Considering buying a Mac

toasterman

Just wondering.. looking at the Apple refurb store.. there's the white base-model macbook for £150 under the original price.

I know there are people here who have bought from them before.. how much cosmetic damage/scratching/discolouring..etc...can be expected?
Anyone had any bad experiences?
Presumably the screen won't be scratched, even if the actual casing might have the odd blemish?

isofa

I think they are always high quality toasterman, and they are bound to have had a new casing or finish if there was damage at all. Lots of people on the MacUser forums have purchased from there, would definitely be worth asking.

Cerro

Open source doesn't spread quickly because it has no big-company comerical backing which can have programmers dedicated to working on it 365 days a year. Open source depends on the community and the Linux community is still small in comparision to OS-X and Windows.

You also have to remember than the Linux platform has to deal with companies like Apple and Microsoft which illegally push their own software suites, as the recent EU judgement has proven... If it were not for DirectX then the vast majority of gamers would have moved to Linux. DirectX's success and the "failure" of OpenGL has cornered the market for Microsoft. For example, DX10 under Vista - now reroutes OpenGL through DX - result: reduces the likelihood of developers implementing both OpenGL and DX in their games, meaning DX only, making it harder for anything other than Windows to run games.

It is also a myth that all open source software is free. Some are, some are not and even with the free ones, you usually have to pay if you want to use them in a commercial sense or in some cases pay for additional support. But it is cheaper than the proprietary software produced by Apple and MS.

I go the Linux route. I use it as a base for Windows, so no virtualisation is required - so unlike the Mac I take no performance hit and I don't have to reboot to switch operating systems. If I want to play games, I load up Windows from within the Linux shell for everything else I just run whatever distro of Linux I feel is best (currently Ubuntu).

I don't buy the arguement that you have to try a hundred different applications in Linux either. Perhaps for some things, you do - but its becoming far more standardised and as Linux and the open source community grows, the better the applications will become. In the future the only way I can see OS-X and Windows surviving is by continuing to monopolise the market and force users to stick to their OS, as Ubuntu is showing - "everything you can do, I can do better"

isofa

Cerro wrote: »

I go the Linux route. I use it as a base for Windows, so no virtualisation is required - so unlike the Mac I take no performance hit and I don't have to reboot to switch operating systems. If I want to play games, I load up Windows from within the Linux shell for everything else I just run whatever distro of Linux I feel is best (currently Ubuntu).

You don't take a performance hit if you run Windows on a Mac via rebooting into it, and you can run it in virutalisation (not emulation, no code base is translated, it still runs native on the Intel chip) including Windows applications using coherence technologies without even seeing the Windows desktop, at virtually the same speed as running on a reboot.

However I agree OpenSource has some great advantages, but in 10 years time, I still see it being a minority share. They will never have the power to advertise, or compete directly with massive corporates because the money just isn't there. And we all know people are easily swayed by advertising, look how many people on this forum think a camera with the most megapixels is the best. People can be sold anything!

However I can also see the same high percentage, if not higher, of the internet servers and services running on Unix/Linux, because it's better than anything MS can release.

unrich

OH has just upgraded from iMac G4 1.2Ghz to 24" flat 2.8Ghz iMac. It is a beautiful object that also does stuff.

My only advice apart from "you won't be dissapointed" is go for the fastest processor you can afford. You will be able to upgrade the memory. Even the HD can be changed (though even as a techie I wouldn't attempt on the new flat screen macs.) But you are processor bound. So get the fastest you can afford (borrow another £100 to step up).

In a few years you'll run out of steam processor wise. The software moves on and is rarely backwards compatible.

The old mac has lasted over 4 years and has done sterling service.

The new mac hopefully will last the same.

I suppose you could get a slower processor and upgrade more frequently but it hurts my head to think of the mathematics.

I'm a PC person and we both use windows laptops but if you want a straightforward life then get a mac.

Also we're hoping there will still be about £350 of value left in the old mac, when it gets ebayed.

BigBouncyBall

refurbs are extremely high quality. Apple wouldn't let anything less than a 9.5/10 leave their warehouses. They come with a warranty too

Bob63

Cerro wrote: »

Open source doesn't spread quickly because it has no big-company comerical backing which can have programmers dedicated to working on it 365 days a year.

Wrong. That's a very simplistic view of open source software.

As an example, OpenOffice and Java are both open sourced and both are (mostly) developed by a big commercial company, Sun Microsystems. In fact Sun this week completed its purchase of MySQL - the big open source database company. All its software remains open source with a mixture of volunteer community developers working outside of the company and paid developers working within the company. Sun is very happy to give this software away for free as it can make money by giving paid-for support to commercial companies wanting to use the software but who need professional and timely support. Or, in the case of MySQL, there is the free community server, and the $500/year paid-for MySQL Enterprise Server which adds some extra functionality.

Mike

toasterman

Cerro wrote: »

I don't buy the arguement that you have to try a hundred different applications in Linux either. Perhaps for some things, you do - but its becoming far more standardised and as Linux and the open source community grows, the better the applications will become. In the future the only way I can see OS-X and Windows surviving is by continuing to monopolise the market and force users to stick to their OS, as Ubuntu is showing - "everything you can do, I can do better"

Not applications - operating systems.
How is an end user supposed to know which version of Linux to go to? Say I don't particularly like Windows Vista (it's true), then I can switch to a Mac and use OS X. Or I could go back to Windows XP.

But if the average user wants to go to Linux because they approve of the open source concept, how do they know where to start, or what to do?
Go to a Linux review site and there are many variants of about 4-5 different..err..types? of Linux.
There's even variants based on other variants. There are versions based on Ubuntu, which is only a fancy front end for Debian isn't it?

I will challenge you about how exactly Ubuntu is any better than say OS X. It's an operating system and you can run software on it. Both differently, but both usable. What does Ubuntu have that OS X doesn't?
I personally think Ubuntu's interfaces are hideously ugly and badly laid out compared to OS X/Windows.
OS X is more instantly usable - you don't have to learn anything really to use it, nor do you have to look online for help on how to change resolution.
When I tried Ubuntu I had to manually edit a configuration file and add in the horizontal and vertical rate things for my monitor, because it wouldn't go above 60hz. This isn't what the end user wants to spend his/her doing with their computer.

I do agree with some of your points. The point of directx standardizing everything is fine. But I'm not really sure who is at fault there. The games industry for jumping on the same bandwagon, or Microsoft for making something that only works on their system. You can't really blame Microsoft, because it's not like the Linux community produce a version of say.. Kopete..for Windows (which was by far my favourite Linux messenger client).

In general, I found everything on Linux is designed after the original, trying desperately to stay compatible with things on Windows. You only have to look at something like Openoffice, to see how much they've just copied MS Office/Wordperfect. There's not really much originality in it. So essentially the open source way is free, because it's being paid for by the r&d departments of corporations..if you ask me.

Idiophreak

HelzBelz wrote: »

You're not in IT by any chance are you? you sound just like one of my friends who works in IT and pretty much thinks I'm in league with the devil because I wok on a mac.:rotfl:

Oh man, are we geeks really that transparent?

I'm not the most ethical of people, but Apple do manage to make it onto a fairly short list (Apple, Starbucks, Primark off the top of my head...), of people I'd never have anything to do with, quite irrespective of their technology...

(To be fair, I think Apple are kinda hard-done-by to be on my list...Most of the reason I hate them has little or to do with anything they themselves do...)

Also, a quick note on toasterman's comments about DRM...I've never had *any problems* in this regard with windows. (or are you talking about an MS online shop for music?)

I rip CDs to my PC, I then copy them to my NAS drive, back to other PCs, MP3 players, burn CDs, whatever...all without *any* restrictions and *much* quicker and easier than using iTunes (which, I'm ashamed to admit, I have had on a couple of occasions - mainly because it's pretty much a virus in the way it's always trying to install itself)...

isofa

We are getting seriously off-topic

I too have had numerous problems not being able to move WMA protected tracks around. I moved my entire library to iTunes, re-ripping over a period of time at a much higher rate. I can authorise various computers and media devices to play them at once, so the DRM is pretty problem free - and it only affects tracks purchased from iTunes anyway, not my thousands of CDs!

DRM by any means is annoying to a paying customer, I might want to move tracks legitimately to any device, and why shouldn't I? No one stops me taking a CD into my car, computer, hi-fi etc.

I don't think Apple is that unethical when compared with other companies, they've met some good targets for environment chemicals, spurred on by Greenpeace, so in many ways are setting standards. All companies want to protect their products and inventions, be it Microsoft, Apple, Rolls-Royce, Boeing, Cadbury etc.

Far worse ethical companies, I believe are: Nike, Gap, McDonalds, Coca-Cola - I'd recommended reading No Logo by Naomi Klein, it's a seminal work on the topic.