Why shouldn't I order the base 2014 iMac?

[MartinAppleGuy]

If you are left out of an OS update, then it's only a matter of time before you are left out of a Safari update (as well as FireFox and Chrome updates) and then you suddenly don't have a computer that can browse the internet. These days, people want to be able to sync their iPhones with iTunes; guess what? You eventually will lose support for the latest version of that too and will be unable to sync your iPhone.

Your now talking about people in general, the people I was talking about don't care about that because the the majority of elderly I know don't have a smartphone let alone an iPhone.

Again, to buy something costing over $1000, what is an extra $200 to get a minimum of 30% longer of a lifespan out of it? Not doing so is the bigger waste of money if you look at spending money long term. Sure, some people can afford to be cheap with that stuff; but it is really needless and not sensible at all.

But it is not an extra 3 years! It is until the computer dies, which is actually more likely on the more expressive one due to an increase in power draw from the CPU, resulting in high temperatures. The problem is you are turning your opinion into fact. And that will only work against you. It is my opinion that no one should buy an Android device because it is like running Windows with no anti virus with over 50,000 apps on the Play Store being Malware. That is not a fact that people must buy an iPhone and would be frowned apon if not doing so, but my opinion. It is up to the person buying and you have absolutely no say in that.

You're forgetting the simple fact that they'll need to dole out another $1000 a good 2-3 years sooner (which more than covers the extremely minor difference in electric bills between the two models). And no, with a weaker processor, and a lower/fixed capacity of RAM the hard drive will have to work harder when storing data. Those 2.5" 5400RPM drives are already unreliable as it is. So, no, not as reliable.

Again, it will be to the death for the computer in what I was talking about. And it will use less electricity. A 15 Watt 1.4Ghz dual core will use a lot less that a 2.7-3.2Ghz quad core machine. And you are wrong about the RAM as well. The RAM in LPDDR3 and consumes quite a bit less that that of all other iMacs. And seriously, what kind of web browsing and emailing are you doing that you are waiting for the HDD to write GB's of data. And the iMac's HDD's are more than reliable, but even if they weren't you are telling me that saving 300 bucks more and getting the higher end model with be worth it yet it has a HDD too...

Please, at least, realise that your opinion is not fact and therefor not correct. Everyone who has bought this new iMac would have noticed that they don't need higher specs, and I'm sure all of them are loving there computer. Are you telling more they are all wrong and don't know have to love?


And just to let you know, Apple drop computers due to either CPU arc. or minimum RAM requirements, I have never seen them drop on clockspeed or core count.

 

[mad3inch1na]

Guaranteed? Those are some strong words my friend!

I have a Pentium 4 from 2002 with 2 GB of RAM running Windows XP and it browses the web just fine. It also runs Microsoft Office 2003. The machine is still more than usable, even after all these years. Frankly I'm surprised the power supply hasn't crapped out yet. It's in the guest bedroom and if you're not paying attention, I don't think you'd notice it's a 12 year old machine! You can argue that it's not secure to run such an old system but that's a different debate. There's a reason Microsoft has such a problem convincing people to upgrade...

My main machines are a MacBook Air (2012) and an HP with an i7 processor. Yes, they're more capable than the Pentium 4 box but I wouldn't be so hasty in dismissing some of these older systems.

The attitude/mentality you express is a big problem with our disposable society IMHO. I'm more than willing to take the complete opposite side of that bet: I'm willing to bet that the OP won't notice a lick of difference on the base iMac in 2016 for the use he has intended for it (web browsing and office apps).

I try be careful about absolutes, which is why I specifically said "almost guarantee", which in a way means that I can not make a guarantee . Either way, that was not my intention. The point of my argument was to bring up the fact that the baseline iMac is appreciably worse than similarly priced Apple computers, and although that difference may not be noticeable today, there will be a noticeable difference in performance by the year 2016.

If this computer was the only low price option, then he should get it. That is, however, not the case. Considering the argument against a "disposable society", shouldn't we purchase machines that last us longest, assuming they provide some marginal benefit? I understand the argument that if the cheapest machine works for 8 years, then it seems like a great purchase. It is all relative though. If a similarly priced machine works for 9 years, then I think that machine is a better purchase. I am (almost) certain that a baseline iMac will work fine in 2016, but it will be much less enjoyable to use than a baseline MBA solely because of the HDD.

I think that the Earth needs to be conserved, and I don't like wasteful consumption. I also like to have an enjoyable experience while using my computer, and the benefits outweigh the costs for me in this scenario. We all have different value systems, so to each his own. That is just my opinion on the matter.

Matt

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

...If you are planning on dying in the next 2 years, then go for it...

I do it every day. ;-)

 

[kazmac]

Hi BA,

four years ago I bought the former baseline iMac (it's now the mid-line.) It served me well until I upgraded to Mavericks last November. I've had all kinds of issues since then and she's limping toward the finish line as a result. To be fair, I also use this machine pretty hard so...

which leads to this suggestion:

If I were in your position, I would go with the mid-line iMac for many reasons others have said. Even though you're a light user, you'll find it worth your while to bump up especially with the discounts you mentioned.

At any rate, I wish you all the best with your next purchase.

 

[Irishman]

Evening all from balmy Scotland and the Commonwealth Games.

Let me set the scene. I'm still chugging along with my 2005 G5 iMac and it is still pretty good at the stuff I look for it to do, Microsoft Office, acting as a thin client into work, storing photos, e-mail and basic web browsing. In its day it performed well with iMovie etc.

However, it is getting clunky now and web browsing is slow, painful and anything with video and sound is now starting to struggle. Forget HD (or any quality setting) video on youtube!!!

It has been a good workhorse and has served me well all these 9 years - so time for a replacement (although its not broken!).

I am very interested in the base model iMac. I'm fully aware of the hardware 'downgrades' but am sure the 1.4 i5 and integrated graphics will be good enough. The cheaper price is very appealing and while I appreciate the mid iMac is the sweet spot and offers best 'bang for buck' it is an extra £150 - money I would like to spend on other stuff.

I will not play games nor run advanced/pro software on it and do not see the requirement for massive amounts of RAM. I want an excellent and complete surfing experience and be able to know that it handles all the consumer software from Apple e.g. pages, iMovie, iTunes etc etc very well.

I know the performance of the mid model is say double that of the base model - but I don't think I need or require the extra power. Plus, going forward, any iMac will no doubt creek and look poor (components wise) in comparison to the base model in say 5 years time.

I'm struggling to find hands on/real life reports of the base iMac but what I see is quite encouraging.

Can I get away with the base iMac? Thoughts?

Many thanks.

PS I don't feel the need to have bragging rights about buying the best of the best, indeed I'm the kind of guy to brag if I find the base iMac a scoop and a more than capable machine.

My one question to you would be: have your computing needs ever changed since 2005, in ways you didn't anticipate at the time of purchase?

 

[Yebubbleman]

Your now talking about people in general, the people I was talking about don't care about that because the the majority of elderly I know don't have a smartphone let alone an iPhone.

Then we're seeing different elderly people, because I used to get tons of elderly coming to me confused that their iBook G4 running Leopard wouldn't sync with their iPhone.

But it is not an extra 3 years! It is until the computer dies

It's until the user deems that it needs to be replaced. Computer-illiterates (including the elderly) will buy a new PC every year because their old one gets riddled with crapware despite the fact that the hardware is still perfectly viable. The same goes for a Mac that is constantly pin-wheeling, and a 1.4GHz dual-core Ultrabook CPU coupled with a 5400RPM 2.5" Hard Drive WILL pin wheel fairly regularly doing basic tasks!

, which is actually more likely on the more expressive one due to an increase in power draw from the CPU, resulting in high temperatures

Look, as a long time negative critic of the iMac, I'll never argue that a slower CPU (especially one meant for ultrabooks) won't be more thermally reliable than a faster one. Though in that kind of enclosure, it sort of doesn't matter as the 21.5" iMac's CPU nowadays is of the same variety that goes in the 15" MacBook Pro nowadays and that CPU runs plenty cool for that enclosure. That being said, that's not where someone will become fed up with this system 2-3 years sooner than the next model up. That's in speed and performance (and again, I'm not talking about heavy duty tasks; I'm talking about the basics).

The problem is you are turning your opinion into fact. And that will only work against you.

Look, I don't know what you do for a living, but my guess is that you're not a computer consultant. My guess is that you haven't worked with Macs and Mac users in any kind of sales or technical service environment. Me, on the otherhand, THAT'S WHAT I DO! I'm not turning opinion into fact, I'm taking sampled data (which is a lot) and I'm compiling that into data, the trends therein becoming fact. I have also been buying, selling, and fixing both my own and other people's computers for the last fifteen years. I know what I'm talking about. The argument is clear as is the justification; no matter what you do, that extra $200 will equal increased longevity and it has nothing to do with when the machine craps out. It's not a car.

It is my opinion that no one should buy an Android device because it is like running Windows with no anti virus with over 50,000 apps on the Play Store being Malware. That is not a fact that people must buy an iPhone and would be frowned apon if not doing so, but my opinion. It is up to the person buying and you have absolutely no say in that.

Extremely poor analogy; the Android vs. iOS argument (much like the Mac vs. PC argument) is a double-sided one with no winner in either camp as it's entirely subjective and based on the priorities of the user. In this case, we're talking about a bang for buck ratio and I'm arguing that (a) the middle-end model has a higher bang for buck ratio and (b) the lower-end model's bang for buck ratio is low enough to be ill-advisable. The former point is fact; plain and simple. The latter fact could be considered opinionated, though, I'd argue that it's more common sense.

Computers last until their user deems them ill-fit to serve their needs. A computer that is drastically slower than a model only $200 more (where that same $200 going from the mid-model to the high-end model doesn't buy anywhere near as much of a difference), when the customer is already spending $1100 for admission is very obviously a poor expenditure because even if they don't need the power now, it will age substantially more gracefully and, thusly, grant them so much more time between now and their NEXT machine. Hence, Time = Money and Money = Time. This isn't opinion, this is fact.

Again, it will be to the death for the computer in what I was talking about. And it will use less electricity. A 15 Watt 1.4Ghz dual core will use a lot less that a 2.7-3.2Ghz quad core machine.

That's a hair-splitting difference. Even so, if the OP is buying this machine, he'll be replacing it sooner (I know you don't believe me, but take it from someone who deals with this stuff on the daily to pay the bills). So, on a per year average, the spending of the additional computer in a sooner interval will be more than the difference in electricity use.

And you are wrong about the RAM as well. The RAM in LPDDR3 and consumes quite a bit less that that of all other iMacs.

Consumes less? Who cares about power usage when you're comparing an ultrabook CPU and a notebook CPU IN A DESKTOP?

And seriously, what kind of web browsing and emailing are you doing that you are waiting for the HDD to write GB's of data.

First off, that hard drive is slow as crap. Secondly, with a fixed amount of RAM that can't even be upgraded upon a complete disassembly (which the two higher-end models can have done) or even at the time of purchase, it's limited out of the gate. Secondly, once the system runs out of RAM (which it will as even basic software is only going to get more and more bloated), it will start taxing the hard drive. Furthermore, 500GB, on a desktop, really isn't a lot. Even basic users can fill that up in two years time. And rocking a full hard drive means rocking a hard drive that could go that much sooner. Also, the 5400RPM 2.5" hard drives that Apple is using in the iMac and the Mac minis are total crap because they're of the single-platter ultra-thin variety. The smaller you make a hard drive, the less reliable it will be. Again, another fact.

And the iMac's HDD's are more than reliable, but even if they weren't you are telling me that saving 300 bucks more and getting the higher end model with be worth it yet it has a HDD too...

No, both hard drives are just as unreliable, but the 1TB will fill up over a slower amount of time. Plus, more importantly, speed issues of the slow-as-balls hard drive is offset by the rest of the hardware not being quite as sluggish. MacBook Air hardware is usable because the SSD compensates for the fact that the CPU and RAM are not all that great. That's why Ultrabooks make for great computers.

Please, at least, realise that your opinion is not fact and therefor not correct.

Facts, trends, and analysis based therein; none of those are based on opinion. Please, at least, realize that.

Everyone who has bought this new iMac would have noticed that they don't need higher specs, and I'm sure all of them are loving there computer. Are you telling more they are all wrong and don't know have to love?

Now this is where you spin opinion into "fact". I never said that anyone buying the low end machine wouldn't love it.

I said and am saying that they'll end up replacing their computer sooner than those who opted to either spend $200 more (or spend the same amount as the low-end model on a refurbished version of the mid-range). Again, based on facts, trends, and analysis based therein. Because I deal with this stuff for a living, and I know what I'm talking about.

Also, it's not like everyone's favorite Mac publication doesn't agree with me:

http://www.macworld.com/article/2366940/mid-2014-imac-review-lower-price-way-lower-performance.html

And just to let you know, Apple drop computers due to either CPU arc. or minimum RAM requirements, I have never seen them drop on clockspeed or core count.

Apple drops computers due to (a) performance issues and (b) architecture requirements. Nothing more. RAM requirement increases (such as every OS X version upgrade from 10.4 to 10.7) fall under the former camp. CPU/Firmware changes (such as 10.8 through 10.10 requiring 64-bit EFI support and 10.6 dropping support for PowerPC) fall under the latter camp. A CPU core requirement is not outside of realm of possibility as it's not like Apple hasn't limited machines based on clock speed in past OS X releases.

 

[jaxhunter]

OP, I think the direct answer to your question is:

Because people who think they have a better handle on your computing needs think you shouldn't.

A key point about the base model iMac is that it was not built for anyone who thinks it's a bad idea.

If you think that machine will meet your needs then buy it. It has its own set of qualities that set it aside form its brothers. I think it's a mistake to look at any of the machines in the Apple line-up and try to rank them from worst to best. Each configuration has its own unique place in someone's life and in someone's heart.

As far as the CPU speed is concerned you have no more to worry about in terms of longevity than somebody who chooses a MacBook Air. Even when it comes down to the hard drive because there are ways to deal with that particular issue when the time comes.

So, if the 1.4 Ghz iMac appeals to you, then that may be the machine for you.

 

[rrl]

OP! Hurry! Quick! It's the same price, only better.

http://store.apple.com/us/product/FE086LL/A/refurbished-215-inch-imac-27ghz-quad-core-Intel-Core-i5

 

[Yebubbleman]

OP, I think the direct answer to your question is:

Because people who think they have a better handle on your computing needs think you shouldn't.

A key point about the base model iMac is that it was not built for anyone who thinks it's a bad idea.

If you think that machine will meet your needs then buy it. It has its own set of qualities that set it aside form its brothers. I think it's a mistake to look at any of the machines in the Apple line-up and try to rank them from worst to best. Each configuration has its own unique place in someone's life and in someone's heart.

As far as the CPU speed is concerned you have no more to worry about in terms of longevity than somebody who chooses a MacBook Air. Even when it comes down to the hard drive because there are ways to deal with that particular issue when the time comes.

So, if the 1.4 Ghz iMac appeals to you, then that may be the machine for you.

You make some excellent points.

Really, as far as CPUs go, it is IDENTICAL to the baseline MacBook Air models (both 11" and 13"). To clarify, the use of the CPU in conjunction with that sluggishly performing hard drive and for the same price difference as the middle of the line model to the high-end model (which is much more modest by comparison), is what sets off the red flags.

For that reason as well as the bang-for-buck and money to longevity ratios, I think it's an exception to the rule of "one model for any kind of customer" as it really is a bad deal, no matter how you slice it. I've never been a fan of the 11" MacBook Air, but I see its appeal; there's a market for it. This iMac is only there to give people an entry level unit at the $1099 price point; it'd be far more customer-friendly to give them a model that has a quad-core Ivy Bridge model with only an Intel HD 4000 (so basically a Late 2012 model minus the discrete NVIDIA GPU). Hell, that's what they're doing with the 13" MacBook Pros with the tail end of their transition to retina. Instead, Apple is going too far with how they're neutering this system. Otherwise, there'd be no thread discussion on it and I'd just say "great, enjoy it!".

 

[Dirtyharry50]

I really hate car analogies, but this one is simple: Are you going to spend $5,000 on a used car that runs, or are you going to spend $7,000 on a used car that runs reliably? The former will get you from point A to point B, but odds are decent that it will do so for much less time than the latter, which is known to do so reliably.

Oh, I like car analogies!

Are you going to spend for a Cadillac when a Chevy will still get you where you want to go? Not me although saying this makes me laugh as my dad gave me a Lincoln Town Car today. For real!

As for your analogy, I'd simply shop for a $5,000. car that runs reliably and save two grand. This is sort of like buying an iMac that runs reliably for $200. less, you know?

Please do not tell me that the low end model is less reliable than the next model up. I'm not buying that and I know that you have no credible data to back up that assertion.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Oh, I like car analogies!

Are you going to spend for a Cadillac when a Chevy will still get you where you want to go? Not me although saying this makes me laugh as my dad gave me a Lincoln Town Car today. For real!

Congrats on the Towncar! Seriously! That's awesome!

That having been said, that's a poor analogy because neither the Cadillac nor the Chevy has any superiority over the other in terms of longevity (at least, not that you have defined here).

As for your analogy, I'd simply shop for a $5,000. car that runs reliably and save two grand. This is sort of like buying an iMac that runs reliably for $200. less, you know?

Again, one lasts 3-5 years, the other lasts 5-7 years; with $200 buying you $200 buying you as little as two extra years of life and as much as 4 extra years of life. Seems like a no-brainer to me. But what do I know.

Please do not tell me that the low end model is less reliable than the next model up. I'm not buying that and I know that you have no credible data to back up that assertion.

Universally, no, I can't tell you that. From the standpoint of thermals; it's probably the most reliable iMac they've made in nearly a decade.

From the standpoint of what it would take to necessitate the purchase of a new iMac or how likely individual components are likely to need replacement, more soldered on components means that you're more likely to replace the main logic board which means that you're more likely to scrap it and buy a new one. That you cannot refute. And mind you, I've had my ACMT for long while by now, and I'm current on all qualification exams; so not to toot my own horn, but yeah, I know a good thing or two about this stuff.

I've dealt extensively with the two topics up for discussion here: one, how breakable/reliable various Macs are, and two, what prompts even the most basic users to eventually buy a new one.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

/Snip arguments about longevity

You made a comment about reliability. I responded to that comment about reliability. I said nothing about longevity but your entire reply was focused on longevity. As you acknowledge yourself, you cannot predict the future. So therefore, you cannot predict which model will fail first.

The two computers in question are mostly made up of the exact same parts with a few exceptions in terms of upgrades. I see no reason to believe either model will be more reliable than the other model.

The longevity argument has been done to death here. I have nothing to add about that except that for this user's needs, pretty much any new computer is likely to last them a good long time.

I don't think there is anything left for you and I to go back and forth about.

 

[SteelBlueTJ]

I didn't read this entire thread, but I just want to add that you don't always need the most maxed out machine. I learned my lesson that way. Last year I was debating on getting the entry level 27" iMac or upgrading to the mid level 3.4ghz model. I ended up ordering the mid level 27" iMac. It has the 3.4Ghz and 2GB 775m graphics card. Looking back, I wish I would have just gotten the entry level 27" and saved myself a couple hundred dollars. It would have been plenty enough for all the more I do on it. Heck I could have gotten away with the entry level 21", but I wanted the 27" screen. So if you are confident you will be fine with an entry level machine, my advice would be to go for it and don't second guess yourself.

 

[Yebubbleman]

You made a comment about reliability. I responded to that comment about reliability. I said nothing about longevity but your entire reply was focused on longevity. As you acknowledge yourself, you cannot predict the future. So therefore, you cannot predict which model will fail first.

When machines get pushed to their limits, components tend to die out more quickly. If you have never worked on computers, then you should admit that you don't know what you're talking about so we can be done with it.

The two computers in question are mostly made up of the exact same parts with a few exceptions in terms of upgrades. I see no reason to believe either model will be more reliable than the other model.

What I have boldfaced to you is completely and utterly incorrect. Different logic boards, different RAM, different CPU (and by extension, different IGP), and usually when all of that is true, the chassis tends to be slightly different as well. Add all that up and you have A DIFFERENT MACHINE!

The longevity argument has been done to death here. I have nothing to add about that except that for this user's needs, pretty much any new computer is likely to last them a good long time.

Given that you clearly don't know what you are talking about here, and have nothing to back up your argument other than a false logic of "base user's needs automatically will suffice with the most basic machine regardless of what that machine even is", which is both incorrect and ignorant.

I don't think there is anything left for you and I to go back and forth about.

Agreed, I'm clearly dealing with someone who shouldn't be advising people on what computer to buy due to lack of experience in such matters as well as a clear lack of understanding in what the technical specifications of a computer actually mean!

I don't mean to be insulting, that kind of jargon isn't for everyone, but advising people on such matters when you don't know as much about them yourself is a dangerous practice.

 

[leman]

The quad-core iMac is not more reliable and does not have more longevity. To suggest this is bonkers. The only thing which can be said about it — its faster. And that matters now, not in the future. Its the single-core performance which defines the everyday usability of a computer. In 8 years both of these computers will be obsolete. If you don't use heavy-duty computation (video/photo/scientific work), then the i5-4260U ULV CPU is more than adequate. For tasks like browsing or office work, it is virtually indistinguishable from the i5-4570R.

That said, it is also true that merely $200 more buys you more computing power, but if you can't benefit from it based on your usage, then its $200 wasted. I would rather suggest to invest into an SSD, because that is what really makes the difference for the usability and responsiveness.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

/snip...

I am a retired Senior Software Engineer who has worked with both hardware and software for decades in the past. I think I am qualified to share my opinion at least as much as you are as such.

Are you are able to provide some links to credible proof that the logic board and all the other components are different in the base model versus the other two? Even if you can, that does not prove that the components are more likely to fail. If you want to make that argument, prove it please.

I have trouble believing that you can provide any proof whatsoever to back up your assertion that the base model is more likely to suffer hardware failure before the next two models up do. If you can provide some credible proof of this that would make for an interesting read indeed. If you cannot provide this proof, as I said before, I think we're done here. We shared our views and now the user can make his own decision for himself. Maybe he already has by now.

 

[Yebubbleman]

The quad-core iMac is not more reliable and does not have more longevity. To suggest this is bonkers.

The claim on reliability is solely based on how taxed the hardware is. Given that it is weak hardware, it will probably be taxed a lot. If it is not taxed a lot, then fine, I concede the reliability claim. As far as heating concerns (which have historically been the main concern as far as reliability is concerned), the lower-end model will generate less heat and probably break down less.

Longevity, on the other hand is a much more concrete argument to make. You mean to tell me that I'll get the same mileage from a machine running a dual-core 1.4GHz ultrabook CPU than I will from a quad-core 2.7GHz notebook CPU? How about RAM that I can at least pay a technician a handsome sum to upgrade? How about a drive with double the capacity? You mean to tell me that I'll get the same mileage? Where's the island you're trying to sell me?

The only thing which can be said about it — its faster.

...and more capacious and upgradable...but hey, when does that ever matter, right?

And that matters now, not in the future. Its the single-core performance which defines the everyday usability of a computer.

Uh...yeah, maybe six years ago when OS X and most apps weren't optimized at least for dual-core performance. As it stands now, with Grand Central Dispatch (been around since 10.6 circa 2009), multicore performance is where its at. Even if single core performance was where it's at, 1.4GHz vs. 2.7GHz is still a very large disparity.

In 8 years both of these computers will be obsolete. If you don't use heavy-duty computation (video/photo/scientific work), then the i5-4260U ULV CPU is more than adequate. For tasks like browsing or office work, it is virtually indistinguishable from the i5-4570R.

In 8 years, the lower-end model will have already been non-viable for quite a few years. Users of the mid-range model will be encouraged to get something newer, but it won't be anywhere near as dire of a need.

And yes, TODAY, for tasks like browsing of office work, the two are indistinguishable. And yes, for TODAY, both machines fulfill basic needs. The thing most people on this site fail to realize is that most people don't replace their Mac every 1-2 years; doing so is very expensive. If you want to make your system last, you put more money into the initial purchase. Between these two models, more than any other two models of the same kind of Mac in recent Mac history, there has never been a bigger disparity. I fail to understand why you guys fail to get that.

That said, it is also true that merely $200 more buys you more computing power, but if you can't benefit from it based on your usage, then its $200 wasted. I would rather suggest to invest into an SSD, because that is what really makes the difference for the usability and responsiveness.

If $200 for the mid-range iMac is causing such a discussion, what makes you think that an SSD, which Apple would charge far more than $200 for, would be on the table for discussion?

I am a retired Senior Software Engineer who has worked with both hardware and software for decades in the past. I think I am qualified to share my opinion at least as much as you are as such.

You are always qualified to share your opinion, retired Senior Software Engineer or not, but that doesn't make it useful or knowledgable.

This is a question of buying and selling computers and when it is or isn't the right time to do so, not of methods, algorithms, classes or functions. I'm sure you made a fat amount of money more than I do currently, but your skill set is not relevant here as this is not your domain.

I have been a computer consultant for the last 15 years. I've got my ACMT (alongside every qualification exam they have) my ACSP (for the last four releases of OS X), my ACTC (for those same releases of OS X, save for 10.7), as well as many more. I've worked in IT fields, I've worked at Apple Authorized Service Providers, and most importantly, I HAVE DEALT WITH MILLIONS OF THIS TYPE OF CUSTOMER.

I don't doubt that you are smart and knowledgable about a great many things. If I have given the impression that I do, I am sorry. That wasn't intended. However, this is not one of those things.

Are you are able to provide some links to credible proof that the logic board and all the other components are different in the base model versus the other two?

Go to ifixit.com. MacRumors also had coverage on ifixit's findings in a few articles when the new low-end model was first announced. It details the differences in the logic board.

Even if you can, that does not prove that the components are more likely to fail. If you want to make that argument, prove it please.

I have trouble believing that you can provide any proof whatsoever to back up your assertion that the base model is more likely to suffer hardware failure before the next two models up do. If you can provide some credible proof of this that would make for an interesting read indeed. If you cannot provide this proof, as I said before, I think we're done here. We shared our views and now the user can make his own decision for himself. Maybe he already has by now.

Again, when a user pushes the limits of their hardware, that stresses the hardware. Prolonged stress of the hardware causes hardware failure. That's how hardware works. There's nothing inherently unreliable about the lower-end model. If anything, given that heat has been the biggest cause of failure in iMacs, this model is probably more reliable inherently...until a user pushes its limits thinking it is a more powerful machine than it is.

Again, being a software engineer, this is not your domain. Being a hardware technician, an IT technician, and a computer consultant, this IS my domain. I've seen users give their machines early graves because they kept pushing their limits. This is an under-powered machine and underpowered machines will have their limits pushed. Happens all the time, even with the most basic of users. If you'd like I can pull, from my own records, multiple instances of such hardware failures. It'd be long, boring, and only serve to give you the satisfaction of being properly served in what is a fairly stupid pissing contest. But I offer you that option should you want it.

Point being that lower-end model is under-powered and a bad buy for just about anyone, ESPECIALLY when the mid-range model sells for the exact same cost when bought refurbished from Apple.

 

[leman]

Uh...yeah, maybe six years ago when OS X and most apps weren't optimized at least for dual-core performance. As it stands now, with Grand Central Dispatch (been around since 10.6 circa 2009), multicore performance is where its at. Even if single core performance was where it's at, 1.4GHz vs. 2.7GHz is still a very large disparity.

First of all, its not 1.4Ghz vs 2.7 Ghz. Its 2.7 vs. 3.2 — you need to take into account the dynamic overlocking. For single-threaded performance at its peak, the i5-4260U is around 20% slower than i5-4570R. Which means that for everyday use, they will be indistinguishable.

Second, you mention multicore performance but you don't seem to realise that its not a panacea. GCD is a great library and I love it as everyone else, but not every algorithm is parallelizable. Office/Web is largely about single threaded performance and will stay like this, probably forever. A quad core can do more things at the same time, but it does not matter if user only wants to do a single thing at a time. It's all about how efficiently the CPU can be utilised. Users who are only interested in email,light office, casual web surfing will not be able to harness full power of a quad core CPU. And there is a well established user base for that. Both my mother and my grandparents qualify actually — they use the computer to read the news and contact their friends.

I think that the confusion here is because you are thinking about users like yourself — who need maximal performance and utilise the computer 'properly'. Not everyone is like that.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

First of all, its not 1.4Ghz vs 2.7 Ghz. Its 2.7 vs. 3.2 — you need to take into account the dynamic overlocking. For single-threaded performance at its peak, the i5-4260U is around 20% slower than i5-4570R. Which means that for everyday use, they will be indistinguishable.

Second, you mention multicore performance but you don't seem to realise that its not a panacea. GCD is a great library and I love it as everyone else, but not every algorithm is parallelizable. Office/Web is largely about single threaded performance and will stay like this, probably forever. A quad core can do more things at the same time, but it does not matter if user only wants to do a single thing at a time. It's all about how efficiently the CPU can be utilised. Users who are only interested in email,light office, casual web surfing will not be able to harness full power of a quad core CPU. And there is a well established user base for that. Both my mother and my grandparents qualify actually — they use the computer to read the news and contact their friends.

I think that the confusion here is because you are thinking about users like yourself — who need maximal performance and utilise the computer 'properly'. Not everyone is like that.

Well said. That's also been a point of mine all along. The original post makes clear that light duty is all this user has been doing and is planning on doing. So I felt more power was not a must for them. I don't see them "stressing" the hardware any time soon.

----------

Point being that lower-end model is under-powered and a bad buy for just about anyone, ESPECIALLY when the mid-range model sells for the exact same cost when bought refurbished from Apple.

I disagree as I have all along given the user's stated computing needs. The entry level model would be fine. Apple identified a market for the machine and built it to serve that market whether you agree with their decision or not.

 

[Suture]

I'd go for a refurbished quad core before the new base model any day, even with the OP's requirements. The base model is just not worth that money IMO.

 

[Yebubbleman]

First of all, its not 1.4Ghz vs 2.7 Ghz. Its 2.7 vs. 3.2 — you need to take into account the dynamic overlocking. For single-threaded performance at its peak, the i5-4260U is around 20% slower than i5-4570R. Which means that for everyday use, they will be indistinguishable.

This would be true if we were still in 2007 where most software wasn't at least dual-core optimized, which most software is nowadays. Optimized for x-cores? No, you're right, we're still a ways away from getting to that point. But most software IS optimized for two cores, which goes to show that you will rarely have that MacBook Air processor clocking in at 2.7GHz. Even so, let's assume that most software is dual-core optimized at the very least (because it is) and not optimized for quad-core; you'd have 1.4GHz on 2 cores and 3.2GHz on 2 cores, making it an even larger disparity.

Second, you mention multicore performance but you don't seem to realise that its not a panacea. GCD is a great library and I love it as everyone else, but not every algorithm is parallelizable. Office/Web is largely about single threaded performance and will stay like this, probably forever.[/QUOTE]

All of OS X and every stock Apple application (including Safari) is coded with GCD. Not sure about Microsoft Office; knowing Microsoft, it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't. But even then, for basic Office use, CPU speed is moot anyway.

A quad core can do more things at the same time, but it does not matter if user only wants to do a single thing at a time. It's all about how efficiently the CPU can be utilised. Users who are only interested in email,light office, casual web surfing will not be able to harness full power of a quad core CPU. And there is a well established user base for that. Both my mother and my grandparents qualify actually — they use the computer to read the news and contact their friends.

Actually, 2 vs. 4 cores argument isn't even at the top of my concerns when it comes to performance; 13" MacBook Pros have always had 2 cores and, for basic users, that usually suffices for a long time. For my needs, yes, Quad. But in this case, I don't care about the number of cores anywhere as much as I do the power per core. The reason why the original MacBook Airs were such a flop was that you had CPUs that were so underpowered and you coupled them with hard drives that were even weaker and a minimal amount of RAM. End result: the machine was fine for those that needed it, but OVER TIME, it quickly became too slow for users' needs. Same thing will happen with this low-end iMac model and for those that buy it. The damn thing is underpowered. I don't know why you guys don't seem to comprehend that.

I think that the confusion here is because you are thinking about users like yourself — who need maximal performance and utilise the computer 'properly'. Not everyone is like that.

Yes, that was suggested quite a few times by the other guy. The fact of the matter is that I'm not thinking about power users. Even if I was thinking about myself, I use my MacBook Pro for very light tasks about 80% of the time; the power I have is for the 20% of the time that I'm not.

That being said, as is the case with myself and as has separately been the case for the COUNTLESS PEOPLE THAT I HAVE CONSULTED OVER THE YEARS, you don't shop for the power you want today. That is short-sighted and has you spending MORE money over the long haul.

The key thing you and the other guy are missing from the OP's post is that he is replacing his Mac after 8 years of use. Which computer is more likely to last ANYONE 8 years, the low-end iMac with a neutered CPU, soldered RAM, and a 500GB hard drive, or the higher-end iMac with an on-par CPU, replacable/upgradable RAM (albeit after an extensive servicing), and a 1TB drive on the low-end? If I was buying a machine to last me 8 years, I'd spend the $200 or I'd go for the refurb'ed version of that mid-range Mac for the same price.

That low-end model is stupid and nothing you or the other guy have said thus far have spoken effectively to that point. All you guys keep saying is that it will be fine for today. Obviously the OP wants to maximize his investment and you can't do so as effectively with as good of a bang:buck:time ratio with the low-end model as you can with the mid-range model.

I entreat either of you to present me with actual logic or recounting from consulting experience or numbers that proves otherwise, because so far you guys have done nothing of the sort.

Well said. That's also been a point of mine all along. The original post makes clear that light duty is all this user has been doing and is planning on doing. So I felt more power was not a must for them. I don't see them "stressing" the hardware any time soon.

More power is not a must for today, it's a must for the longevity of that machine. It's not going to necessarily break down sooner; it's going to be deemed slower and insufficient sooner. That's what I've been saying all along and nothing you've said has either addressed that nor logically countered that point. Slower computers last less of a length of time than faster ones before the user feels the need to replace it due to sluggish performance. It happens with even the most basic of users (sometimes sooner than the power users). I can cite over a decade of experiences with various Mac and PC users on this very topic. You have nothing to counter that other than your repeated rhetoric of "well, he's only doing light tasks, that machine ought to be fine", which is a short-sighted and ignorant stance, given the facts.

I disagree as I have all along given the user's stated computing needs. The entry level model would be fine. Apple identified a market for the machine and built it to serve that market whether you agree with their decision or not.

Wait, now you're a marketing expert? Man, they sure do train you senior software engineers to do quite a lot that is not in your job descriptions! :roll eyes:

They made a machine because the price point of the highest end Mac mini (presently $800), and the lowest end iMac (at the time, $1300). Apple is all about having machines to cover their price-points, so they sought to put out a machine that did so. Just because they installed a machine in that price-point doesn't mean that it is (a) a good deal, (b) effective, or (c) reasonable. Contrary to popular belief on this site, Apple DOES make mistakes in this area, and often.

The entry level model would serve anyone's basic needs TODAY. As well as a year from now, two years from now, and probably three years from now. The thing you guys keep neglecting about the OP is that he held onto his previous machine for 8 years. That low-end model won't last 8 years before ANY user, basic, power, or otherwise, feels the need to replace it.

 

[leman]

But most software IS optimized for two cores, which goes to show that you will rarely have that MacBook Air processor clocking in at 2.7GHz. Even so, let's assume that most software is dual-core optimized at the very least (because it is) and not optimized for quad-core; you'd have 1.4GHz on 2 cores and 3.2GHz on 2 cores, making it an even larger disparity.

...

All of OS X and every stock Apple application (including Safari) is coded with GCD.

I really don't know what you mean by 'optimized for two cores'. An application is either able to fully load multiple cores or not. The only applications that can do that are those which are doing equally intensive work in parallel batches — video compression and image editing comes to mind. Just having a multi-threaded application does not mean that your application is good at loading up multiple CPUs. Not to mention that if a GCD application does enough work to load up two cores than it will also probably be able to load up four or eight or sixteen — its the OS and the GCD dispatcher that distributes the work after all.

Of course having at least two cores is important for a modern OS with its multiple tasks which are processed in parallel — this reduces the pressure on the scheduler and makes the system more responsive. Either way, the fact remains that most applications are asymmetrically single-threaded. They might leverage additional threads (which may or may not be offloaded to a different core) for backgrounds tasks, bust most of the logic, as well as all drawing and event processing is happening on a single thread. E.g. you can make Mail fetch messages asynchronously using backgrounds threads, but it will not make it an application that can efficiently load up a multi-core CPU — because fetching a message is a much lighter task than processing the user input and redrawing the interface, and those later tasks cannot be parallelised.

Again, I mean no disrespect, but you seem to have only limited knowledge about multi-CPU programming in general and OS X programming model in particular.

 

[bambooshots]

The entry level model would serve anyone's basic needs TODAY. As well as a year from now, two years from now, and probably three years from now. The thing you guys keep neglecting about the OP is that he held onto his previous machine for 8 years. That low-end model won't last 8 years before ANY user, basic, power, or otherwise, feels the need to replace it.

I want whatever crystal ball you're using.

How do you know what people will be doing with their computers 8 years from now?

I still use my laptop that's going on 7 years old, mainly for, you guessed it, basic stuff like web browsing/paying bills.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I really don't know what you mean by 'optimized for two cores'. An application is either able to fully load multiple cores or not.

Wrong. Part of why it has taken developers so long to code for x cores is that it's much harder to write code that can be broken down into any number of cores. It's much easier to design for a predetermined amount of cores. Take the game StarCraft II, for instance. Tom's Hardware had a piece on that game where they examined the amount of cores that game is able to utilize. It turns out that it will use up to three cores; the fourth core will always go un-used. Same is true of machines with more than four cores. So, no, it's not a simple binary matter of either coding for one core or coding any number of cores.

That being said, dual-core CPUs have been commonplace since 2006. It is much more likely than a given piece of software is at least optimized to take advantage of a second core than it is a third and fourth, given that quad-core processors have only been mainstream for the last 3-4 years (much less time than the 8 years that dual-cores have been in the hands of consumers).

The only applications that can do that are those which are doing equally intensive work in parallel batches — video compression and image editing comes to mind. Just having a multi-threaded application does not mean that your application is good at loading up multiple CPUs. Not to mention that if a GCD application does enough work to load up two cores than it will also probably be able to load up four or eight or sixteen — its the OS and the GCD dispatcher that distributes the work after all.

I'm not saying that the OS and the basic stock apps are going to make every possible use of additional cores; I'm saying that they are all optimized to take advantage of GCD, which is designed to utilize all of the available cores on a given system. Which means that, for stock apps, all four cores are running, which means that Intel's Turbo Boost is not; therefore comparing a 1.4GHz dual-core system as a 2.7GHz single-core system to a 2.7GHz quad-core system as a 3.2GHz single-core system is ridiculous because that's not how Turbo-Boost works.

Of course having at least two cores is important for a modern OS with its multiple tasks which are processed in parallel — this reduces the pressure on the scheduler and makes the system more responsive. Either way, the fact remains that most applications are asymmetrically single-threaded. They might leverage additional threads (which may or may not be offloaded to a different core) for backgrounds tasks, bust most of the logic, as well as all drawing and event processing is happening on a single thread. E.g. you can make Mail fetch messages asynchronously using backgrounds threads, but it will not make it an application that can efficiently load up a multi-core CPU — because fetching a message is a much lighter task than processing the user input and redrawing the interface, and those later tasks cannot be parallelised.

That's fine; my point is that TurboBoost is only in effect when the second core (or third or fourth core) is not in use. If an application is asymmetrically single-threaded, but is still using background threads loaded up on other cores, you won't invoke TurboBoost and thusly, you won't take advantage of the single core being over-clocked; making a piece of crap 1.4GHz processor still a piece of crap 1.4GHz processor.

Again, I mean no disrespect, but you seem to have only limited knowledge about multi-CPU programming in general and OS X programming model in particular.

Fair enough; but I don't need to. The topic is Turbo Boost, not GCD. All I need to cite about GCD is that Apple uses it in coding all of their apps; which means that Apple, whether efficiently or inefficiently, is using all available cores in all available programs, meaning Intel's Turbo Boost is not being utilized.

It's a stupid discussion that deviates from the main topic at hand; that CPU is crap for the computer it is running in and is far worse than that of the next model up than any two models of any single type of Mac has been in several years.

I want whatever crystal ball you're using.

No crystal ball. Apple's iMac has existed for the past sixteen years, and when using on-par technology, on the low-end it will last a basic user up to 5 years on average, a pro user for up to 3 years on average, and a thrifty user up to 8 years on average; on the higher end, just add two years on average to those figures and there you go. You use sub-par technology (i.e. that CPU, and that low-capacity 5400RPM piece of crap) and that time only drops; users can't replace CPUs, nor is it recommended that they replace their hardware in a 21.5" iMac regardless of the model. Therefore they'll tire of it sooner, therefore it will last them less long.

No crystal ball, just plain and simple logic coupled with over a decade of experience in this sort of subject matter.

How do you know what people will be doing with their computers 8 years from now?

Again, plain and simple logic.

One of three scenarios is going to happen: Either (a) they will use their computer in exactly the same fashion as they do today, in which case their needs won't change, (b) they will use their computer in a more complex fashion than is done today, in which case their needs will increase, (c) they will use their computer in a less complex fashion than is done today, in which case their needs will decrease; and in today's world, what typically ends up happening is that an iPad comes into play and replaces the computer for 90% of everything, in which case the computer quickly becomes used for less.

With sub-par hardware, a user ends up tossing their machine sooner in any of these three scenarios. I've seen it happen time and time again.

I still use my laptop that's going on 7 years old, mainly for, you guessed it, basic stuff like web browsing/paying bills.

Yes, but was your laptop from 7 years ago sold to you with a CPU that was half the speed of CPUs that commonly shipped in laptops of that vintage? Was it sold to you with half the hard drive capacity of what was commonly sold at that time? Knowing what I know of the technology of 7 years ago, if the answers to those questions were yes, you would've chucked the laptop four years ago...and yes, even if all you did was the basics.

 

[roadbloc]

Evening all from balmy Scotland and the Commonwealth Games.

Let me set the scene. I'm still chugging along with my 2005 G5 iMac and it is still pretty good at the stuff I look for it to do, Microsoft Office, acting as a thin client into work, storing photos, e-mail and basic web browsing. In its day it performed well with iMovie etc.

However, it is getting clunky now and web browsing is slow, painful and anything with video and sound is now starting to struggle. Forget HD (or any quality setting) video on youtube!!!

It has been a good workhorse and has served me well all these 9 years - so time for a replacement (although its not broken!).

You may be able to extend the life of your G5 quite easily. I have an iMac G4 and use it as my main work machine. You just have to know what you're doing.

First off- what browser are you using? Most PowerPC browsers are dead now, however there are a few still going, including the brilliant TenFourFox, a recompiled version of the latest Firefox for PowerPC.

For YouTube, you need an app that can take advantage of your hardware since Flash is useless for this. Either MacTubes or YouView can help with this.

Not sure which version of Office you're on, but if you're using 2004 (and previous) and need compatibility with the new docx xlsx pptx files then the Open XML Converter will sort you out.

I don't know what OS you're using or what other issues you're having with your G5, but I find, most often than not, there is a solution. Reply with some other issues you may be having that I may be able to aid with, at least as a temporary solution until you do get a new iMac if you're deffo going for it.

The PowerPC Macs topic is also another great place to find information on how to get by in 2014 with a Gx processor.