2400c is the clear choice over 2300c IMHO

[Ivan Drucker]

Obviously everyone has their own opinions about this, but I'd chime in my 
2c after reading various responses:

I cannot imagine considering a 2300c unless price (but NOT 
price/performance) were the only concern. While the 2400c is a bit long 
in the tooth, the 2300c is simply obsolete. (Before I get flames, let me 
say that I have a 250, a 280c, a 2300, and a 2300c and I love them all. 
But that doesn't make them any less obsolete.) You can do SO MUCH MORE 
with a 2400c than you can with a 2300c that I can't imagine that the 
price savings make it worth it.

Obviously, the 2300c can still be used for many things within its 
capabilities, but so can any computer; I could still word process and 
play games with an Apple II if I wanted to. The 2400c, on the other hand, 
is more or less capable of doing all the same things that current iBooks 
can, if more slowly, which is why I don't (yet) consider it obsolete. The 
2300c is fine if you're willing to live with being at the low end of 1998 
computing. The 2400c is, arguably, still at the low end of 2003 
computing, meaning it is still current. By 2004, though, OS 9 software 
development will have ceased to the point that the 2400c itself will 
become obsolete, at least all machines without a G3 upgrade, 112 MB RAM, 
and running Mac OS X.

The 2300c:
- Is dramatically slower -- not only is the clock speed nearly half, but 
the bus architecture, non-DR 68k emulation, and video hardware futher 
kill performance in a big way. Connectix Speed Doubler helps a bit, but 
not enough.

- Has a far inferior keyboard to the 2400c, due to keyfeel, flimsiness, 
lack of function keys, and non-pyramid arrow keys.

- Has an unacceptably small screen, and insufficient color depth. 640x480 
with 256 colors is just too small for modern web browsing and even a lot 
of OS 9 control panels and iApps; the 2400c has 800x600, and thousands of 
colors, which is an acceptable minimum.

- Has too low a memory ceiling. The 56 MB max nearly precludes running 
Mac OS 9 (which a lot of software requires), and the last time I looked 
it was nearly impossible to even find the memory modules in that size, 
and the price premium you had to pay for them nearly erase the price 
advantage of the machine. The 2400c has an 80 MB ceiling under normal 
circumstances (and 112 MB or 144 MB under exceptional ones), which is 
acceptable for OS 9 use, if barely.

- Has an internal modem that is too slow. Usually it's 14.4 Kbps, and 
occasionally 19.2 Kbps, but no faster. This is just way too slow for 
surfing. WAY too slow. Of course, you could plug in an external modem, 
but you lose the portability; by constrast, you can add a supercheap 56 
Kbps PC Card to a 2400c and be rocking and be at the level of modern 
laptops.

- Has no Ethernet port. This is an absolute killer. The only options are 
very rare specialty minidocks, which are expensive if they can be found 
and require iffy drivers, or a full-sized dock, which requires an 
external display, and grounds the machine. Either option likely 
eliminates any price advantage versus the 2400c. Perhaps broadband net 
access or file transfer are unimportant for some users, but I think at 
least the option of using Ethernet is de rigeur in the modern age, if 
only to occasionally transfer files between computers.

- Has no SCSI, without adding a dock (see Ethernet comments). Neither 
does any new Mac, but new Macs have FireWire. The lack of FireWire, SCSI, 
or Ethernet means there is NO way of getting ANY  data in and out of the 
computer quickly. It also means you can't even use a CD-ROM drive without 
a dock that has a SCSI port.

- Has no capability for wireless networking, FireWire, or USB. (These can 
be added to the 2400c via the PC Card slots.) This means you are 
restricted to older, discontinued peripherals, for the most part. Also, 
my life changed the day I bought an AirPort Base Station and added a 
Farallon Skyline card to my 2400c.

- Has a jumpy trackpad that causes problems for people with moist 
fingers. The 2400c is much less problematic this way.

- Can't be slept in the full-sized dock, so if you need the dock for SCSI 
or Ethernet, you have to shut the machine down and start it up when you 
are not using it.

- Seems to both start with and develop greater play in the screen hinge 
than the 2400c does.

- Is, in my opinion, more risky to take apart once you get beyond a RAM 
upgrade -- really. While it is true that the 2400c is far more complex on 
the inside, it requires a lot less prying, aligning, and snapping of 
plastic. I always get nervous when I work on my Duos, whereas I 
disassemble my 2400c's fearlessly.

- Is not G3-upgradeable. However, it's almost impossible to find G3 
upgrades for 2400c's anymore, so this isn't really a strike against the 
2300c, but it seemed worth mentioning.

- It cannot run Mac OS X. Like the G3-nonupgradeability, I don't really 
consider this to be a serious disadvantage since I consider the ability 
of the 2400c to do so to be a bonus (as opposed to a feature), and a 
bonus that's only useful with a G3 upgrade. But I thought I'd mention it.


The only advantages I can think of for a 2300c over a 2400c are as 
follows:

- It's cheaper.

- It's far, far easier to get parts and batteries.

- Is slimmer and feels easier to tote, though more fragile and slightly 
heavier. The monochrome models with the thin screens feel especially 
svelte.

- There is more of a knowledge base and user community to support them. 
(Though Mac2400 is a truly fantastic resource.)

- I keep a 2300 (that is, a 250/280 upgraded to PPC) around so I can use 
it easily outside on account of its monochrome screen.

- You can add desktop expansion cards if you have a full-size dock.

- The 2400c is more tempermental (such as the ever-aggravating GLOD).



Hope this is more helpful than annoying
Ivan.