cheap Macs?

[cellio]

Dear LJ brain trust,

I'd like to get an inexpensive laptop. It won't be my main machine; it's for travel and other situations where portability is useful. So it doesn't need to be studly; it just needs to be reliable and support basic tools like Firefox, emacs, SSH, FTP, and that sort of thing.

This would be a prime opportunity to explore the Macintosh, which some of my friends rave about, except for one little thing: I can get a (new) Dell laptop for around $400, but Macs start at $1100. Is there some less-expensive option I'm missing?

Comments

[cellio]

So they're going after the enthusiasts and aren't much interested in casual shoppers (who have to be sold)? Oh well.

I'm ready to consider the Mac; enough respectable people hold that it's superior and, well, I'm willing to give it a shot with a non-essential machine and see if that's a direction I'd rather go. But not if the cost of entry is more than twice the cost of a Windows machine.

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

The nicely-priced no-frills Mac model of the moment is the "Mac mini" - which is what I'd suggest, for example, for my folks to break into the Mac world. But no, Apple's attitude about laptops is that you'll pay for the features of a more-or-less comparable desktop, and then pay more to make it portable, which means there's no such thing as a "cheap" Mac laptop.

[siderea]

So they're going after the enthusiasts and aren't much interested in casual shoppers (who have to be sold)?

Not at the low end. There simply isn't the concept of a low-end Mac, not the way there is of a low-end PC; they don't compete there. They start in the mid-range and work up. And even so, they don't compete on the basis of price.

It's important to understand, the point of buying a Mac is to buy a machine which can run the Mac OS, not to "buy a computer" (i.e. something which runs Windows). Complaining that it's more expensive than a PC is sort of like complaining that it's more expensive to buy a microwave than a toaster. Or that Volvos don't start as cheap as Yugos. You're paying for what it can do: that's its primary value proposition. And, yeah, you pay extra for that.

My recommendation if you're interested in exploring the Mac world is to borrow or rent one, to see how you like it. If it clicks for you, if you get behind the wheel, take it around the block and say, "Oh, this is what I can be like!", then you will find yourself willing to shell out the money without batting an eyelash. If it doesn't, there's no reason to buy one.

There's a couple other minor value propositions:

Historically (and it's much less true, today) Apple manufactured the Mac to a dramatically higher physical standard. As I recall, at one point Apple hardware had a rate of defects one fifth of the leading PC manufacturer (Dell, IIRC). So -- at least it used to be -- odds that something will be broken right out of the box were much lower with a Mac.

And consequently, as I mention, Mac amortize really, really, really slowly. That's because a five year old Mac is still a completely adequate machine. (You might want to seriously consider a used G3 laptop if you're on the cheap.) In comparison, the 486 I bought for $1600 was worth $400 about three years later, and exclusively useful for running Linux and home heating.

Not only is will that five year old Mac be capable of keeping up with the software, but, physically, it's probably fine. Apple builds tanks. When the magic smoke escaped from my Mac two years ago, and I bought a new one? That machine was just shy of ten years old. I'd upgraded the cpu with a Sonnet card I got for about $100.

In the end, if you are the sort of person who takes reasonable care of your tools and likes them to last a long time, and who doesn't need to have the latest and greatest every year, a Mac can be an incredibly effective investment.

[cellio]

Ah (lightbulb goes off). That explains a lot. Thanks.