What's your oldest iMac still in service?

[thesimplelogic]

I wouldn't get a 13" MacBook Pro if I was going to use it as my primary portable. The screen is too small for my liking. Plus they don't have dedicated GPUs, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd much rather have a 15" because they do have the dedicated graphics option. The dedicated graphics would work for me because I want to run Final Cut Pro X, Logic Pro X and the Adobe Creative Cloud Suite on it. Also, when I want to play a game, I can. And I can do it well. There's a lot of attractive stuff on the Mac App Store but I can't really use any of it because it either won't work on my iMac because the application requires at least 10.8 or 10.9 or because my GPU is disabled and doesn't do anything now.

My HP Envy is a 15" laptop and with dedicated GPUs (It actually has two, but one is integrated) I would really be missing out on performance if I got something with an integrated GPU. It plays all my games very well, but I'd rather have a desktop for that expandability and the fact that it won't get nearly as hot as my HP laptop.

Yes, you said right when you said that the Surface Pro 3 is much improved from the previous Surface Pro devices. The screen is awesome, it feels really good to hold and drawing on it is really awesome, it's almost like pencil on paper. Even though MS says it can replace a laptop, and while it can, it can't replace mine because it won't have the same graphics capability that my laptop has.

I agree, I would love to have a 15'' as my main portable, however I need to have sometime that is very light, and while the 15'' is very light, a 13'' is just better for my needs. Nope, you're right, they do not have dedicated GPUs. It's not too bad however, as once I get the new iMac then that will be my main Logic/Final/Games machine. For what I will be required to do at school, a 13'' will do just fine.
(plus it'll probably run many, many times faster than my MacBook or iMac.)

Yes, it's a bit of a shame that the old Intel iMac's can't run 10.8+. I think it is because of the GPU (not powerful enough, but I might be wrong), as my Macbook has nearly the same specs as my iMac and is able to run Mavericks, and Yosemite I believe.

It often takes a few generations to get something 'right'. I think this was found with the iPad, iPhone - to be honest, with anything really. Not many manufacturers are able to get a perfect first run. They have to have time to either squeeze the bugs out or fix hardware I was not a fan of the Surface at first, however I do really like the Surface 3 and could see myself having one.

 

[ghboard2010]

My oldest iMac still in service. . .

Early April 2008 Penryn Core 2 Duo 2.8GHz / 2TB spinner / 4GB RAM running on SL 1068

 

[rei101]

I have a year 2000 Ruby slot load iMac that is still in use once a week for backups and compatibility building and testing. It has 1 GB RAM, a 120 GB disk, and an AirPort card. The machine runs OS/X 10.4.11 Tiger and uses DropBox to help synchronize files.

Compared to my Core i7 3.4 GHz quad Linux box, the iMac runs my C++ applications at 1/182 the speed -- but always gets the same results.

The old iMac does have some advantages over Apple's latest iMac models. The power switch is handily mounted on the front of the machine and it also serves as an run/sleep indicator lamp. The iMac also has two headphone jacks, not just one, and they're also front mounted. The twin speakers are good sized and aimed directly at the user. The USB ports are placed conveniently on the right side of the iMac for easy access. There are two FireWire ports, also on the right with the Ethernet port for easy access. There's an audio input jack in addition to the integrated microphone. There's an optical drive, also mounted on the front. The optical drive, the disk drive, the RAM, and the lithium battery can all be serviced with little difficulty or a return to Apple. The iMac keyboard has easily removed key caps for those like me who prefer a Dvorak key map. There's a built-in modem, a very handy feature in the Old Days and which can still be used today. With no fan, the machine is absolutely silent. A VGA port lets me mirror the display to a second monitor without the need for an adapter. And the iMac has a nice integrated handle for moving the machine. So Apple can do a good job when they want.

The hockey puck roller ball mouse was poor, but you can't have everything.

When technology was exiting =)

Apple needed to create great products in order to advance. Today they are just resizing.

Is like Hollywood in the way that they are not creating anything new, just revamping old movies. How many Batman, Superman and Star Wars are we going to keep watching???

 

[LOLZpersonok]

I agree, I would love to have a 15'' as my main portable, however I need to have sometime that is very light, and while the 15'' is very light, a 13'' is just better for my needs. Nope, you're right, they do not have dedicated GPUs. It's not too bad however, as once I get the new iMac then that will be my main Logic/Final/Games machine. For what I will be required to do at school, a 13'' will do just fine.
(plus it'll probably run many, many times faster than my MacBook or iMac.)

Yes, it's a bit of a shame that the old Intel iMac's can't run 10.8+. I think it is because of the GPU (not powerful enough, but I might be wrong), as my Macbook has nearly the same specs as my iMac and is able to run Mavericks, and Yosemite I believe.

It often takes a few generations to get something 'right'. I think this was found with the iPad, iPhone - to be honest, with anything really. Not many manufacturers are able to get a perfect first run. They have to have time to either squeeze the bugs out or fix hardware I was not a fan of the Surface at first, however I do really like the Surface 3 and could see myself having one.

The only reason that Apple cuts out older Macintoshes from updates even if they can run the new software is simply that people will feel compelled to upgrade, but sometimes for other reasons too. The MacBook Pros and iMacs from 2007 can run Mavericks (The name still confuses me) yet they still have the Core 2 Duos, though I think the GPUs in those models have something to do with it. I'm sure there is a hack that would make 10.8 or even 10.9 run on 2006 Core 2 Duo machines, sort of like with Logic Pro X, I bought it on a friend's iMac only to find that it wouldn't run on 10.7.5 (which is what my iMac runs), but I found that (only versions 10.0.0 and 10.0.1) could be made to run under 10.7.5.

Different people have different needs when it comes to computers. My dad has a computer with a triple core AMD processor, 12GB of RAM and a powerful NVIDIA GPU with 1GB of video memory, and all except for the processor are upgrades from its original specs. All he uses the computer for is email, occasional web browsing, banking and nothing else. All he would really need is a later generation PowerBook G4 at the very most. My mom is similar, only except she streams Netflix and plays Farmville. Her laptop is even more powerful than my dad's computer, a quad core i7, an even more powerful GPU with twice the video memory and expandability for up to 32GB of RAM.

Before I really discovered the Surface Pro 3, I figured a 15" MacBook would be the next thing I got. But now, it's the Surface. I could just run the Adobe Creative Cloud on my HP, and Logic Pro X performs quite well on my iMac anyways.

 

[thesimplelogic]

The only reason that Apple cuts out older Macintoshes from updates even if they can run the new software is simply that people will feel compelled to upgrade, but sometimes for other reasons too. The MacBook Pros and iMacs from 2007 can run Mavericks (The name still confuses me) yet they still have the Core 2 Duos, though I think the GPUs in those models have something to do with it. I'm sure there is a hack that would make 10.8 or even 10.9 run on 2006 Core 2 Duo machines, sort of like with Logic Pro X, I bought it on a friend's iMac only to find that it wouldn't run on 10.7.5 (which is what my iMac runs), but I found that (only versions 10.0.0 and 10.0.1) could be made to run under 10.7.5.

Different people have different needs when it comes to computers. My dad has a computer with a triple core AMD processor, 12GB of RAM and a powerful NVIDIA GPU with 1GB of video memory, and all except for the processor are upgrades from its original specs. All he uses the computer for is email, occasional web browsing, banking and nothing else. All he would really need is a later generation PowerBook G4 at the very most. My mom is similar, only except she streams Netflix and plays Farmville. Her laptop is even more powerful than my dad's computer, a quad core i7, an even more powerful GPU with twice the video memory and expandability for up to 32GB of RAM.

Before I really discovered the Surface Pro 3, I figured a 15" MacBook would be the next thing I got. But now, it's the Surface. I could just run the Adobe Creative Cloud on my HP, and Logic Pro X performs quite well on my iMac anyways.

That's very true, and it can be vice versa too. I know someone who uses a lot of hungry programs at one time, however he still insists on running an old BlackBook :roll eyes:

No name will ever be better than the big cat names.

It's interesting about the whole upgrade thing though - all the computers that could run Mountain Lion can still run Mavericks, and will still be able to run Yosemite - that does make me think that it is a combination of the two. I wonder if in the OS X version after Yosemite, if the 2007 iMacs will be dropped.

From what I've read and researched, supposedly it is due to the video cards... I'm not quite sure though.

 

[LOLZpersonok]

That's very true, and it can be vice versa too. I know someone who uses a lot of hungry programs at one time, however he still insists on running an old BlackBook :roll eyes:

No name will ever be better than the big cat names.

It's interesting about the whole upgrade thing though - all the computers that could run Mountain Lion can still run Mavericks, and will still be able to run Yosemite - that does make me think that it is a combination of the two. I wonder if in the OS X version after Yosemite, if the 2007 iMacs will be dropped.

From what I've read and researched, supposedly it is due to the video cards... I'm not quite sure though.

Back to the topic of naming versions of the operating system after cats, I actually thought of something sort of like a parody: "Mac OS X House Cat". Type it into Google Images, you'll get just that.

I'm sure the 2007 Macintoshes will be discontinued soon, they're "old" according to Apple.

 

[thesimplelogic]

Back to the topic of naming versions of the operating system after cats, I actually thought of something sort of like a parody: "Mac OS X House Cat". Type it into Google Images, you'll get just that.

I'm sure the 2007 Macintoshes will be discontinued soon, they're "old" according to Apple.

I would have preferred that over places in California.. Oh well

Absolutely. They'll lose support fairly quickly I would think.

 

[LOLZpersonok]

I would have preferred that over places in California.. Oh well

Absolutely. They'll lose support fairly quickly I would think.

Is Mavericks a place? I know Yosemite is. I still like the big cat names though. It seems better to me, but oh well.

I've never understood Apple's method of labeling their old products as vintage. As far as I'm concerned a Power Mac G5 (even a late G4) is not vintage, especially when said machine has two dual core processors and expandability to 16GB of RAM.

 

[thesimplelogic]

Is Mavericks a place? I know Yosemite is. I still like the big cat names though. It seems better to me, but oh well.

I've never understood Apple's method of labeling their old products as vintage. As far as I'm concerned a Power Mac G5 (even a late G4) is not vintage, especially when said machine has two dual core processors and expandability to 16GB of RAM.

AFAIK, yes. I'm not an American, but I think it is :roll eyes: I wanted to suggest Ragdoll, or Burmese, but for some reason I don't think those would have been selected

Yeah, I agree. It goes for lots of Apple's machines - I overheard the other day someone calling the non-retina 15" MBP vintage - that machine is faster than the MBAs now! Not to mention it is about 2 years old.

 

[LOLZpersonok]

Yeah, I agree. It goes for lots of Apple's machines - I overheard the other day someone calling the non-retina 15" MBP vintage - that machine is faster than the MBAs now! Not to mention it is about 2 years old.

I think it's either because of how quickly Apple releases their new products and updates them speeds up their life times very quickly, or it could be a marketing technique, or both.

This PowerBook G4 I'm using right now isn't vintage. It is on the verge of obsolescence, but it isn't vintage. It is still very usable even today. It isn't massively fast, but it works.

 

[Ih8reno]

I only have PPC iMacs (so far) and take them all out from time to time to surf with or play music and old games.

1. 1999 266mhz iMac blueberry (bought for my gf as she loves the color it seems)

2. 500mhz 2001 iMac Snow - upped the ram to 1gb and put in an 80gb hdd and it runs so much quieter now

3. iMac G4 17 inch 700mhz 1gb ram with apple pro speakers.

4. iMac G5 17 inch Ambient light sensor with 2gb of ram, runs smoothly and looks great