Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2010 27" iMac - Still Viable?

P

Patron_Saint

Suspended
Original poster
Jun 10, 2016
132
101
Is a 2010, 27" iMac still a viable option for modern macOS, factoring in a RAM upgrade to 16GB? Looking at both quad core i5 and i7 configurations.

Primary uses would be:

Media - music, videos, DVDs
Light web design (Rapidweaver)
Photoshop
iOS Development
Light gaming (WoW, Source games, Minecraft)
Target Display Mode w/ consoles. (Hence looking at a 2010, as this is possible via mini display port, but not thunderbolt.)
 
You didn't tell us if you already have this Mac, or if you are considering buying one.

My opinion only:

... it will run a modern Mac OS, but the user experience may be more like the OS is "walking" rather than "running".

Since the advent of Sierra, the Mac OS seems to have been engineered to run best on Macs that have:
1. An SSD, or
2. A "fusion" drive (SSD+HDD).

Macs with only platter-based hard drives are going to experience a "speed hit", often a significant one.

Memory can help -a little-, but the problem really is the drive itself.

If you already have this Mac, what version of the OS is it running now?

I'd suggest 10.8.5 as "the best" one.
 
I'm considering buying - currently have no Mac at all, and use an iPad Pro as my main device.

My options are a refurb with 90 day warranty for $650, or used for $500-700, but obviously with no warranty.

An SSD would likely be an upgrade I'd eventually add.
 
See the iMac in my sig. Still running strong and adequate for light gaming. This is also due to the ssd I put in last year. Else it's so slow. However, it's 6 years, probably going to update when the next iMac comes out.
 
Dreadnought said:
See the iMac in my sig. Still running strong and adequate for light gaming. This is also due to the ssd I put in last year. Else it's so slow. However, it's 6 years, probably going to update when the next iMac comes out.
Click to expand...
Is the HDD slowness due to age, or lack of optimization in macOS for non SSDs?
 
Patron_Saint said:
Is the HDD slowness due to age, or lack of optimization in macOS for non SSDs?
Click to expand...
The ssd is so much more snappier. Programs open instantly, loading times disappear, copying of files goes much faster. I don't think it was because the hd was 5 years old, I still use it for bootcamp and os 10.8. OsX has become much fatter and the more you install... A ssd really helps overall performance as the hd was the bottleneck and holding the system down.
 
Thanks for the info. I know the pre-2012 iMacs are much easier to work on - is the SSD install fairly straightforward?
 
Yes! Just take your time, do a backup before you start (timemachine) and have another Mac or iPad next to you with the how to video of OWC. I ordered their kit and a Samsung 850 Evo. Make sure you watch their video a couple of times before you start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patron_Saint
Patron_Saint said:
Thanks for the info. I know the pre-2012 iMacs are much easier to work on - is the SSD install fairly straightforward?
Click to expand...

Not really. It is somewhat involved and requires a bit more manual dexterity than the install videos imply. It is certainly doable but when I upgraded my 2011 I was constantly wishing I had a second pair of smaller hands.
 
I'm debating trading my Mid 2010 MacBook Pro for a Mid 2010 27" iMac myself.
 
Yeah if I keep my MacBook Pro it's getting an SSD and 8GB, maybe 12GB of RAM before High Sierra releases.
 
EugW said:
It's way easier to put an SSD in the MacBook Pro.
Click to expand...
A bit easier, yes. But the pluses to the iMac are also huge: Core i5 instead of Core 2 Duo, 27" screen instead of 13", dedicated graphics card. I'd take the iMac over the MacBook Pro any day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back