I wasn't sure if this post belongs in this forum or the other Mac forums, as it is a comparative question. I'm under the impression that, in terms of hardware longevity, desktops tended to be better bets than laptops. (By longevity, I'm not talking about obsolescence, but rather about having rugged parts that don't break down or wear out). However, I realized that might just be a mistaken impression. So, my question--when it comes to Mac laptops versus Mac desktops, does anyone have a source of hard statistics about repairs and break-downs? Is one category--laptop or desktop--generally known to be "tougher" or "longer lasting" than the other, if we disregard questions of obsolescence and focus only on breakdowns and repair costs? Full disclosure: I'm a Mac fan who owns both types, but I'm considering a cheap new purchase as a secondary computer. My old 2009 iMac at work is getting long in the tooth, but my employer doesn't want to replace it with another Mac. However, I could buy a brand new iMac computer out of pocket with minimal stats on the cheap, or I could transfer my work files from the 2009 iMac onto a 2013 MacPro laptop I personally already own. To make up my mind, and hoping to minimize future repair costs, I'm trying to decide if it's a better bet to spend money on a new (but cheapest configured) iMac now, or risk simply stuffing files onto an already aging MacPro laptop. If Mac laptops have a shorter life because they break down before Mac desktops do, I'd rather go with a brand new desktop. If it's basically a wash, and the two are roughly equal in lifespan, I'd rather save the cash now and simply transfer my work apps over to the 2013 MacPro laptop for now.