If you're in the market for high-end PCs, then I've found Macs to be pretty much at the middle (or high end of middle) of the spectrum, so they'e not even really that much more expensive.
Also, I've had my iMac now for just shy of a year. No PC I've ever had has run this long without already showing signs of "age" in terms of sluggishness and inability to handle the latest software -- the iMac is humming along just fine, and I've had minimal problems (one time I had the system "lock up" and a 3rd-party hardware/software combo [Leapster 2] managed to blow it up good once, but nothing like the frequency of problems on the PC).
In another few years, I bet I'll still be using that same iMac, whereas I'd have been on my first or second replacement for an equivalent PC, and probably a 3rd replacement for a "bargain" PC. Which one is the better value in the long term?
You said — In another few years, I bet I’ll still be using that same iMac, whereas I’d have been on my first or second replacement for an equivalent PC, and probably a 3rd replacement for a “bargain” PC. Which one is the better value in the long term?
—
Absolutely so, the Macs have a lot longer useful life for consumers than the other common PCs. And the Macs make very good “hand-me-down” computers for other members of the family, too.
I just hate to ever get rid of a Mac. I just want to buy another one, and another one — but keep all the old ones. They’re still useful...