Good point since my iMac has a second display (a 20" Dell 1600x1200) which is now about 10 years old. But, you know, the *next* TBD will be Retina, and I'll just have to buy it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Could a Macbook be my primary home computer
- Thread starter CultHero
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good point since my iMac has a second display (a 20" Dell 1600x1200) which is now about 10 years old. But, you know, the *next* TBD will be Retina, and I'll just have to buy it.
Good point since my iMac has a second display (a 20" Dell 1600x1200) which is now about 10 years old. But, you know, the *next* TBD will be Retina, and I'll just have to buy it.
Yeah, it's funny how Apple does that........
As a matter of fact, to me that is the underlying reason why people tend to get angry at Apple around update time. Apple doesn't always put the best available technology into their newest offerings; they always seem to be a little bit behind. I believe that this is done in part to ensure that they have something to put into their next iteration regardless of how the state of technology moves between now and then. It's not exactly planned obsolescence - it's planned upgrade based on their longterm roadmap of how technology fits into their offerings. They COULD probably put a retina display into more devices than they do; they COULD make SSDs available as standard issue on more devices that they do. But it's not time for that yet!
It's like the old sales person saying - when you are "in" at a customer, make sure you have an "out"; when you are "out" at a customer, make sure you have an "in". Apple usually ensures that they already have their next couple of updates already planned with technology that already exists versus what may exist.
Last edited:
Well I purposefully stayed with 10.7 as I wasn't convinced all the extra features wouldn't be taxing on my 4 gig 2.16 mhz iMac. I did replace the hd with a 2 tb a year or so ago and that helped for a while, but I don't know how else to explain it, the mac has just gotten slower. Maybe a refresh would help, but I have to believe it is the way programs, OS and applications are designed now.
They are all power hungry and processor intensive. Not a big deal on the newer stuff, but a 6 year old computer.....
Anyway, it seems my question has been answered. A macbook pro "could" suffice for what I do. They only thing that has me a little concerned was the sprint vs marathon analogy. That does make a lot of sense. Is the macbook designed to be used all day every day, as much as the imac is?
They are all power hungry and processor intensive. Not a big deal on the newer stuff, but a 6 year old computer.....
Anyway, it seems my question has been answered. A macbook pro "could" suffice for what I do. They only thing that has me a little concerned was the sprint vs marathon analogy. That does make a lot of sense. Is the macbook designed to be used all day every day, as much as the imac is?
I don't get this thread. Any portable could
be a main computer.
Many do it with notebooks all the time,as do I.
You could get by witha base 13 mbp and it would still be a huge improvement over your old iMac
be a main computer.
Many do it with notebooks all the time,as do I.
You could get by witha base 13 mbp and it would still be a huge improvement over your old iMac
It's kinda funny that it hasn't been brought up yet, but many people who don't like the iMac criticize it for being made from laptop components and put into a desktop form factor. It uses mobile gfx cards, and the components are shoehorned in there and have the same heat issues as a laptop. Up until early 2009 it was using traditional laptop processors. So if you were using an iMac in 2008 you were basically running a laptop as your desktop computer.
Uhhh...
I've had nothing but 13" Macbooks, MBPs or 11.6 MBAs as my primary computer for almost a decade now (counting an iBook and all three models of Powerbook).
My photographer/graphic design buddy has done the same with a 20" monitor.
So yes, it's more than enough for most people.
I've had nothing but 13" Macbooks, MBPs or 11.6 MBAs as my primary computer for almost a decade now (counting an iBook and all three models of Powerbook).
My photographer/graphic design buddy has done the same with a 20" monitor.
So yes, it's more than enough for most people.
With a RAM upgrade MBP's work great. I'm running a 2011 17" MBP and I'm a developer. I can easily run XCode and the Simulator, while at the same time running Windows in Parallels. It could be a little snappier as a desktop, but it definitely doesn't limit me much. I'll have 3-4 projects open in XCode sometimes and it works without a hitch.
As far as gaming I can't really say. I do run Minecraft sometimes and it works well on high settings with 120-130 FPS.
As far as gaming I can't really say. I do run Minecraft sometimes and it works well on high settings with 120-130 FPS.