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

Better to buy iMacs more frequently or a Mac Pro long term?

Luba

Luba

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Apr 22, 2009
1,820
389
Hmm, I wonder if it's better to spend the money and keep a Mac Pro long term or buy iMac's more frequently?? Right now, the iMac 4850 is right for me, but I hear because it uses mobile parts it's more prone to break down and it's difficult to fix and upgrade. I could spend the money and get a Mac Pro and keep for the long term, but technology changes so fast maybe I am better off buying iMac more frequently (every 2-3 years) versus getting a new Mac Pro every 4-5 years.

I think price-wise I would save more money buying the Mac Pro every 4-5 years versus getting a new iMac every 2-3 years. What's your opinion?

Thanks!!
 
Do you like having something new? If so, go the iMac route as you will upgrade it more often. If you don't mind not having the latest visually appealing system from Apple, go with the Mac Pro. Like you said, you will probably upgrade it less often, however the downside could be less new systems if you enjoy getting a new computer.

Also, don't forget to factor the display into the Mac Pro cost. The iMac has a great display, and Apple displays are not cheap, but definitely better looking on the desk than a generic HannSpree plastic LCD.
 
So many variables to this one, but I think the mac pro may be the cheaper route. Based off of depreciation of intel imacs has over powerpc and first gen mac pro's are still commanding a premium. Also with the new multi core technology, I am hopeful we can stretch out the length of multicore machines useable life.

That was my thinking when I got a MP. Plus I didnt want all in one machine and I had the HD's and monitors so an imac was out of the question. To save more money I got the previous 2.8x8 and plan on keeping it for a long time.
 
uberamd said:
Do you like having something new? If so, go the iMac route as you will upgrade it more often. If you don't mind not having the latest visually appealing system from Apple, go with the Mac Pro. Like you said, you will probably upgrade it less often, however the downside could be less new systems if you enjoy getting a new computer.

Also, don't forget to factor the display into the Mac Pro cost. The iMac has a great display, and Apple displays are not cheap, but definitely better looking on the desk than a generic HannSpree plastic LCD.
Click to expand...

Its funny how the Apple cinema display is $899, yet the beautiful imac is only a few hundred dollars more, and is an excellent computer.
 
I personally prefer the half the money twice as often route, to the twice the money half as often route. If you don't need the power the mac pro gives you I really wouldn't go for it. Especially as we don't know where things will be with computers in 5 years. I think the, it's more powerful so will last longer argument, isn't strictly accurate.
 
You are far, far better off spending less money more often. If you put the money saved not buying a Pro in the bank, even if you don't sell your used iMacs as you upgrade, your money lasts longer. If you sell off the old iMacs, it lasts far longer. And if you factor in things like upgraded software (OS and iLife) that come free with a new Mac but you would have to buy for your Pro, the difference is even more staggering.

A thread here not long ago asked if buying a Mac Pro and using it for 10 years would make more sense than buying a base iMac and replacing it every three years. The math says that - even without selling the iMacs off and without the ~$1000 in software upgrades that come free with the iMacs, the same initial investment will last 12 years buying iMacs. And get more total computing power - an iMac bought nine years from today will be miles ahead of a Mac Pro bought today. The iMac route also gives you newer/better hardware every upgrade, as well as keeps you in warranty.


Unprocessed1 said:
Its funny how the Apple cinema display is $899, yet the beautiful imac is only a few hundred dollars more, and is an excellent computer.
Click to expand...

The iMac is not LED backlit. ;)
 
ditzy said:
I personally prefer the half the money twice as often route, to the twice the money half as often route. If you don't need the power the mac pro gives you I really wouldn't go for it. Especially as we don't know where things will be with computers in 5 years. I think the, it's more powerful so will last longer argument, isn't strictly accurate.
Click to expand...

I agree. Look at the G5s for example. Suppose you bought a G5 quad instead of a G5 iMac in late 2005, you would be worse off now. Although nothing as drastic as the intel switch will likely happen in the next 5 years, getting a mac pro could leave you with a machine incompatible with something in the future, and it would be a big investment to just replace prematurely if this happens.
 
I would buy only what you need. If an iMac can handle the job, just get an iMac. Personally, I'd keep the iMac for 5, 6 or 7 years. The longer the better.

There's always something newer and better, no matter what you do!

However, you can't go wrong with either an iMac or a MP. They're both great computers. Good luck!
 
512ke said:
I would buy only what you need. If an iMac can handle the job, just get an iMac. Personally, I'd keep the iMac for 5, 6 or 7 years. The longer the better.

There's always something newer and better, no matter what you do!

However, you can't go wrong with either an iMac or a MP. They're both great computers. Good luck!
Click to expand...

Very true. You would also have a great monitor with the iMac, or better performance with the MP. No one can tell you what features are more important other than yourself.
 
512ke said:
I would buy only what you need. If an iMac can handle the job, just get an iMac.
Click to expand...

This is the most true statement you are going to hear.

When it comes down to it just do the performance to dollar analysis. If you aren't going to utilize the extra power of a Mac Pro (which is very substantial) and money is a big factor in your decision making, you should go with the iMac.

But only your computing habits and normal use will tell you that.

Good luck!
 
Get the Mac Pro

I bought the first Intel Mac Pro (2006) and it is still going strong. I've added RAM, a video card, and hard drives as time has gone by and it still does everything I need it for, (video editing, and photo management)

The biggest diffrence is a Mac Pro has server class hardware, iMac's have consumer level and mostly mobile hardware for the most part. I can replace my processors in the Mac Pro for about the price of an iMac and have a much faster machine if I choose to.



Luba Cox said:
Hmm, I wonder if it's better to spend the money and keep a Mac Pro long term or buy iMac's more frequently?? Right now, the iMac 4850 is right for me, but I hear because it uses mobile parts it's more prone to break down and it's difficult to fix and upgrade. I could spend the money and get a Mac Pro and keep for the long term, but technology changes so fast maybe I am better off buying iMac more frequently (every 2-3 years) versus getting a new Mac Pro every 4-5 years.

I think price-wise I would save more money buying the Mac Pro every 4-5 years versus getting a new iMac every 2-3 years. What's your opinion?

Thanks!!
Click to expand...
 
both routes have their merits,and indeedif you aren't going to utilise the powerof tha mac pro, it could be the worse option.

For me, it was a no brainer as i needed the power, but another reason to get a mac pro is simply hard drive space. In a year I have already used over a terabyte of space, which would be problematic if using an imac.

Another reason (as menioned earlier), is that there are some problems with having your display and computer in one package, however if you plan on buying a new one every 3 years and buy applecare then this becomes a non starter.

Finally, remember that if the future indeed lies in softare slowly utilising more and more cores, as opposed to needing faster clock speeds, then an 8 core mac pro is going to last a VERY long time, and is also very easily upgradable with ram,extra hard drives etc.

Also,i could never go with the imac because of the glossy screen, they give me headaches!
 
the less money more often is better because:
1. new software and warrantees every few years
2. keeping up to date with technology ( I have a 5 year old iBook, think of the changes in processors and memory (RAM and video) in that time. My CPU is bogged down if I do anything video intensive.
3. Imagine 5 years from now and it time to buy a new mac pro. Are you going to have the money to buy it again, with the specs you want? and what about the display and the keyboard/mouse? How long will those last?
 
clearly the main question to ask yourself is do you need the power of the pro? If you do, then get it, but keep in mind that if you plan on keeping that for 5+ years it WILL need upgrades and they will be costly. RAM, HDD, CPU, Graphics, are all expensive for the MP. The iMac can only take RAM upgrades or external hard drives. I would highly recommend the 24" iMac unles you really need that MP power.

I have the first gen Aluminum iMac and it still runs without a hiccup for basic daily use, itunes, ichat, front row, web browsing and downloading. I LOVE it and the only reason I would replace it is to get a bigger HDD and the 24" version.
 
foodog said:
I can replace my processors in the Mac Pro for about the price of an iMac and have a much faster machine if I choose to.
Click to expand...

Wait, I never knew you could replace the processor (I don't really need a MP). That is a cool feature then. Can you elaborate on the process???
 
I would go for the imac. You could always sell it once you buy a new one.
 
foodog said:
I bought the first Intel Mac Pro (2006) and it is still going strong. I've added RAM, a video card, and hard drives as time has gone by and it still does everything I need it for, (video editing, and photo management)

The biggest diffrence is a Mac Pro has server class hardware, iMac's have consumer level and mostly mobile hardware for the most part. I can replace my processors in the Mac Pro for about the price of an iMac and have a much faster machine if I choose to.
Click to expand...

Unless you did a custom configuration from the online store, you didn't upgrade the graphics card;).
 
If you don't need the power that the Mac Pro has to offer then you are much better off with an iMac. The iMac is not any more likely to break because it uses mobile parts. The main mobile parts, the CPU and GPU, actually typically have higher thermal limits than their desktop counterparts, which says to me that they are built to a very high standard. The hard drive is a typical desktop unit which is probably the most common failure point in any modern PC, but the model Apple uses is no different from that of any other PC. Just looking at how fact technology is evolving, a high-end Mac Pro is far more likely to be considered legacy hardware in 5 years than an iMac in 2 and a half, in my opinion. Buy the iMac.

Jigsawjammer said:
Wait, I never knew you could replace the processor (I don't really need a MP). That is a cool feature then. Can you elaborate on the process???
Click to expand...
The processor in the iMac is also replaceable, if I remember correctly. I wouldn't call it a feature, either. Not being replaceable, such as is the case with Apple portables, is a handicap.
 
I'd go 'Pro'. :eek:

I was ready to buy an iMac but there is just 2 reasons why - after much consideration, I decided not to. Until the iMac's LCD has LED backlit plus I wanted to have more than 1 HDD for Boot-camping Windows and I wanted it to be internal.

But otherwise, iMac is great!
 
MacAndy74 said:
I'd go 'Pro'. :eek:

I was ready to buy an iMac but there is just 2 reasons why - after much consideration, I decided not to. Until the iMac's LCD has LED backlit plus I wanted to have more than 1 HDD for Boot-camping Windows and I wanted it to be internal.

But otherwise, iMac is great!
Click to expand...

Whats the big dea with LED anyway? I already use my 23" ACD on its lowest because it is too bright anyway!
 
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