This is a nice question but I have to disagree with your answer. Actually just one part of it: "Will definitely use more resources." which I can't believe is true. I looked at your links and I didn't see anything that stated that they will always use more resources. With that statement it means that there can never be a case where they use less resources, which I can come up with an example where they would. If you had said they will use more CPU resources, maybe, but not always... In this case I think it is like Paul Randal says: "It depends!"
* Right off the bat a non-persisted computed column uses less storage space/time than a persisted computed column.
* If a column can be calculated from other columns in the table, but is rarely used by not actually storing it you could save the CPU of calculating it, the I/O and space of storing it, as well as the I/O of reading it each time the record it relates to is read.
* If you have very slow storage it might be faster to have the CPU calculate it every time it is used instead of storing and reading it.
* I'm not sure but I assume since it is calculated on use it wouldn't be stored in the buffer pool, so non-persisted computed columns probably use less RAM.