Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Only that for most people a Mac will still be fast enough in 3 to 5 years. My MBP was still outperforming most of my friends windows machines - although over the years they are mostly switching to macs. It was no longer high end, but it was fast at everything I did. In my experience a Mac will require a handful of upgrades in its lifetime (RAM, HDD) to keep it in the running. A slightly faster processor and GPU just aren't aren't going to be factors in the longevity of my Mac.

I fully agree. I just don't get all the speed junkies out there. I have a C2D 27" iMac and the speed junkies tell me I could get a Sandy Bridge PC for less than what the iMac cost me. I am not sure the Sandy Bridge will help me code PHP/MySQL on the VI editor any faster. :confused:
 
I fully agree. I just don't get all the speed junkies out there. I have a C2D 27" iMac and the speed junkies tell me I could get a Sandy Bridge PC for less than what the iMac cost me. I am not sure the Sandy Bridge will help me code PHP/MySQL on the VI editor any faster. :confused:

It all depends on the person. I need more power than what is available in the current imacs. Why? Gaming and video encoding. And for the amount it costs it had better last me a very long time.
 
I fully agree. I just don't get all the speed junkies out there. I have a C2D 27" iMac and the speed junkies tell me I could get a Sandy Bridge PC for less than what the iMac cost me. I am not sure the Sandy Bridge will help me code PHP/MySQL on the VI editor any faster. :confused:

It's not all about speed. It's about how long the thing is gonna last you for how much you are paying for it. If a $2400 iMac isn't a large expense for you, buy it whenever. If you had to save up for it, maximize the time you will be able to use it without it failing to meet minimum system requirements for simple things like iLife and the freakin' operating system! That's not being a speed junky, that's just an intelligent investment! Again, see the "Buyer's Guide" section of this site.

As for the C2D vs. the Sandy Bridge PC, yeah, it won't help you code faster. My argument was more towards the notion that waiting for things like Sandy Bridge before buying a new one isn't silly. Having buyers remorse with your 27" C2D iMac with respect to Sandy Bridge Macs or PCs is, and I'll fully agree with you on that.
 
Last edited:
It's not all about speed. It's about how long the thing is gonna last you for how much you are paying for it. If a $2400 iMac isn't a large expense for you, buy it whenever. If you had to save up for it, maximize the time you will be able to use it without it failing to meet minimum system requirements for simple things like iLife and the freakin' operating system! That's not being a speed junky, that's just an intelligent investment! Again, see the "Buyer's Guide" section of this site.

I see your point. However, there are inexpensive options to owning an iMac. For example, there are refurbished i3 iMacs starting at $1019 at Apple online.

http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC508LL/A?mco=MTkwMjE3NjU
 
I see your point. However, there are inexpensive options to owning an iMac. For example, there are refurbished i3 iMacs starting at $1019 at Apple online.

http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC508LL/A?mco=MTkwMjE3NjU

Oh sure! And refurbished Macs don't even factor into the argument of release cycles, save for the fact that they tend to drop in price when they become that much more behind, though that tends to make them more elusive as well.
 
Oh sure! And refurbished Macs don't even factor into the argument of release cycles, save for the fact that they tend to drop in price when they become that much more behind, though that tends to make them more elusive as well.

Two new Mac converts and friends of mine are buying refurbished versions of my 27" 3.06 GHZ C2D iMac. I paid $1695 at Amazon, they are getting them for $1269. I am pretty sure that will be plenty of horse power for them and most users today.
 
You're completely wrong there. What's the one piece of software that you need to run on your Mac above all others? The OS. And what determines whether you can run the OS? Hardware specs! If you don't have an up to snuff CPU or GPU, you can't run either the entire OS or specific features of the OS that'll be important later on. Sure, your brand new MacBook Pro runs Snow Leopard like a champ, and will probably be able to take on Lion nicely, but what about 10.8? What about 10.9? If you buy a new Mac, then the longer it is a current shipping Mac, the longer you have before Apple, or anyone else for that matter, releases a piece of software that your machine won't run. It's a grace period before your computer becomes naturally obsolete. The more of that you have, the better of an investment your computer will be. For Microsoft Office, you're right, it's a moot point. For other software, including the OS itself, not so much. And sure, you can be one version of Mac OS X behind just fine and still be privy to most of the things that those running the newest are, but you can't be two behind, otherwise you lose out on things like being able to sync up that new iPhone or iPod touch or running the latest version of iTunes or Safari.

I have been using Macs since 2002 and have never had a machine that I couldn't run the latest version of the OS on. In fact I remember a couple of the releases actually sped up my machine.

Maybe I buy new macs more frequently, or maybe I just don't push them hard. Either way I have yet to run into a performance issue that couldn't be handled by a RAM upgrade or a larger HDD. Or at least those upgrades tend to handle the beach ball issues.

I am not saying they were fast towards the end of their lives but they were nothing like the 3 year old Windows machines of friends that were fast becoming unusable. I have friends who make a cup of coffee whilst they wait for their machine to boot up. I on the other hand had to still wait for my iMovie export to run. No big deal as, until I buy a new machine, I've never had a machine that's any faster than the one I've got and therefore I know no better. Plus, I know CPUs get faster and faster as to GPUs and FSBs, but they still take too long to do the big jobs, e.g. render a movie. Therefore me having to wait 45 mins instead of 34 mins is no big deal.

I'll carry on buying based on my experience instead of "what if" scenarios. That means that my iMac is fine. Thanks
 
I have been using Macs since 2002 and have never had a machine that I couldn't run the latest version of the OS on. In fact I remember a couple of the releases actually sped up my machine.

Maybe I buy new macs more frequently, or maybe I just don't push them hard. Either way I have yet to run into a performance issue that couldn't be handled by a RAM upgrade or a larger HDD.

I am not saying they were fast towards the end of their lives but they were nothing like the 3 year old Windows machines of friends that were fast becoming unusable. I have friends who make a cup of coffee whilst they wait for their machine to boot up.

I'll carry on buying based on my experience instead of "what if" scenarios. That means that my iMac is fine. Thanks

You're missing my point entirely. I'm saying that you will get more life out of a Mac if you buy it sooner after it was released rather than later. I bought my iMac in February of 2006; they were discontinued in September of that year. If all iMacs from my generation aren't able to run Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, then technically, I had seven extra months in which my computer could run the latest Mac OS X. It doesn't matter where the cut-off is, when my generation of iMacs is cut off from being able to run ::insert name of thing here::, then I will have had seven months more with that machine than someone who bought that same machine at the end of the release cycle. When you put in that kind of money, seven months is worth waiting for, unless the expense of that kind of iMac isn't an issue for you.

Also, comparing your Mac to PeeCees with their viruses doesn't get you anywhere. I could make a brand new Sandy Bridge PC feel like it's swimming in quicksand with a couple stupid clicks on the Internet. That kind of comparison doesn't mean anything.
 
Also, comparing your Mac to PeeCees with their viruses doesn't get you anywhere. I could make a brand new Sandy Bridge PC feel like it's swimming in quicksand with a couple stupid clicks on the Internet. That kind of comparison doesn't mean anything.

+1

Excellent illustration of the Windows way. Glad I am no longer a part of it.
 
+1

Excellent illustration of the Windows way. Glad I am no longer a part of it.

Hardly excellent. I'd call it unrealistic. I don't know why mac users seem to think windows machines are swiming in viruses. In my experience I have to actively go out and find a virus to get infected. I can look at porn all day long, pirate movies and music and apps, and never get infected. Different with XP but even back in those days I never had a virus though I know less than saavy computer users who did.

No, the biggest issue is phising and identity theft. and no OS can protect you from that. My mom has a mac. The other day she got a pop up saying she was infected and needed to click this link to give them money and download software to protect her(which would have infected her mac with a trojan and she would have done it too).
Or they hack a website where you've done business and they have your login/password and credit card info. And because people use the same login/password for so many sites they then get access to your other accounts.
You have to actively allow a virus to install on windows 7. You have to give it permission. And at that point the OS is irrelevant. You can't protect people from themselves.
Or hack it through an exploit in a 3rd party app(and OSX falls first at the pwn2own challenge 3, 4, maybe 5 years in a row now?)

But the mac/windows virus debate will rage on forever.
 
Last edited:
You're missing my point entirely. I'm saying that you will get more life out of a Mac if you buy it sooner after it was released rather than later. I bought my iMac in February of 2006; they were discontinued in September of that year. If all iMacs from my generation aren't able to run Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, then technically, I had seven extra months in which my computer could run the latest Mac OS X. It doesn't matter where the cut-off is, when my generation of iMacs is cut off from being able to run ::insert name of thing here::, then I will have had seven months more with that machine than someone who bought that same machine at the end of the release cycle. When you put in that kind of money, seven months is worth waiting for, unless the expense of that kind of iMac isn't an issue for you.

Also, comparing your Mac to PeeCees with their viruses doesn't get you anywhere. I could make a brand new Sandy Bridge PC feel like it's swimming in quicksand with a couple stupid clicks on the Internet. That kind of comparison doesn't mean anything.

And you are missing mine. I don't doubt the logic of your argument, I am simply saying that in practical terms it has never affected me. However I do concede that if I hadn't urgently required a new machine I would likely have waited a few months until the next release. My issue is that as soon as a Mac is 3 months into its cycle people start advising to hold off and I find that ridiculous. It propagates the notion that we all need faster machines and yet in practical terms that simply isn't the case.

Finally if the time does come where the user can no longer upgrade the software, then it doesn't matter too much either. New functionality is generally a nice-to-have and it's absence doesn't restrict us; it simply doesn't enhance it. The need for the latest software is also another myth.
 
And you are missing mine. I don't doubt the logic of your argument, I am simply saying that in practical terms it has never affected me. However I do concede that if I hadn't urgently required a new machine I would likely have waited a few months until the next release. My issue is that as soon as a Mac is 3 months into its cycle people start advising to hold off and I find that ridiculous. It propagates the notion that we all need faster machines and yet in practical terms that simply isn't the case.



My dad has a PC with components dating back to 2000. He has been holding off an upgrade on the grounds that what he uses works just fine for what he does. Does that mean that he should've timed the buying of those components differently? Not necessarily. If all you do with your iMac is use iTunes to buy music and rent movies, then your computer will be useful until you can no longer run a version of Mac OS X that supports the earliest version of iTunes capable of accessing the iTunes Store. It'll take a while, but eventually every computer will hit the cutoff for being able to do that. You can't buy movies from iTunes on a Bondai Blue iMac, I'm sorry. Again, by buying the computer at the earlier half of the release cycle, you buy yourself that much more time until the cut-off.

If your argument is that you buy a computer before you find that your computer is limited in what it can do, then that's great that you can afford to do so. Personally, I can't justify upgrading my Mac until I either can't run something that I need or want to run, at which point having owned it for that much time before it starts to very slowly become obsolete is valuable.

Finally if the time does come where the user can no longer upgrade the software, then it doesn't matter too much either. New functionality is generally a nice-to-have and it's absence doesn't restrict us; it simply doesn't enhance it. The need for the latest software is also another myth.

Tell that to people running Tiger who want to sync their iPods that they all got for Christmas. Or to people running Leopard who want to use the Mac App Store. I mean really! By that logic, I don't even need to be running my current iMac; I should just stick with my Early 2001 iMac G3 running Panther! Clearly everything in Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard is all unnecessary!

You upgrade your computer when it can't do something that you want it to do, unless you can and want to any earlier (for whatever reason). RAM upgrades and hard drive upgrades aren't going to help when the computer itself can't run something because it has a Core Duo and the minimum is a Core 2 Duo. Do I need that piece of software? Certainly no more than I need to even be using an Intel Mac over a PC.
 
Is there a general consensus that things lion won't run on current gen iMacs? Seems highly unlikely it wouldn't.
 
Is there a general consensus that things lion won't run on current gen iMacs? Seems highly unlikely it wouldn't.

I don't know where you get that from. I'd say that there's probably a consensus that first generation Intel iMacs won't run it, let alone anything with a Core Duo or Core Solo processor, but beyond that, I see no reason to rule anything else out from running it.

Hardly excellent. I'd call it unrealistic. I don't know why mac users seem to think windows machines are swiming in viruses. In my experience I have to actively go out and find a virus to get infected. I can look at porn all day long, pirate movies and music and apps, and never get infected. Different with XP but even back in those days I never had a virus though I know less than saavy computer users who did.

No, the biggest issue is phising and identity theft. and no OS can protect you from that. My mom has a mac. The other day she got a pop up saying she was infected and needed to click this link to give them money and download software to protect her(which would have infected her mac with a trojan and she would have done it too).
Or they hack a website where you've done business and they have your login/password and credit card info. And because people use the same login/password for so many sites they then get access to your other accounts.
You have to actively allow a virus to install on windows 7. You have to give it permission. And at that point the OS is irrelevant. You can't protect people from themselves.
Or hack it through an exploit in a 3rd party app(and OSX falls first at the pwn2own challenge 3, 4, maybe 5 years in a row now?)

But the mac/windows virus debate will rage on forever.

I only said that I could make a Sandy Bridge PC feel like it was swimming in quicksand with a few stupid clicks, a statement you just backed up. I never said PCs were swimming in viruses; I only said that comparing a Mac to a PC with viruses to ascertain how silly tech specs are is a stupid activity.
 
why doesnt alllow us to use imac 27 as a display for xbox and stuff in full hd 1080p .... kanex xd is good but imac will only playback in 720p .. why not just have a regular hdmi input port on imacs or atleast allow 1080p playback via kanex xd and similar products .. comeon apple .. loosen up babay!

i'd love to see a 30inch imac with 1080p input possible .. then i only need one screen for everythang.

i need to fast forward to Q2 ... cant wait any longer for new imacs ..:D
 
I fully agree. I just don't get all the speed junkies out there. I have a C2D 27" iMac and the speed junkies tell me I could get a Sandy Bridge PC for less than what the iMac cost me. I am not sure the Sandy Bridge will help me code PHP/MySQL on the VI editor any faster. :confused:

People who're looking for newer more expensive models of computers likely need something the most recent models offer them, otherwise they wouldn't be in the market. Almost every manufactuerer offers performance bumps across the board, meaning the logical assumption for the majority of the market is that they're looking for more power to perform many processor intensive tasks faster like video processing, playing games, model rendering, file transfers ect. Because life is short, people don't want to be waiting around a second longer than they have to, and as technology improves, these tasks become even more processor intensive, so the desire for people doing this stuff to have the absolute fastest device they can afford is understandable.

What's harder to understand is that for somebody who works primarily with more basic functions such as word processing and web browsing, the overall performance of older models may appear to be more than sufficient. This makes it appear as if these people aren't in the market for an upgrade at all, which isn't necessarily true since there are other factors of efficincy to consider.

In the case of the 27 inch iMac for example, the unusually high 1440p resolution gives you more workspace which is conducive to multitasking and side by side comparisons. IPS panels are considered the best when it comes to color accuracy and sharpness, while the larger screen size keeps pixels large, making everything more visible. Many of these purposes could be served by a standalone monitor, allowing independent upgrades to the computer or screen as needed with less waste. However this assumes you have a computer that's sufficient enough for you rneeds to begin with, plan to upgrade frequently and perhaps most importantly may clutter up the physical workspace with unnecessary clutter that could get in your way, namely a tower and many connective wires. For these reasons a 27 inch Core Duo 2 iMac can make plenty of sense for somebody who doesn't need a more powerful device. I should probably factor in operating system preferences, unix certification and Apple's legendary customer support however these benefits are marginally less model specific and their utility may not ultimately be so widespread.

As for the main topic of when our upgrades might be, I'm guessing that it'll be sooner rather than later, say maybe 43 days from now when the iMac is due for its refresh. This theory is based primarily upon information from the buyer's guide, which shows some rather suspect behavior on apple's part regarding their laptops. Namely they've rehauled the seemingly abandoned Macbook Air line and only offered the option for a minor processor bump for the more popular Macbook Pros when they were due for a refresh. This is rather unusual behavior to exhibit in the last quarter, being a time most companies expect to make most of their sales for the holiday season when people are most willing to empty their pockets. What could be the reason for this hiccup?

Well, Intel's leaked roadmap shows that Sandy Bridge was already planned to be released by the beginning of this year as early as august. I'm thinking that this is what threw a wrench in Apple's plans, primarily because as far back behind the competition's performance as they are already, they can't afford to fall back much further. Hence locking themselves into the old processors just as they were on their way out would be unwise.

Having performed these stalling tactics however gives Apple a fair bit of time for Apple to sit and wait on the upgrade, giving them time to prepare for large scale operations. With the iMac being only 43 days away from its usual upgrade, and the mac mini being due for a refresh in almost only half as much time (23 days to be exact) it could be unwise for apple to pull the trigger on Macbook Pro upgrades too soon. It might eat into the sales of their other models, oversaturating their capacity for total production. So I think they've decided to wait on the issue, deciding to do something highly monumentus with a wider sweeping refresh of all three models.

Of course this purely speculation on my part and perhaps all rather too unlikely. However I do think it would be very exciting for everybody involved if in the course of their normal refreshes, Sandy Bridge gave Apple the opportunity to make their infamous "Tax" apparently dissapear at no extra cost to them. Good timing on their part may allow for this, at least temporarily. Of course if it does happen, I'd then expect them to greedily sting us with a major OSX upgrade a few months after the fact, in order to soak in the extra premium they've grown so accustomed to. :p
 
Last edited:
My dad has a PC with components dating back to 2000. He has been holding off an upgrade on the grounds that what he uses works just fine for what he does. Does that mean that he should've timed the buying of those components differently? Not necessarily. If all you do with your iMac is use iTunes to buy music and rent movies, then your computer will be useful until you can no longer run a version of Mac OS X that supports the earliest version of iTunes capable of accessing the iTunes Store. It'll take a while, but eventually every computer will hit the cutoff for being able to do that. You can't buy movies from iTunes on a Bondai Blue iMac, I'm sorry. Again, by buying the computer at the earlier half of the release cycle, you buy yourself that much more time until the cut-off.

If your argument is that you buy a computer before you find that your computer is limited in what it can do, then that's great that you can afford to do so. Personally, I can't justify upgrading my Mac until I either can't run something that I need or want to run, at which point having owned it for that much time before it starts to very slowly become obsolete is valuable.



Tell that to people running Tiger who want to sync their iPods that they all got for Christmas. Or to people running Leopard who want to use the Mac App Store. I mean really! By that logic, I don't even need to be running my current iMac; I should just stick with my Early 2001 iMac G3 running Panther! Clearly everything in Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard is all unnecessary!

You upgrade your computer when it can't do something that you want it to do, unless you can and want to any earlier (for whatever reason). RAM upgrades and hard drive upgrades aren't going to help when the computer itself can't run something because it has a Core Duo and the minimum is a Core 2 Duo. Do I need that piece of software? Certainly no more than I need to even be using an Intel Mac over a PC.

You continue to make sensible arguments and if I continue to disagree with them it will be because I am being obstinate. I still believe that you are making reference to edge cases, but then my sample set may be flawed. However we do need to stop this idea that if someone doesn't have the fastest machine, then they are behind the times.

EDIT: with the Apple Store down I am slightly nervous that it is for new iMacs ;-)
 
I'm honestly no longer interested in the MacBook Pro since I got my 2010 MacBook Air. I have a $3500 MBP sitting on my desk gathering dust as I work exclusively from my iMac and MacBook Air.
 
Tell me anyone..

I can't wait much longer MacBook Pro :apple: next gen.update .. when?? march, april, may, july?? plzz tell me anyone..:confused::apple:
 
My only feature request for the iMac is a second GPU. It would be nice to be able to have 2 additional 27" ACD's with equal resolution of 2560 X 1440. I doubt that will happen so it looks like a Mac Pro is what I will need.
 
Realistically, you'd be waiting until either April or May, not July. I'd say it's worth the wait unless you need something NOW.

Oh, well then maybe i should wait. I am going to be making videos but i havent gotten all my equipment and instruments ready. So... Yeah, but i dont have a computer to play my starcraft 2 ;D. Idk Yebubbleman what do you think i should do?
 
Oh, well then maybe i should wait. I am going to be making videos but i havent gotten all my equipment and instruments ready. So... Yeah, but i dont have a computer to play my starcraft 2 ;D. Idk Yebubbleman what do you think i should do?

Wait if you can. I'd even wait until a month or so after the refresh so you can read reviews, see benchmarks, and catch any early bugs that you'll likely not have the displeasure of experiencing.
 
I've been a member of this site for a long time but never knew about those Buyers Guide pages. Anyways, was about to go out and buy an i7 iMac (or whatever the top-end one is) but then the buyers guide told me to wait. So I will!
I'd hate to buy one now and in a coupe of months time have a new range of iMacs that do more, have more features etc for the same price.

My current iMac is a C2D from 2006. It's a bit old, but still weirdly capable. Like I'm playing L4D2 on medium settings at native res at 30fps, editing HD video, editing 12mp RAW files all with no problems. Very capable machines these.
 
Wait if you can. I'd even wait until a month or so after the refresh so you can read reviews, see benchmarks, and catch any early bugs that you'll likely not have the displeasure of experiencing.

Im actually taking my chances and buying it as soon as it refreshes. Ill do a thread to review any bugs i experience. Ill do benchmarks and test it on gaming.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.