Returned iMac 5K, Considering buying MP 5,1

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by pierat, Apr 10, 2017.

  1. pierat macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    #1
    I had an iMac 5K, it was great! It had a problem with strange colors and artifacts on shutdown. On day 14, I decided to return it rather than have a brand new computer repaired. I have since found out it is likely a software issue with Sierra and probably not a hardware issue. So now I am debating if I want to just buy the same machine again, or go with something totally different.
    The machine I bought, and would buy again was a 27in, 4.0ghz i7, R9 M35 2GB with 1TB flash. My most demanding needs are for business, and they include: processing RAW photos with Lightroom and editing with Photoshop, technical design with Illustrator and Microsoft Office Suite products for word processing and Excel spreadsheets. Beyond that, I also run a few applications on a Parallels Windows VM. The iMac seemed to be able to handle all of this with ease. I do not play games or do anything with video editing.
    The problem is, I am starting to dislike how disposable Macs have become. That 5K iMac is so difficult to open and future expandability is pretty much none other than peripherals. I have had Macs since the llc and Macintosh days, and this is the first time that I have started to shop around for a Windows machine instead of buying the next model Mac. In the past, I was always tied to Macs because I had a lot invested into Adobe Creative Suite. Now, I am still running CS3, so beyond ready to upgrade to CC. Switching to Windows wouldn't be a big problem financially. But I am really comfortable on Mac OS, changing would be a difficult learning curve. This brought me to start looking at the older Mac Pros.

    I have spent a couple days reading up on the 5,1, and it seems like it can be configured to outperform the 5K imac for less money than the 5K(without a 5K display, but that's acceptable). I was looking at a 6, 8 or even 12 core 3.46 Westmere. Geekbench scores are higher than the iMac 5k on the 12 core machine, but single core scores are around half that of the 5K. This is where I am wondering if the 5,1 is a good choice or not. I know my way around Macs, but I am really confused by things like performance of processors and graphic cards. I know that some applications use multiple cores and some don't. Also, I know that while my older version of Adobe CS relies a lot on processor, the new CC I think utilizes the GPU better. So I would look to get a decent GPU if I go with a cMP. I have found some evidence that suggests anything beyond 6 cores doesn't provide much performance boost with Photoshop, but that might have been with older versions. I know that Microsoft Office Suite does not have multi-core support at all, and I don't know how much performance will take a hit on that. I use some pretty large spreadsheets with lot of formulas. One other thing I was not able to find out is, if you have two identically clocked processors, do a 4 core and 6 core perform equally on a single core? Or do you take a hit on single core performance when you add or subtract cores?

    I'd like to know if anyone has any thoughts that will help me decide which way to go on this decision. I just don't want to be disappointed by purchasing an older cMP and finding it doesn't perform well enough. There is nowhere to go test it out, I just have to buy it and try it out. That feels too risky for me because I need it to work for my business. I am also well aware that I can spend far more money on the cMP getting it to perform as well as the 5K. But a least I can do it in stages and I have the option to upgrade components instead of having to buy the iMac configured with more to accommodate for my future needs.

    Thanks for taking time to read my long post. Any advice is welcomed.
     
  2. slughead macrumors 68040

    slughead

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #2
    Obviously how long you can wait is important.

    What about running Mac OS in a VM and buying a windows machine?
     
  3. pierat thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    #3
    Why would I have to wait? I can buy either the 5K again or the cMP tomorrow if I choose to do so. I am not playing the waiting game for the new iMac. The rumored features don't really appeal to me that much, especially if it is going to cost a lot more. The only advantage I see to waiting is that the 2015 5K will be cheaper when the new iMacs come out. I can't justify waiting that long to save a few hundred dollars, though.

    Running Mac in a VM is a very clever idea that I hadn't thought of. However, if I were to go to Windows, I would likely be moving to all Windows applications and wouldn't need Mac OS any more. Wouldn't the performance be lousy running Mac in a VM anyway? Also, isn't it against the EULA to run Mac OS on non-Apple hardware? Or has that changed? I did consider a Hackintosh, but for the same reason I just mentioned and the problem with reliability, I tossed that idea aside.
     
  4. slughead macrumors 68040

    slughead

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #4
    There are a lot of people who run OS X in a VM, you could ask them about performance. I'm just wondering about your hardware needs and maybe a ryzen x1800 might be all you need (you'd need a VM to make it work with mac)--super cheap stop-gap until Apple decides what they're doing with the Mac pro.

    Decide what you want and take a look. And yes, it violates the EULA to run it in VM or a hackintosh. I don't think Apples gone after anyone yet though, and it's been years that people have been doing it.
     
  5. flat five macrumors 603

    flat five

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Location:
    newyorkcity
    #5
    TLDR
    get the imac
    cMP is soon to be retired..
    it's likely you won't be able to use latest macOS within a couple of years.
     
  6. ixxx69 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Location:
    United States
    #6
    For your needs, buy the iMac 5K (again), or if you want a laptop, a 2016 15" MBP. Even the 2013 MP, but if you like the iMac, that's still the better option IMO.

    Do not buy the cMP. It's not the computer for you. It will be much slower for almost everything you listed.

    Or go the Windows route if you don't mind using Windows.
     
  7. pierat thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    #7
    Ah, I see what you meant by recommending to wait. You meant for the new Mac Pro. I should have mentioned that isn't really an option due to the unknown length of the wait and the likely very high cost of the new MP. I was considering cMP or iMac 5K.

    Your recommendation of running a VM is intriguing. The license issue for me is mostly about support. I need my computer to work and I need to be able to pay someone to fix it if I need to. I may also need to be able to get support on hardware I add on to the machine. Without a supported OS, I am limited to forum support. Although, the Hackintosh community may be even more supportive than any manufacturer would be anywah, but I don't know. Anyway, I am interested in the idea of both hackintosh or VM . I will look into it, for sure.

    That is an issue, but I am still running 10.8 on my current machine anyway. I tend to just stick with what works. I don't have an iPhone or regularly use my ipad, so I haven't even cared about the new OS features that do handoff and things like that. I am a long time consumer of Apple computers, but the other devices are not a necessity for me. So if it would work for 4 years or so, even on the current OS, I'd probably be okay with that. My only issue with not doing OS updates is for security, not so much for features.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 10, 2017 ---
    I would love a MBP, that's all I have been using since the first one came out. But with the resource intensive applications these days, the MBP doesn't seem to have the power for multitasking like it used to. Plus, I wasn't involved in photography until more recently, hence the desire to switch to a desktop. Besides that, I don't need the portability these days and you get much more bang per buck with desktops.
     
  8. flat five macrumors 603

    flat five

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Location:
    newyorkcity
    #8
    oh.. ok then.
    scratch my point off the list of things to consider. : )
     
  9. pierat thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    #9
    But then ixxx69 said it will be slower for everything I do. So the inability to upgrade even if I wanted to AND slower performance, we'll that's not sounding good.

    All over the Web I see people saying how great the 5,1 is. You can have same processor speed as current models, lots of cores if you need, a huge selection of GPU's are available compared to the one logic board you get on an iMac or MBP, drive bay's galore, PCIe options left and right. Even geekbench scores that surpass the 5k i7. It sounded so good. What are all these people raving about if it's so much slower?
     
  10. flat five macrumors 603

    flat five

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Location:
    newyorkcity
    #10
    they're just old dudes raving.. that's all.

     
  11. Chancha macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    #11
    The 5,1 has the "potential" to be powerful, but it requires specific aftermarket components, and the user fine tuning it to be so. And even then, like your research shows, the single core performance is not catching up to the iMac 5K with its 6700k which is a really decent chip. The main advantage of cMP is the case having SATA bays and some PCI slots for a large combination of hard drives, SATA SSD, or even PCI SSD, which is doable with iMac but it involves expansive TB2 external drives / enclosures. And with iMac you obviously also get a 5k monitor, which is great value if you need it.

    Some Adobe CC apps do take advantage of GPU, but they are only significant with CUDA nVidia cards. For 2D centric workflows, probably only Lightroom real time adjustment rendering and some Photoshop filters would see a difference.

    Single core performance in brute clock speed dictates almost 90% of the computing that you described you will do. Tasks like Lightroom batch RAW processing, preview generation, and exporting obviously benefit from multi-threading but your research was also correct, there is a diminishing return after the 4th core, which the iMac 6700k already has and it even can overclock (turbo boost or whatever Apple calls it).

    By the way, in the 2 weeks of having the iMac, didn't you test CS3 on it, and see how good (or bad) it runs? I got some older Mac Mini and MacBook Pros running CS4, and when upgrading them to Sierra, CS4 became unstable, or some apps off the suite flat out refuse to launch. If you intend to stick with CS3 then the cMP may be a legit choice as it is a computer from the same era, which you can run 10.6.8 on it and it is going to be rock solid. Whereas the iMac can't be installed with anything older than El Cap, which pretty much limits you to CS6 or CC.
     
  12. magic carpet, Apr 11, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2017

    magic carpet macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2017
    Location:
    Europe
    #12
    Actually I think recent MBPs (2014 + 2015, 2016) are, if you take the 15" model with discrete GPU and 16GB ram, fine for a lot of photography tasks. Of course you have to hook them up to an external monitor, for photography an EIZO monitor is great, external keyboard, etc...
    I think the performance is just fine for the processing of small picture formats (Nikon, Canon, Fujifilm, Sony...), for medium format stuff you are better off with a real workstation machine (it works with a MBP, but can be slow with recent 60-100MP files).
    Of course the MBP will turn up it's fans (loud!) when processing lots (hundreds) of RAWs, but it will get the job done in reasonable time. I don't have an iMac but I can imagine the iMac would turn up its fans as well performing such a task, the iMac would be faster though (...ca. 2,5ghz i7 vs. ca. 4ghz i7...)!
    In Photoshop you can easily work with files up to 2GB with the MBP without any trouble.
    It does work with bigger files as well, but performance won't be perfect anymore all the time and chances are good that the MBP will turn up its fans (which can be annoying).

    So, if you aren't a hardcore 24/7 photoshop user for a living the MBP can be just fine for photography tasks.
    Obviously the iMac will be faster, but you can't carry it around like the MBP ; )


    edit:
    regarding the 5.1: it is a great machine, served me well for a lot of years, but:
    For a BUSINESS I would never ever get a 5+ year old machine which most likely already got heavily used by someone else. Let alone the fiddling around...
     
  13. Chicane-UK macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    #13
    I think based on your requirements, you should just buy another 5K iMac. Think you got unlucky with your previous one. The 5.1 is getting old now, and you're going to be at the point of needing to be ready to pick up second hand / used parts to repair it, and as you say you need it for your business and don't want to play the waiting game on upgrades to the hardware (as, being Apple, it could be any time) then it's the only logical conclusion - assuming staying with macOS is your only option :)
     
  14. pierat thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    #14
    Chancha- thanks for the great response. Your estimate of 90% of what I do being single core operations is very helpful. It makes me think the iMac is a good choice. Ir at leaat that the cMP is not a good choice for me. The expansion with peripherals you decribed won't be much of an issue as I have a NAS and several portable drives that I use, but they are pretty much just for clone backups. As long as I have a 1TB built in, I can have enough free space to be comfortable and I won't need to worry about adding on a ton of perioherals any time soon.

    No, I didn't install CS3 because I didn't even think it was compatible with Sierra. I opted to install CC as a trial and it ran fine the whole time I had the iMac.

    Magic carpet- I did look at the MBP after returning the iMac. I bought two generations of MBP when they offer the 17in models. If they still made a 17in, I would have a hard time passing one up. But with a 15in, I definitely would want a desktop display very quickly, which adds cost.

    The main reasons I dismissed the MBP are
    the slower processor and issue of battery cycles plus destroying the battery if left plugged in most of the time. Every MBP I've owned became unusable without the power cable after a couple years. This makes me lean towards desktop since I don't really need a portable.

    When you say the MBP handles files up to 2GB well, does that limit your ability to multitasking with other applications at the same time? 2GB is more than enough for almost everything I do, so that doesn't sound bad. But, with the slower (still very good) processor, I worry that batch processing and other operations will be slower with the MBP.

    Even though I do photography for work, it is not my primary business. I just do the photography and marketing for my business. So most of the time I am not really doing photo editing, but I am doing emails, word processing, spreadsheets, accounting, and lots of research, usually with massive amounts of tabs open in Safari. So maybe the MBP would be good enough. I was really going to miss the ability to take my computer with me to do tethered photography outside of my office. But that is only something I need to do every couple months. So I can either eyefi to my ipad for review or just unplug the iMac and take it home or wherever I am shooting.

    Chicane-UK- Yes, I think I got one io a small percentage of machine's with that problem. Another one likely won't have it, and if it does, I don't think it is a big deal since learning what inhale about it. No, I don't want to have a hard time finding replacementioned parts. I think that alone is a good reason not to go with the 5,1. I have noticed that some parts, especially processors for that machine were once very inexpensive. But as they become older, they are becoming harder to get and prices are more like that of modern processors. So similar money for older tech. But the ability to be able to change those parts out myself is appealing, and possibly cheaper in the long run. Then again, how long can I keep an already 7 year old computer? Now that I think about it, probably not long enough to see any saving in cost, as I may end up selling it before I have to swap any components anyway.

    Flat-five- funny video. 30 seconds was enough, but it gave me a good laugh!

    Ok, so I guess I am leaning toward going back to the iMac, but a hackintosh or just going to Windows is still an option. I'll do some more research in the coming days and will let.you guys know what I decide. Thanks everyone !
     
  15. magic carpet macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2017
    Location:
    Europe
    #15
    From what you are describing I think the performance a 2014-2016 MBP would give you would be just fine for you.
    The recent MBPs with 16GB ram and GPU have a whole other level of performance then MBPs from 2011 and earlier (especially when compared to the Core2Duo machines back in the day).

    For me multitasking with a high end 2014 MBP works just fine: Photoshop, Indesign, Mail, Safari, Spotify,...
    So no problem here while working on 2GB psd/psb files and having other apps running as well.

    But as you say, for serious working you will need a desktop display - which adds cost. And at that point going with a iMac maybe is the more convenient solution.

    However, if you don't need a portable computer I think it is always better to take a look at real desktops. There is no point in paying the extra bucks you have to spend for "portable" when you don't need portable.
    On the other hand I think that the MBPs are strong enough to make a very fine "desktop replacement" when hooked up to an external display, properly set up with external keyboard etc...
     
  16. pierat thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    #16
    I was spiking my 4.0ghz cpu in the iMac up to around 75% with just some simple photoshop testing. That makes me wonder what it would have been on a 2.9ghz MBP. But these were spikes, not sustained usage, so maybe it's not a problem.

    So I am doing research on hackintosh, MBP and iMac now. Last option I really hate is jumping ship to Windows, and I think with the other 3 options available, I don't even have to consider it.
     
  17. Chancha, Apr 11, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2017

    Chancha macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    #17
    You are welcome, I am interested in your use case as it's quite similar to mine.

    If you don't specifically need the cMP expansion options then it provides very little edge in performance if at all. And yes for a modern Adobe workflow I really wouldn't recommend using anything pre-CS6. I myself keep a few machines around, with older ones like MBP 2011 on 10.6.8 and CS4, Mac Mini on 10.8.5 and CS6, and then an up to date MBP 2015 on Sierra and CC, so I got all legacy and current client tasks covered. If I must run only one version then it is undoubtedly the CC, for obvious reasons. Remaining on just one older version is only a good idea if your workflow and output is self-serving, and the output never need to cooperate with the next guy.

    Photoshop and Lightroom are both coded to be able to run smoothly on older machines, since Adobe is well aware of their wide range of audience who may still lag on older hardware. However, the methodology of how PS scratching and caching, and LR catalog preview work, means you can get a very significant performance edge with one very fast drive. The iMac if configured with an SSD (not fusion), is going to have speed that only is achievable with PCIe SSD on cMP.

    I was in a similar situation last November where I was deciding between the MBP or the iMac. Originally was hoping the MBP2016 would be the right choice but it under-delivered, I was quite close to choose the maxed out iMac 5K, but ended up with the maxedout MBP15" 2015 instead, because:

    1) the iMac is a very wonderful machine BUT there have been reports of retina resolution being too hard for Adobe apps to handle, the number of pixels present on one screen drags down Lightroom full screen performance;

    2) I had not very perfect experience with iMacs in the past, an 20" G5 with its logic board / capacitors fried, an earlier white intel one at work which throttled to no end, etc.

    3) as nice as the screen that Apple ships the iMac with, it is permanently glued to the Mac and I cannot use it double duty for other devices I have, where having multiple inputs is a standard feature on external monitors that are often as good if not better. I already got a Dell UP2716D which covers ARGB 100%, factory calibrated and is 2K with good response time. Later this year will invest on a 10bit HDR 4k monitor for multimedia / PS4 PRO.

    4) The MBP15" is not as powerful as the iMac but for the Adobe centric tasks that I will throw at it, I can make do with the difference. I got the 1TB SSD version which is blazing fast, which as I said that is the bottle neck of LR workflow. The built in screen is not as nice without DCI-P3 but I got the Dell for color accuracy, and when on its own the 15" is max at 1920x1200 scaled which I find perfect for lap use. Also obviously, it is a portable, I don't shoot on location but it definitely helps if I have the option to bring the machine with me to a conference or vacation.

    I think I am one of the many who wished Apple would make a "Mac X", more than a Mini, less than a Mac Pro, but headless without a screen that I don't want to deal with on an iMac. Their refusal to make something in that line, and somehow kept improving their MBP models that it actually falls a bit into that gap, with portability as an extra. For pretty much the same price I found the MBP suited my case the most.
     
  18. Chicane-UK macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    #18
    https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...sh-and-selling-my-mini.1729810/#post-19049989

    This was a post I made 3 years ago, but I have wanted Apple to produce the same kind of system now probably for the better part of a decade. A sort of Mac Pro Junior, if you will. As time has gone by, and Macs have become more 'sealed' solutions, this looks more and more like it's just never going to happen. I never understood why they won't diversify on the desktop hardware and just make more of it. It clearly makes money, even if it doesn't make as much as the iPhone/iPad universe, surely profit is profit?!
     
  19. Chancha macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    #19
    I never understood why they didn't make the Mini better, the 2014 could have easily kept quad core i7 and it wouldn't really cannibalize iMac or even MP sales as it only marginally improves the machine from the nerfed state. The 2012 Mini while still a very viable option for some scenarios as judged by the 2nd hand market price, its ext. display ability, best I/O being just TB1, chip being just Ivy Bridge QM etc make it less of a performer than an MBP nowadays.

    Whatever Apple does with the mMP or the iMac Pro, I seriously hope they provide some intermediate models for us to buy, otherwise I am forced to make a Windows switch which is getting increasingly likely every day.
     
  20. flat five macrumors 603

    flat five

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Location:
    newyorkcity
    #20
    to me, it's the spikes that are important..

    using this exact instance you described above, it's likely the slower chip would hiccup right there and maybe bring up the beachball for 1/2 second.. which, while not necessarily the type of issue to be concerned with regarding how much work you can accomplish in an hour, it's still annoying and brings down the overall user experience (again, to me.. not a hard-lined rule).

    always get the fastest cpu available at time of purchase.. that's basically my only hardware rule. (again, my opinion / personal experience only.. ymmv)
     
  21. js2704 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    #21
    My son's a professional photographer and had this exact dilemma. In the end he went with a MacBook Pro and an external monitor which he is planning to keep when / if he adds a desktop.

    The MBP is of course a bit slower than the iMac 5k, but it does mean that he has his choice of monitors - depending on budget photographers seem to recommend Dell, NEC or Eizo (in ascending budget order). This would then leave you open to being able to buy a new Mac Pro when it comes out next year.
     
  22. pierat thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    #22
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only SSD option for an iMac 5K is the Fusion drive. When opting for flash storage, as opposed to SSD, you get a PCIe 3.0 x4 flash blade SM951. The SSD of the Fusion drive is fast, but write speeds are about double with the flash storage. I'm pretty sure this same PCIe blade will run in slot 4 of a 5,1 with the same performance as the iMac 5K.


    See, this is part of the reason I am turned off by the iMac, or Apple in general. Screen is glued on, okay, I can live with that. Need to take screen off to get to the guts, not so okay with that. Apple is taking a function follows form approach to building their machines. The current Mac Pro being another perfect example of that. If the machines could last for 5+ years, I suppose it would matter less. I really don't see why a computer has to be worthless after 5 years though. Either way, after 5 years, all of my Macs are tired. I currently have a 2009 MBP 17" that won't even turn on. It worked fine other than the battery that wouldn't hold a charge when I put it away last. Left if for a couple years and now it won't even turn on. I also have a 2011-ish Mac Mini that runs 24/7, mostly for Kodi and is a media center for the house. It runs pretty darn well, but I don't demand much of it other than playing movies. If I tried to use it as a workstation, I know it would not be up to the task. Although, it might work better than the 15" 2009 MBP I'm on now. This thing has been running badly for years. The slightest use sometimes kicks the CPU up over 100C, maxes out the fan and brings everything to a screeching halt. It's clean inside, I maintain them, so that's not the issue. Yes, it's 8 years old now, but it hasn't run well for many years. Finally, my 2012 17" MBP is my favorite of them all, but I fried the logic board with liquid damage. Considering fixing it, but it's been out of order so long, I don't think I will be happy with it after repairing it. But I have all these computers, and they are all just about worthless both to use or sell. Building a PC from scratch lets you upgrade components as needed and it seems you can really stretch it out for a long time. I'd rather sell or toss out a GPU and a hard drive every now and then, and upgrade a processor and or motherboard when I can, rather than an entire machine. With the MBP or iMac, your display is part of the unit and it becomes very expensive to replace considering the display depreciates greatly and you can't sell the whole machine for vey much money after 5 years. It makes me feel like the only way for those of us with a budget to keep current is to sell after 2 years while the machine still has enough value to put towards a replacement. But having to study the releases every 2 years is time consuming and seems like a big job. This is why I am considering a Hackintosh, but I have not done enough research to decide anything about that yet. Then, they compound the problem with the fact that the iMac has trouble driving the 5K display. However, since the newest version of Lightroom came out, full screen performance is supposed to be better on 5K displays, so long as you have a GPU that can take advantage of the acceleration. I had a 2GB GPU in my iMac. Not sure it was enough or not, I didn't have enough time to really push it or compare to anything else. If I go with the iMac again, I might consider the 4GB GPU to be safe.

    It seems there are a few reasons:
    1) Keeps their manufacturing costs down. Adding another machine would be a huge expense and risk.
    2) The majority of Apple consumers are average users. Another machine would confuse them. Apple already has so much overlap in performance between their lower to mid level models. Another machine would make it more complex for average folks. Plus, if the Mac Jr. (the name makes me want McDonalds) were highly configurable, the gap between MBP and iMac to MP would be closed and MP sales would crash.
    3) Apple has such a small share of the PC market. If we don't keep buying computers regularly, they will lose money. Less sealed desktops would stop the regular machine turnover they have forced us into.

    I think the Mac Mini was just a marketing issue. When I bought my Mini, I didn't know anything about them. I had to do a bunch of research just to see what I was getting. The other units seem to be advertised better and the laptop or iMac is easier for most people to set up due to the built in display. I bought my Mac Mini for a media center only, so I just wanted a computer with HDMI, and the Mac Mini was a good fit. Prior to that, I had been running a sub-$100 Pentium PC for my media. The Mini was a nice fit for me there, but I would never run it as a workstation.

    You're right, that's why I am leary of the MBP. I think they look great, but maybe not for what I need. Then, the issues with the batteries makes it more complicated. If the battery were removable like they used to be, I might consider it more seriously. One more problem of this sealed technology.

    If your son is a Pro photographer, he probably demands a lot more than I do, or at least he demands it more often than I do. I don't do photo work every day, so the cumulative lost time in processing power wouldn't add up to a huge loss for me. I have considered that greatly. But I know I will want a new one in about 4 years at the most, and buying a $3500 laptop every 4 years just isn't practical for me. I would stretch it out to 6 years and be desperate like I am now!
     
  23. now i see it macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    #23
    Not true

    All of CS3 works with El Capitan.
     
  24. richinaus macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    #24
    If your son is a Pro photographer, he probably demands a lot more than I do, or at least he demands it more often than I do. I don't do photo work every day, so the cumulative lost time in processing power wouldn't add up to a huge loss for me. I have considered that greatly. But I know I will want a new one in about 4 years at the most, and buying a $3500 laptop every 4 years just isn't practical for me. I would stretch it out to 6 years and be desperate like I am now![/QUOTE]

    no disrespect, but maybe you shouldn't be an Apple customer then if you can't afford $3500 every 4 years. Apple computers are expensive, sealed and difficult to upgrade and I dont think this will change any time soon.

    PC's are way cheaper and easier to upgrade, so if I was in your position I would go down that route. Windows is fine.
     
  25. pierat thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    #25
    I don't feel disrespected by your statement, nor am I trying to start a fight. I didn't say I can't afford the computers, I said it doesn't seem practical to have to buy a new computer every 4 years. For a laptop, I get it, any manufacturer is going to be the same, almost impossible to upgrade. But I don't need the portability, hence the reason I bought an iMac. With that said, if I need a portable, I'm buying a MBP. For a desktop, though, even an all-in-one, why should I have to replace it every 3-5 years? You hit the nail on the head, Windows PCs are way cheaper and easier to upgrade. These PCs have the same hardware, sometimes better than Apple's. How can everyone else do it cheaper and why shouldn't we hope Apple would be able to do the same? If Apple still made a superior product, it would be worth the cost. Their laptops probably are the best still, if you want to run Mac OS, but the desktops are not. Unfortunately, the desktop computers today are no better than their counterparts. The problem is that in recent years, Apple has gone the route of function follows form. For those who accept that, keep buying Apple computers. I have been using Apple PCs for almost 30 years. The fact is, Apple has veered from its founding principles. Your statement that maybe I shouldn't be an Apple customer if I can't afford a $3500 computer every 4 years is kind of saddening. I don't think Apple feels that way, but if they do, then I wouldn't want to be an Apple customer anyway.
     

Share This Page