I don't see why still seriously considering to buy a RISC OS machine is 'stupid' or something to that effect. I can name a personal example, a situation which no other platform can yet substitute including VRPC or RPCemu.
I am, and will keep, using RISC OS as the main computer platform in my humble little studio. There's a very simple reason why; it assists the creative flow in the most inconspicuous manner. I know it's not technically the smartest choice, far from it. But as most artists can probably attest to, having the most advanced equipment in the world becomes useless when it obstructs the creative flow.
Since VRPC or RPCemu doesn't integrate with the hosts' MIDI system as far as I know, I remain with native RISC OS hardware. For all other things, I use Mac OS X. This is why I can understand that some people still choose to employ native RISC OS hardware over the cheaper, faster and technically more advanced alternatives. Other people just don't want to run RISC OS inside a PC or Mac, because they would still need to maintain the host platform. The reason why people choose something other than the norm, or the usual, is because they want to be able to do something differently. Typically in a manner that 'feels' more natural or at least less cumbersome.
The problem I see with many people, is that they have come to focus on hardware and dry technical specs to tell them how 'good' something is. From computers to digital cameras to all manner of electronic equipment. I think most active RISC OS users can explain very well why they choose RISC OS, in spite of all its shortcomings. Where exactly is the difference between what people expect a computer should be able to do nowadays and what people choose to do with a computer nowadays?