don’t start to get hardware competitive with the processors in Apple’s iMac line until they hit about $1,000. Because of the iMac’s built-in LCD, it’s actually less expensive, though some of the details (such as hard drive size and RAM amount) may be tilted in favor of some Windows desktops. If you know your way around PCs, and want some extras, the Apple could in some instances (depending on your needs) be the clear value leader in this category.

For comparison’s sake, Sony’s Vaio All-in-One Desktop PC VGC-LS25E attempts to out-Apple Apple. It comes with a 19-inch LCD, 2GB RAM, a 7,200-rpm 250GB hard drive, and Vista Home Premium, but has only a 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo processor. The Circuit City price tag is $1,800.

So how does that compare with Apple’s 20-inch LCD iMac, which sells for $1,500? That model iMac comes with a 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, a 7200-rpm 250GB drive, and 1GB RAM. You would need to upgrade the video memory and system RAM to make the iMac comparable with the Sony in those areas. But the iMac has a bigger LCD and a better processor, no matter what. Even with the RAM and video upgrades, the iMac still costs less.

Besides, you shouldn’t pay Apple’s steep $175 1GB RAM upgrade. You can save money by upgrading to 2GB after your purchase. Kingston memory is less expensive, and it offers excellent quality and Mac compatibility. I’ve also had great luck on my Macs with the bargain-basement-priced memory from Data Memory Systems of New Hampshire. (I just wish DMS would take PayPal.)

Takeaways: When you configure Macs and PCs in the low-end notebook and desktop categories, you’ll find that, except at the very bottom of the heap, Windows machines are roughly comparable in price to Macs. There are fewer Mac models, so if your needs vary from what Apple decided on, you may find a Windows model that costs less for you. But Apple’s choices make a lot of sense for most people. When you do a point-by-point comparison, Apple is actually a better value for some needs.

Background Realities
The comparisons I’ve drawn above are by no means exhaustive. I didn’t address computers at the Mac Pro’s level, for example. I didn’t cover the Mac mini — a computer that I’m not all that fond of. I didn’t address the 15-inch MacBook Pro, and, full disclosure, I feel the MacBook Pro 15 is of dubious value. The only time I wish I was using one is when I’m flying coach. Since it’s only $300 less than the MacBook Pro 17, and yet has lower resolution, a lesser hard drive, a lesser SuperDrive, fewer ports, and so on, it’s nowhere near as good a value as the MacBook Pro 17.

Anyone who performs a similar comparison will quickly run into subjective assessment about what’s important and what’s not. I chose to focus on hardware levels, such as CPUs, RAM, video memory, and so forth. I also happen to believe that many of the small details about Macs have a value that’s hard to put a price tag on. How much is the very best trackpad in the business worth to you? To me, it’s worth a lot. But I know that some people couldn’t care less. So I’m sticking with the objective speeds and feeds as best I can.

Software is the question that many people bring up to me over and over again on the subject of Mac vs. PC value. Long-term, entrenched Windows users (like I was until last September) tend to think in terms of the investment they have in software, peripherals, and so on. I can’t account for your context. If you need Microsoft Office for the Mac, you need it. And that will set you back a few hundred bucks. But it seems to me that that’s an ancillary thing. You can amortize that cost over the lifetime of your computer use. You’re going to have to pay for your next Windows-based Office upgrade too, right? What’s the difference?

The more interesting question — the question that some Mac people are really tired of — is, What about all the software you’ve been using forever to solve problems? Will the Mac world have those solutions? You like to do things a certain way, and can you do that on the Mac? The feedback I got from Mac people on this point is that I should forget Windows and do things the Mac way. I reject that piece of advice, even though I have come to understand it. I don’t agree because there isn’t a “One True Mac Way” of doing things. There’s just the way that people using a computer are comfortable with doing things — and that’s a subjective determination made by each individual.

As Windows users consider what their costs might be in getting up to speed on the Mac, though, I would recommend this: Don’t sweat the smaller stuff. Just like Windows, there are solutions to esoteric Mac problems. There are resources out there that will help you. There’s a ton of free software. There’s a ton of very low-cost software. In fact, there’s plenty of Mac software out there — much of it of surprisingly good quality. The release of OS X transformed the Mac marketplace. It’s a vibrant, growing community. There’s an excitement around Mac products — software and hardware — that you just don’t feel in the Windows world any longer. I’d forgotten what that felt like.

Get Involved with the Cost Analysis
I’m interested in what both Windows and Mac people have to say about comparing the value of these two types of computers. There are a lot of ways to look at this.

I’m asking for your input, but I’d also like people who heavily disagree with me to do these two things: 1. Read what I’ve written carefully. 2. Do your own homework. Don’t make assumptions about pricing without doing a tech spec comparison of directly comparable Apple and PC equipment. With that said, please send along your comments, suggestions, and criticisms.