Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 2, 2012, 05:18 PM   #26
flopticalcube
macrumors G4
 
flopticalcube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the velcro closure of America's Hat
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeFromHere View Post
Really? Do you have an example where the base model wasn't supported but systems with add-ons were supported? That would surprise me.
Sure. Late 1999, iMacs. Only those with FW can run Tiger. Base model stuck on Panther. 2003 17" iMac. 800Mhz is stuck on Tiger and the 1GHz gets Leopard. Snow Leopard also requires certain video cards for hardware Quicktime or OpenCL, although this is clearly less arbitrary. There are others I'm sure.
__________________
Read the Rules / Search the Forums / Use a Descriptive Title
Mac Won't Boot?
flopticalcube is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2012, 08:53 PM   #27
KaraH
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by BitterCreek View Post
"Future proofing" is impossible.
Technically true, but the higher specs you have on your computer up front the longer until it is no longer the hot thing on the block. With macs becoming less upgradeable over time what you get is pretty much all that will be in your machine until it dies for most people.

When deciding on specs on my macs I try to think what I could see myself wanting in 5 years. Not what I need right now. Although with the acceleration of the computer industry that is more a guess than anything else.

For example, I may think a half a T for an SSD is overkill now. When I look at how my drive sizes have exploded over the years it is not unreasonable though.
__________________
through the years: Apple ][ eventually upgraded to a //e (and it never really died), Centris 660AV, PowerMac 7600, Macbook, iPod 5G, eMac, a couple of aluminium iMacs, STILL hoping for a 2013 MP
KaraH is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2012, 09:22 PM   #28
MeFromHere
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by flopticalcube View Post
Sure. Late 1999, iMacs. Only those with FW can run Tiger. Base model stuck on Panther. 2003 17" iMac. 800Mhz is stuck on Tiger and the 1GHz gets Leopard. Snow Leopard also requires certain video cards for hardware Quicktime or OpenCL, although this is clearly less arbitrary. There are others I'm sure.
Thanks. Those years are before my time on iMacs. I was running my 1995 PowerMac 7100/80 up until 2007 so I didn't keep up with Mac OS X releases.

(My PowerMac got a 300 MHz CPU upgrade from NewerTech, so he wasn't bad at all until I needed newer software that didn't run on PowerPC.)
MeFromHere is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 12:34 AM   #29
GimmeSlack12
macrumors 603
 
GimmeSlack12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: San Francisco
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeFromHere View Post
I was running my 1995 PowerMac 7100/80 up until 2007 ... he wasn't bad at all ....
Man, talk about stretching a dollar. So how was it in 2007 when you discovered YouTube and the modern internet?
__________________
iMac 24" iBook G4 iPhone 4 iPod 80Gb
GimmeSlack12 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 01:54 AM   #30
T'hain Esh Kelch
macrumors 65816
 
T'hain Esh Kelch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Denmark
Send a message via ICQ to T'hain Esh Kelch Send a message via AIM to T'hain Esh Kelch Send a message via MSN to T'hain Esh Kelch
Quote:
Originally Posted by GimmeSlack12 View Post
I wouldn't bother with a 3TB drive. You can easily get yourself a NAS or other external solution later down the road when your 1TB drive is full.

Unless you're a photog or video editor, I don't know why anyone needs that much space.
A 3TB fusion drive will be much, much faster than a NAS. Of course, that requires you to check your pr0n collection regularly, but if you are buying such a good machine for gaming, chances are you are single anyway.
__________________
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
T'hain Esh Kelch is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 06:02 AM   #31
OlMighty
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2012
I'm in a similar position, in fact this post just changed my mind about which model I was looking at.

I know the RAM is upgradeable on the 27, but is the hard drive? I'm just put off by paying an extra 320 for the fusion. Might upgrade at a later stage if its possible.
OlMighty is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:53 AM   #32
kidwei
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBravo View Post
Agree with this. My 2009 iMac currently has 512MB with an i7 and after 3 years, have noticed considerable performance slowdowns on the graphics side. I'm not a big gamer but I do dabble in a little photo and video editing. And because I have enough RAM, I always regret not getting a larger GPU.

Problem solved though since I've ordered a 27" with a 2GB GPU!

Good luck with your decision!
Just wondering if you ended up deciding on the i7 for your 2012 iMac. That was the one upgrade I couldn't justify (went with the high-end 27" + 1TB fusion + 680MX) simply because a 200 mhz bump and hyperthreading didn't seem worth $200 to me. I plan to do some gaming, occasional video and photo editing with my iMac. But I'm certainly not going to be a hardcore logic or final cut user, if at all.

I'm skeptical of those who say an i7 will help you squeeze extra years of life out of an iMac. It doesn't feel at all like the kind of upgrade that will make even a year's difference in longevity over the 3.2ghz i5 for the vast majority of users.
kidwei is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:10 PM   #33
JonnyBravo
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Glendale, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwei View Post
Just wondering if you ended up deciding on the i7 for your 2012 iMac. That was the one upgrade I couldn't justify (went with the high-end 27" + 1TB fusion + 680MX) simply because a 200 mhz bump and hyperthreading didn't seem worth $200 to me. I plan to do some gaming, occasional video and photo editing with my iMac. But I'm certainly not going to be a hardcore logic or final cut user, if at all.

I'm skeptical of those who say an i7 will help you squeeze extra years of life out of an iMac. It doesn't feel at all like the kind of upgrade that will make even a year's difference in longevity over the 3.2ghz i5 for the vast majority of users.
Hi Kidwei

I did go for the i7 again but for your needs, you should be fine with the i5. When I bought the 2009 iMac, I really had no reason to get the i7 with the exception of just "wanting" it. For my 2012 iMac, I wanted to make sure I had the equivalent because even though I said I dabble on a "little photo and video editing," I really work on Photoshop and will be upgrading to Final Cut Pro soon. What was more important was to upgrade the RAM on the GPU to its max because the current 512 MB would certainly not help for my future work.
__________________
27" iMac Quad-Core i7 (Late 2012)
13" Macbook Air Dual-Core i5
iPhone 5 32 GB Black

Last edited by JonnyBravo; Dec 5, 2012 at 11:18 PM. Reason: Clarification
JonnyBravo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2012, 12:09 AM   #34
kidwei
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBravo View Post
Hi Kidwei

I did go for the i7 again but for your needs, you should be fine with the i5. When I bought the 2009 iMac, I really had no reason to get the i7 with the exception of just "wanting" it. For my 2012 iMac, I wanted to make sure I had the equivalent because even though I said I dabble on a "little photo and video editing," I really work on Photoshop and will be upgrading to Final Cut Pro soon. What was more important was to upgrade the RAM on the GPU to its max because the current 512 MB would certainly not help for my future work.
Cool, yeah thanks for your thoughts. I read on this forum that Photoshop and iMovie can't even take advantage of hyperthreading... rather it's apps like Handbrake, Final Cut, and possibly Logic that do... While I definitely plan to use photoshop and imovie, I don't really see myself needing the i7...

I ended up going for the 680MX and 1TB fusion upgrades.. 2399 was about as much as I was willing to spend
kidwei is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2012, 12:14 AM   #35
Cidtek
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
The only way to future proof anything is to have the gift of being able to see in the future.
Cidtek is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2012, 01:29 AM   #36
apedance
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Vienna
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknownking123 View Post
I'm in the process of buying my first iMac and considering all the specification options, I decided on these specs.:

2.9GHz Quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
8GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB
3TB Fusion Drive
NVIDIA GeForce GT 660M 512MB GDDR5

+ additional RAM from crucial = 1,720.80

However, I was wondering whether it would be worth paying an extra 176.40 for the following purely for future proofing purposes:

3.2GHz Quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX 1GB GDDR5
At the moment you can't install windows via bootcamp because of the 3TB HDD.
If you need it...
apedance is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC