When did I say that? I said OS X licensing is generally far cheaper than Windows and with generally equivalent or even better functionality. That is absolutely true. I said that whether it is advantageous to switch depends on each specific case, also true. If, with an honest evaluation, it won't work for you, then fine.
You are the one who has been trying to lock the general concept down to specific cases where it may not work to try to disprove the general truth -- that OS X is a better value than Windows.
You’ve made claims about it’s cost in a business environment as being “generally true” that don’t appear to have ever been tested, and seem questionable once you start scaling the deoployment beyond a small-to-medium sized business. Somehow holding up your experiences in small scale deployments as proof of Mac’s general superiority to Windows in a business environment seems to be more of a reach than I’m willing to buy.
If Apple has been able to sell these things as clusters for supercomputer applications, that's great but I remember reading about some university research project that built one of the ten largest supercomputers in the world out of a bunch of PS2's.
It's been touted that it now runs on Intel processors. Normally this is a huge selling point for an operating system because it means that you have the widest possible range of hardware platforms to run it on. But if it's got to be an Intel processor you can only get from Apple, I don't see that it matters whether it's Intel, Motorola, or something they build in house. Choosing to use that OS means you're locked into that hardware vendor and that can get to be a costly position for any company to get themselves into. I'll grant you it insures compatibility and gives them the ability to tweak the OS to the maximum capability of the hardware, but there are consequences to letting software lock you into a hardware vendor that have to be considered.