cheap Macs?
Oct. 15th, 2006 09:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioDear 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?
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?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 02:23 am (UTC)Used.
Not ideal, but if you know someone who's upgrading their iBook (as opposed to replacing it because it's died the death), my experience has been that people are glad to get anything for an old machine. The down side is that you probably won't be able to get warranty coverage (which is delightful and irreplaceable when it's necessary).
If what you really want is an occasional travel machine and you're currently a Windows user, I'd stick with the Dell, since the handling will be familiar. Apples are very friendly for new users, but unless you're going to be using it fairly regularly, there's still a learning curve you can trip over, and you don't want to be tripping when you're ... tripping, as it were. Now, I'm a major Mac proselytizer, but it doesn't sound like your situation is ideal for making a joyous conversion. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 02:31 am (UTC)Everyone has different experiences, but my last three computers have been Gateways and wouldn't consider switching. I've had good luck with them and on the rare occassions I've needed to call their service department, I was pleased with the help I got. (I think Dells might be cheaper, though.)
My parents purchased a new Mac over a year ago that they've sent back again and again to be fixed. Just last week, it was finally determined that a key component had never been installed.
It was hard to switch from Mac to PC, but now I just about go through the roof when I'm forced to use my parents' computer. Then again, I think you're much more technical than I am.
Good luck with your computer shopping!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 02:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 02:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 03:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 03:14 am (UTC)On the other hand, I actually bought that $400 Dell laptop for Jill, because she needed a Windows machine, and frankly it's less than delightful. So if you decide against a Mac, you might want to shell out a little more than the bare minimum for your Windows machine. (Then again, I could be biased by my intense dislike of installing stupid Windows patches every 10 minutes. Since you mostly want to run free software, I guess you could just put Linux on it and maybe it would be better.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 03:29 am (UTC)It sounds like what you want - it's good for note taking and internet access plus itunes, but I wouldn't play a game on it.
Note: there is as far as I know no tech support for this machine - it came with no install discs or information, and did come with a lot of crapware. But, cheap and easy.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 03:39 am (UTC)Not, in my experience, in the Mac world. Macs are built like trucks and retain their forward utility much longer than PCs, so they amortize much, much, much more slowly than PCs do.
Case in point: Currently, on eBay, G3 laptops are going for over $400. Those are, like, four year old machines. And those are not particularly refurbished.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 03:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 03:44 am (UTC)Duncan wants a game machine, so that will have to wait for more money. Lots more money.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 04:01 am (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 04:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 04:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 05:19 am (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 06:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 06:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 06:12 am (UTC)Ah, did it keep going to sleep on you? ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 09:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 11:54 am (UTC)as it so happens,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cellio, i have a 12” iBook G4/800 (http://www.apple-history.com/body.php?page=gallery&model=ibook_g4&performa=off&sort=family&order=ASC) that i’m looking to sell, and i’d sell it to you for less than $400. it was my main workstation for several years and still works (i’ve simply upgraded).
drop me an email if you’re interested.
-steve
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 12:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 01:59 pm (UTC)my
@livejournal.comaddress works as well. :)-steve
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 02:19 pm (UTC)Tangentially ...
Date: 2006-10-16 05:04 pm (UTC)I've been planning to upgrade my various Linux machines to something more modern than RH6. I think the most RAM I have in any one machine is only 320M and most have less than 96M. Please tell me most modern distros don't ask for as much RAM as Ubuntu...
(If it helps, most of my machines don't run X servers, though a couple of them do run X clients.)
Re: Tangentially ...
Date: 2006-10-16 05:23 pm (UTC)If you're running XFCE desktop and FireFox and a bunch of xterms, and you fire up OpenOffice and GIMP and such when you need them, you can manage on 256MB.
If you're running no X, you may be fine on 128MB. Ubuntu's memory requirements are solely a function of the desktop orientation.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 05:24 pm (UTC)ubuntu
Date: 2006-10-16 06:32 pm (UTC)As for Apple laptops, there's an important rule: never pay retail. The employee and academic discounts can be substantial. You know plenty of people who can get you one or the other.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 10:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 10:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-17 01:52 pm (UTC)A note of caution about used Macs...
Date: 2006-10-20 03:55 am (UTC)That said, I have to keep buying new Macs anyway, because Apple has historically made no effort to ensure backwards-compatibiility for third-party software in successive releases of the Mac's operating system. The software that runs on my immortal Mac Plus (System 6, I think) won't run on the iBook, nor will the iBook's software run on the Methuselan Mac; the software that runs on the iBook (OS 9) won't run on my current work Mac (G4 Tiger), and vice-versa. If I ever upgrade to an Intel Mac, the software I'm using now won't run on it. New software for the Intel machine won't run on my G4.
No backwards compatibility is probably the main reason why most software developers never took the Mac seriously until the UNIX/Intel release. A good developer can get a twenty-year-old Windows program running on XP. Not so with Macs -- at least not until the Unix/Intel release.
I think the important thing to keep in mind is that if you're planning to buy a used Mac, it will likely be a Motorola machine, and you'll be limited to a narrow subset of software. New software for the Intel Mac might not run on it, and developers are unlikely to release upgrades or write new programs for a what is essentially a dead hardware platform. A used G4 will probably meet the needs you have now. But if your needs change in the next few years or something really great comes along that you want to use, you'll be screwed. Yes, the machine will last forever -- a "forever" in which you're stuck with whatever was current the year you bought it.
Re: ubuntu
Date: 2006-10-20 03:32 pm (UTC)The employee and academic discounts can be substantial.
While this was true historically, in recent years the academic discounts have gotten a lot smaller. I think now they're on the order of 10%. While it's not nothing, it's not like the academic discounts back in the day...
Re: A note of caution about used Macs...
Date: 2006-10-20 03:41 pm (UTC)I have purchased the following computers from Apple:
1. Mac SE - ran up through system 6.x
2. Quadra 610 (could run nearly everything the SE could) (ran up through System 7.5?)
3. iMac G3 rev B (could run nearly everything the Quadra could) (ran up through Mac OS 9)
4. iMac G4 (half dome) (Mac OS X 10.2 on it; could, I think, be upgraded to 10.4, but I haven't bothered. Can also boot into Mac OS 9, and through emulation ("classic mode") runs almost[1] everything the older iMac can.
5. iBook G4 (about a year old). Runs Mac OS X10.4; through classic mode could run the stuff the iMac could (but I haven't bothered)
Now, admittedly the intel change will eventually lead to developers writing intel-only programs. At the moment, though, it looks like they're writing "universal" code, which can run on the large existing base of PowerPC G4s running OS X as well as on the intel machines. Also note that the new intel machines have emulation which will run older PPC-complied programs, although not the "classic" (OS 9) apps.