I am looking at getting a new laptop. I made the switch to linux a little less than a year ago and i'm not going back. As of now I only have an old Sony desktop running Fedora 9.

I'm looking for a laptop that is going to last me a good 5 years or so. I don't do any gaming or other visually intensive applications. I do require decent computing power to run computational simulations though.

Right now I'm looking at two options mainly. Because I want something that will last I'm considering the new Macbook or MBPro, I find it hard to beat the aluminum unibody. However, I will need to install linux, most likely fedora. I am not apposed to having to do some work to get it to run properly, but i still want everything to work, I dont want to pay $2000+ for only a partially functional laptop.

The other option is a Dell. I've looked at both the XPS M1530, convenitely it comes with ubuntu, or the Latitude E6400/6500. I am leaning towards the Latitude series due to the available options and I prefer the styling a little more. And for the price they are both much more powerful than the Mac(s).

My questions, I guess, is are there any suggestions. Like I said I can live with it not working out of the box if necessary, I just want to to be a solid stable laptop for years to come. I would rather go for the affordability of the Dells, i am just a little concerned about their construction and reliability.

Any help is greatly appreciated. I am also open to other laptop suggestions.

Thanks for your help.

Bearman

Personally I would probably go for the white Macbook myself over the unibody, but Firewire is important to me. Well that or the MacBook Pro, but given your requirements I think the Macbook would suffice.

No real strong reason for this though other than the ability to run OS X and the Firewire port, which it sounds like neither of those are really things that would make a huge difference for you. Probably any of the ones you listed would be a good bet to be honest, but I might go for the XPS over the Latitude though, the build on the Latitudes never really impressed me.

Trying to remember how old my wife's Core Duo white Macbook is now, I think it is about three years now and she has been happy with it. My Powerbook I ran for 4 years at least, before replacing it with my MBP a couple years ago, which I am still on.

I do recommend getting the extended warranty on the laptops though. While I didn't need it so much for the Powerbook or my wife's macbook, My MBP has needed some work done(New Keyboard/Trackpad, and I need to replace the DVD drive) and an iMac I have needs a new DVD drive. The cost of these ranges from 2/3 to over the price of the extended warranty IIRC. So get the full 3 year coverage.

Seablade

Should you decide on the Mac you should give OS X a try before wiping it to install Linux. OS X is a certified Unix operating system and most, if not all, of your software for Linux should be able to run on it without too many problems. And you also get the benefit of running a mainstream OS at the same time.

Get all the restrictions that come with OS X as well

Seablade

OS X and Linux user.

I don't know about you but I've never been restricted by anything other than the fact that my computer is now five years old.

To put it simply, yes

Mac OS X is restricting in comparison to Linux. VERY restricting, but that is part of why it is so easy for people to use. There isn't as much choice involved. That being said, while I am currently on OS X as my primary OS, I REALLY miss my workflow on Linux that I could customize to fit me MUCH better, and MUCH easier.

Seablade

Ya, I have to say that it silly to think of the OS X on the same level as Linux. Linux is free and you are free to do what you want with it.

Don't ever buy a machine with linux installed in it. Install it your self. Nothing learned is nothing gained. Furthermore, most linux users use GUI's and learn nothing. Then they claim to know linux. What good is using gui's? might as well use windows.

If it gets the job done, then use the tool. Many users don't need anything past the GUI. There is no point to them learning much else, as it gets the job done for them.

Seablade

to each their own, and if someone wants to depend on gui's then- to each their own. but i can assure you gui's are a handicap. if you use a gui, not only will you not learn the system inside and out but if you will be unfamiliar writing scripts, customizing your linux sys, and above all....not be able to fully trouble shoot a system when it crashes. i can assure you that at my work when a server goes down, it's not to often it comes back up in the X enviroment. i guess it's a matter of discipline and love for the labor...how far you want to go with it. but i honestly can't stand it when people who say they know linux and go home and watch tv.

to buy a laptop with linux pre-installed to me is wretched.

So you would suggest that in the enterprise environment, where the average user doesn't even know how to use Windows, much less a command line, that every user must in fact learn the command line and how to troubleshoot and bring their system back up?

Most people I know would argue that is the job of IT, a much smaller percentage.

Computers are a tool, as are the OSes they run. If the tool works you don't need to break it. If the GUI works fine for these people, there is no need to force them to learn the commandline. In fact the goal would be to have a system where they would never NEED to go to the commandline. It wouldn't crash, when problems happen they are easily recovered by the most technical of commands... a reboot.

Aiming for below that with the average desktop is pointless.

Now if you want to narrow down your criteria to servers, or other less generalized uses, then we can talk

Seablade

Seablade

For the record, most people I know would consider me above average, even in the Linux world, in as far as system administration. It isn't because of myself I am posting the above.

Seablade

I would definately go with the Mac. I like the new 13" MPB that has been released. That has sparked my interest a lot. I have the prior gen 15" 2.4 and love it. It's not a unibody though.

most people get offended when i say that the gui shouldn't be used and command line is better. i think they get offended because they know it but can't bring themselves to do the labor of learning it.

I work in the IT field and I've never met in person anyone who is above average for linux, although everyone claims to be. That is including system administrators. The only truly above average people for linux that I have met are on the IRC chat channels...and even then the ratio is not the majority.

I personally would not say "shouldn't use" :-)

GUI is just a mean to navigate system functionality. If more people like using Linux but only sticking with GUI, it is fine. But if one needs to learn the nuts and bolts, then yes command lines are good to dig in deeper, same thing with Windows, OS X.

cheers ...

As I mentioned above, I am fully aware of how to use the commandline, and did it on a regular basis when I ran Linux. I still do it often on OS X as in many cases it is quicker.

That does NOT mean however that the average user should have to learn it. For the average user, they should be able to install a distribution and have it do what they want. This means that for the average audio user, they should be able to install an audio distribution, and be able to work in a stable low latency environment set up to run everything they need from the get go, or at most installing a new software package is a few clicks away. Doesn't exist right now.

I am guessing you either have had a limited field to pull from, or your definition of average might be a bit off.

Seablade