| Click here to select a new forum. |
| cheapest smallest mac? |
Posted by: vassilizaitsev on 2009-08-16 12:47:46
What is the cheapest/smallest mac?
The contenders I can think of are;
Quadra 700
Powerbook duo 280c
MacMini
I want something... I think I could live with os 7.1 if I needed to, but os 8.1 is better....
I'm not keen on os 9, but am keen to try os 10
I need to transfer files and could do with the mac being fairly portable...
|
Posted by: AG Wolf on 2009-08-16 13:27:13
depends on what you're going to want to do with it. If you want one with relatively current-day functionality, you gotta find something that does at least 8.1. Honestly, 9.1 is really good. OS X defeats the purpose of being on a website devoted to classic macs 😉
If you want something older and you're willing to work within the confines of the generation you choose, a late model 68k like the quadra towers or early early PPC machines with 7.6.1 or 8.1 is good. 7.1 is fun to play with, and it can surprise you with its versatility if you mate it with some later extensions and control panels from 7.5/7.6 and even 8.0... but you can only do so much with it.
You're really asking a vague question until you have some better idea of why you want it 😛
|
Posted by: porter on 2009-08-16 14:00:05
I want something... I think I could live with os 7.1 if I needed to, but os 8.1 is better.... Quadra 605/LC 475 is smaller than a Quadra 700 and runs 8.1
|
Posted by: Trash80toHP_Mini on 2009-08-16 14:04:40
I want something... I think I could live with os 7.1 if I needed to, but os 8.1 is better.... Quadra 605/LC 475 is smaller than a Quadra 700 and runs 8.1
Look up the maniac's (Dana's) MicroQuadraFeetsMac web page. (Q605)
jt ;D
|
Posted by: JRL on 2009-08-16 14:16:25
I want something... I think I could live with os 7.1 if I needed to, but os 8.1 is better.... Quadra 605/LC 475 is smaller than a Quadra 700 and runs 8.1
Look up the maniac's (Dana's) MicroQuadraFeetsMac web page. (Q605)
jt ;D
Plus, it's really upgradeable and in a nice form factor.
http://danamania.com/605/ is the forementioned site. 😉
|
Posted by: II2II on 2009-08-16 14:28:22
I want something... I think I could live with os 7.1 if I needed to, but os 8.1 is better....
I'm not keen on os 9, but am keen to try os 10
I need to transfer files and could do with the mac being fairly portable... What are you planning to do with the Mac?
There is a tonne of stuff that will run under System 7. Let's face it, System 7 had a very long life (nearly 6 years) while Mac OS 8/9 had a life of under 4 years. Couple that with software having better backwards compatability back then, and you will find that System 7 is a viable platform to work from. A close runner up would be Mac OS 9 due to it having Carbon (unlike 8.1 IIRC) and due to it having a modern version of Carbon (unlike 8.6 IIRC). Anyways, choosing the desired role of the machine will allow you to choose applications, and choosing applications will allow you to choose an OS, and choosing the OS will constrain your hardware options.
The one requirement that you did mention was transferring files. What will you be transferring files from/to? Overall, vintage desktop Macs will provide more options: most of them can support ethernet, almost all of them have floppy drives, almost all of them have serial ports, and you can sneakernet hard drives if you have something really big to deal with. Almost all of them will support CD burners too. A lot of the laptops can handle that sort of thing as well, but it usually means buying extra hardware or special cables -- thus adding to the cost.
|
Posted by: vassilizaitsev on 2009-08-16 23:52:09
Quadra 605 all the way.... except I'm not sure if I've ever seen one advertised... and they can be a bit pricey... is my gut feeling... so smallest maybe, & 605 is good, smallest with a bit of grunt (68040)... but cheapest?
I'd be transfering and converting video files & don't mind if the mac takes a little while to do it's job.
|
Posted by: porter on 2009-08-17 02:21:28
Quadra 605 all the way.... but cheapest? Mine were five NZ dollars each, so that must be about 50 USD? 🙂
|
Posted by: Byrd on 2009-08-17 05:42:59
Most LC475/Quadra 605 machines use a FPU lacking 68040 CPU, which will make any video encoding painfully slow; at the very least get a machine with the full '040 chip (of course it can be switched over too if you have a spare).
JB
|
Posted by: Anonymous Freak on 2009-08-17 19:25:44
Most LC475/Quadra 605 machines use a pre-Intel CPU, which will make any video encoding painfully slow; at the very least get a machine with an Intel CPU, if you want to encode video.
JB There, fixed that for 'ya.
Honestly, unless your encoding consists solely of one-minute-or-less, 160x120 clips encoded into Cinepak; you do *NOT* want to use a 68k machine. Even a Q840AV chipped to 66 MHz would be nearly unusable to produce modern style video.
Yes, I know those machines were primary video machines back in the day; but modern codecs are just so much better. Those modern codecs DEMAND a newer/faster machine.
If you are going to be using it for video encoding, I would suggest an Intel Mini. If you can find a Core 2 Duo cheaply, great; if not, even the 1.5 GHz Core Solo is faster at encoding video than a dual-CPU 1 GHz G4. (Yes, I know that comparison from personal experience.)
If you want it specifically to experience video editing as it was back then; not as a useful video editor, then by all means, go ahead. But don't expect to get anything 'serious' done on it.
(For example, running HandBrake on my 466 MHz G4, encoding a DVD into 'iPod High Res' format takes somewhere around a week.)
|
Posted by: porter on 2009-08-17 21:29:10
Most LC475/Quadra 605 machines use a pre-Intel CPU, which will make any video encoding painfully slow; at the very least get a machine with an Intel CPU, if you want to encode video.
JB There, fixed that for 'ya.
Yup, video encoding is fantastic with an 8008, and even better with a 4004.
Also, don't even consider using a Quad G5, because it doesn't say Intel on the chip.
|
Posted by: Mars478 on 2009-08-18 05:45:52
Most LC475/Quadra 605 machines use a pre-Intel CPU, which will make any video encoding painfully slow; at the very least get a machine with an Intel CPU, if you want to encode video.
JB There, fixed that for 'ya.
Yup, video encoding is fantastic with an 8008, and even better with a 4004.
Also, don't even consider using a Quad G5, because it doesn't say Intel on the chip.
Oh porter you nitpicker! Hahaha
I see what you did there...
|
Posted by: Bunsen on 2009-08-18 12:46:53
Small+cheap+video+mac says 660AV to me, or 6100/G3/AV
|
Posted by: Anonymous Freak on 2009-08-18 18:24:43
Most LC475/Quadra 605 machines use a pre-Intel CPU, which will make any video encoding painfully slow; at the very least get a machine with an Intel CPU, if you want to encode video.
JB There, fixed that for 'ya.
Yup, video encoding is fantastic with an 8008, and even better with a 4004.
Also, don't even consider using a Quad G5, because it doesn't say Intel on the chip.
As he said "cheapest smallest", I was ruling out "expensive big". I also didn't suggest an early Intel iMac or Mac Pro.
|
Posted by: porter on 2009-08-18 19:36:03
I also didn't suggest an early Intel iMac or Mac Pro. You didn't make that distinction, so lets go for a Quadra 610 with built in 486SX. 🙂
|
Posted by: Temetka on 2009-08-30 13:41:20
Small+cheap+video+mac says 660AV to me, or 6100/G3/AV The 660AV is a great choice as is the 6100AV with a G3.
Personally I would love to own either one of those machines.
|
Posted by: Scott Baret on 2009-08-31 19:57:13
The Quadra 700 isn't a bad choice if you add an accelerator card. It's the same size as the IIcx/IIci and has the benefit of being able to be used as a minitower or as a desktop (depending on how much space you have this is something that should be considered). I'm not sure if its 25MHz (full) 040 can be swapped or overclocked but this is definitely a computer worth looking at for the sake of its size and practicality in terms of convertability between desktop and minitower.
|
| 1 |