Anyone care to enlighten me as to how the three PPC Macs I'm about to spend $500 each on are "inexpensive"? That's especially true in light of the fact that the same money would buy me a new better-than-base model 13" Retina(which I don't want) or a nice used Mac Pro 4,1(a reasonably current machine).
Granted I have no desire to buy a newer Intel Mac laptop since I already have what I consider to be the best portable Apple has ever made-the mid-2012 15" "Classic" MBP with a high resolution anti-glare display. These are the last and best of the breed for the pre-Retina Unibody form factor-they retain the upgradeability of older models, but don't have the GPU meltdown issues of virtually ever other 15 and 17" MBP and have USB 3. Mine has 16gb of RAM and I fitted a 1TB Samsung Evo a few weeks ago-it absolutely flies.
There is not a comparable display available on an current production portable from Apple. Matte screens were standard on laptops for years, but glossy screens took hold I think mainly for their more vibrant(not necessarily more accurate) color rendition. After using a couple of PC laptops that had screens in the same vein as the Macbooks(i.e. a glossy top surface) and then being wowed by the glass screen of my first MBP, I've now come back to loving the matte finish on my now main MBP. Aside from actually being usable outside or with my back to a window, the color rendition is more accurate to my eye(something I care about for photography)although a bit less vibrant. Of course, I calibrate all my screens, but even setting my freshly calibrate 15" next to my freshly calibrated 13" shows a difference in fidelity. I wish Apple would bring out a retina screen or at least higher resolution screen with this finish. The 17" unibodies were 1920x1200 and could be had either way.
If you're about to spend $500 on PPC, you're getting screwed. Go somewhere else, run away from your buyer, he or she is probably on something or don't know what they're selling.