If you buy the 2014 base model, it's more likely that people will laugh in your face than it's likely you'll get a chance to brag about it. Pretend that the 2014 base model doesn't exist.
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.
Why shouldn't I order the base 2014 iMac?
- Thread starter BA Baracus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you buy the 2014 base model, it's more likely that people will laugh in your face than it's likely you'll get a chance to brag about it. Pretend that the 2014 base model doesn't exist.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the OP. A base 11" MBA is basically the same as the new base iMac, but you're getting a fast SSD and portability. I used a 2010 11" MBA as my main computer for two years in this way and it worked great. For the same cost, an MBA and external display will give you everything the base iMac has and a bit more.
Last edited:
The guy said he wants an iMac. That rules out MBA, etc. A Mac Mini configuration could be good as well but it wasn't what he was asking about.
There really isn't a better iMac for the money for him unless he's okay with going refurb. That is a personal decision I won't even get into debating here. I am sure people feel very strongly on one side of that fence in particular. It doesn't matter though. How the OP feels about it is what matters.
I don't know what you mean about an awkwardly balanced amount of RAM for the CPU/HDD. Currently and for the immediate future at the least, eight gigs is standard and ideal. He doesn't need more and he isn't likely to anytime soon.
Your predictions about lifespan are purely guesses. At the time it was new, would you have predicted a nine year useful lifespan for his previous machine?
The hard disk is not going to magically slow down in two years. I am not sure where you are getting that from. It is what it is until it breaks. Unfortunately, SSDs are subject to degradation over time as well. I have not seen any data comparing longevity of traditional HDs to SSDs myself, perhaps because it is still somewhat early to really have much data to go by. That said, it is known that SSDs do degrade. I would not trust one with precious data any more than a traditional spinning drive. Hopefully they will last longer but they are going to break down too. If you can link to some credible comparative studies that would be a very interesting read for more than just myself here I am sure.
The low end iMac is a budget machine and so of course not all its parts are as fast, etc. as the next model up. Some people want the budget machine, the budget price and are okay with that. I think sometimes this is what people wrestle with when asked about such decisions. As I said, I would never buy one of these for me but that has nothing to do with what this guy wants and needs.
As for value, I won't argue with you that the machine is expensive but when it comes to Apple products, what else is new? The quality of this entry level system is such that Apple is willing to stand behind it for up to three years if you opt for AppleCare so I presume they are pretty sure they are going to hold up well. Add in the other standard Apple goodness: OS X, the useful included apps, etc. and it is better than maybe you are giving it credit for.
One last thing, a two hundred dollar price difference may seem like pocket change to some who would in turn think going at least next model up is a no-brainer but that isn't true across the board. Apple didn't introduce a new budget model for nothing. There's a market for these and you can be sure they did some research before bothering to design, build and start selling a system to that market. The thing is, that market may not be a lot of folks here.
A dual core CPU is going to perform the same in two different systems independent of other components including the hard drive.
All 21.5" iMacs have the 5400 RPM HD standard. Here is the options:
Configurable to 1TB Fusion Drive or 256GB or 512GB of flash storage.
These will cost more money which the OP doesn't want to spend. To even have those options, he has to spend another two hundred bucks and then more still for the option itself.
----------
Well, let's say he doesn't care about portability and wants a desktop. The SSD would be nice but he'd have to spend a hundred more dollars to get a 256 drive or half the space he'd have if he was okay with a desktop and a slower drive that has double the capacity.
I'm guessing he wants a desktop since that is what he was asking about. So I don't know how a more expensive notebook really helps him here.
----------
Okay. This I hadn't thought of. What other people think can be very important sometimes and nobody likes to be laughed at. I guess if the computer is kept hidden in a home office not too many people will find out about it though so that should help.
You can probably relate to this I think. I recently got a new iPhone. The carrier offered a special deal to me as part of an arrangement with my ISP who sells Internet and Cable television. As usual with these things, there was choices to be made. Well, I knew I wanted the iPhone versus other phones but... there was the fancy new one with more storage space, etc. that I could get or I could get an iPhone 4S with less storage for free. In a perfect world money would be no issue and I would simply always buy the best but no! So I happily settled for the 4S because it is still a very nice iPhone and I feel fortunate to have one.
My advice to you is to just get the model you wanted and enjoy the savings. It's a nice computer. It is an Apple Macintosh after all. I think you'll love the new one compared to the old timer you've been using and be happy with it. I think you'll also enjoy the new software it comes with. I am glad you can get the AppleCare for it. That is great. Honestly, for the uses you describe that computer will be just fine. If for some reason technology advances such that you need another one in five years you will still have gotten a very good value. Nobody can predict that stuff anyway.
Whatever you decide, I hope it all turns out well and you enjoy the new system.
I agree that he said he wanted an iMac. I don't understand why that means I cannot recommend another option. If his thread was titled "I am getting a baseline iMac, deal with it", then I would agree with your point. This is not the case.
I will admit that I am guessing the lifespan of the machine. I do not think that it is unreasonable to assume a more powerful machine will last longer than a less powerful machine though. This assumes no part failure, with lifespan defined as the point where the computer stops functioning as you intend it to.
I didn't say the HDD would slow down. The software will become more RAM intensive over time, and the HDD will begin paging more and more often. The iMac as a whole will slow down. I completely agree that SSDs and HDDs both degrade over time. I was merely commenting on the fact that SSDs are less affected by paging. I personally believe that having an SSD is more important than RAM for consumer tasks. There seems to be an ideological rift over this issue, so I would be happy to discuss it if you want to PM me about it.
When I said that the machine was expensive, that was relative to similarly priced Apple computers. Expensive is relative, and I think when a machine is expensive in comparison to similar Apple computers, it is pretty expensive. This accounts for all the software and other Apple goodies. Again, I don't think the parts are going to fail any sooner than another Mac's would, I just don't think they will be very useful after a few years, even if they are functioning properly.
There was no $200 difference. We were recommending he get a refurbished model for the same exact price. I don't see why there is any harm in recommending that option. The whole point of the thread, as the OP stated, was to explain why he shouldn't buy the model he is looking at. There are many reasons, some of which he may disagree with. It doesn't mean we shouldn't share them. If you want to provide reasons why he should get the baseline iMac, I would be happy to consider them. Tell me why a baseline 11" MBA with a 24" IPS display would be a worse option. Tell me why a refurbished model for the same price would be a worse option. As of right now, the only argument I have heard is "personal preference". I think there are objective benefits and costs for each of those decisions, assuming equal cost. Once we get past subjective arguments, I am all ears.
Matt
That isn't how subsidized phone plans work. Because you locked in to pay for the phone over 2 years, you essentially paid $350-$600 extra for your phone depending on the plan. This is not to say that you should have purchased the shiniest phone possible. If you had not locked into a contract, you could have bought a new 16GB iPhone 5 for the price you essentially paid for your iPhone 4S, or you could have purchased an iPhone 4S for $200-$300. Sometimes, the object that looks the cheapest is not the best deal around.
Matt
I was thinking just the same, your current iMac has almost 10 years, I do not believe the new cheap iMac will last that long. It will be good for 2 years but browsers are sucking a lot of resources and is better to have a platform that will handle the technology of 2017 as well.
I have a 12" Powebook from 2004 up and running and I know what you are talking about. But my 12" PB was the top of that line.
I will suggest you to spend the extra $200 and play safe from today.
Sorry, I did not mean to offend you.
About hard disk speed you said this: "but after 2 years it would start to slow, if only because of the HDD"
I disagree that paging out to disk is going to be an issue for 8 gig RAM system anytime soon. In fact, depending on what software the user chooses to use, whether they chose to upgrade, etc. it may never be any issue at all for as long as the system will still boot up.
Where we differ is that I do think the system will still be useful in a few years. Again, review how he uses a computer and consider that is all I can suggest.
As for expense, the system is 200 bucks cheaper. Something has to go in exchange for that.
My disagreeing with yours and others recommendations does not amount to me saying you have no right to your opinions and suggestions. Quite the contrary, I feel you have every right to them and I am sorry if I somehow gave you a different impression. I just disagree with you. That doesn't mean I think you don't have just as much right as anybody else to voice your views.
I have made a case at length for why the budget model is fine for the OP keeping in mind his desire to keep cost down, get a desktop iMac and purchase new (see his own post about this above). I would just be repeating myself at this point.
I am sure some will disagree with me very strongly on this point but I would not buy a refurbished computer. My reasoning is that I do not know its history. I cannot know with absolute certainly what that computer has been through before being refurbished and how that may potentially affect me even years down the road once it is out of warranty. I prefer to purchase new and know I am getting brand new. That's just my preference and now I have shared why I have it. This should NOT be confused to be a suggestion on my part that everyone should feel the same way I do or make the same choices I do. If you life refurb and it's been good to you, great. Why would I want to argue with someone about that? Just don't tell me to do it please or that I am stupid, etc. for not wanting to and we'll be fine. To be absolutely clear, I do not think anybody who buys refurb is wrong, stupid or whatever. It just is something I would not choose to do myself. I like my stuff brand new.
----------
No, I own the phone. I am aware of what I signed up for. I can't speak about what other plans may offer. I am obligated to remain with them for two years but the cost to bail is a lot less than a new iPhone. I'm only paying 55 bucks a month for the thing, taxes, etc. included. It is not a family rate. I live alone. I'm fine with that arrangement. A land line here would run me 40.
I don't think you'll get the same lifespan out of the base model as you did your current Mac.
I do feel it will perform great for you but it's not that great a value and you'll end up spending more money when you replace it a lot sooner.
There are things in your current Mac you didn't *need* at the time of purchase but now it cant even play a YouTube video in HD. The same thing will happen again, you just need to decide how long from now do you want it to happen.
Good luck!
I do feel it will perform great for you but it's not that great a value and you'll end up spending more money when you replace it a lot sooner.
There are things in your current Mac you didn't *need* at the time of purchase but now it cant even play a YouTube video in HD. The same thing will happen again, you just need to decide how long from now do you want it to happen.
Good luck!
To the OP, these two quotes above this text are by far the most sound advice out there.
No, because you're only thinking about current needs and are comparing them to your current machine, which sounds like thrifty spending, but in actuality, you'll end up spending MORE in the long run because you'll be wanting to upgrade that computer much sooner. If you do the math, it checks out. And really, the soda analogy is dead on.
You're taking it to an extreme and are completely missing the point which is that for $1100, you're buying a piece of crap, for $1300, you're not, and for $1500, you're only getting nominal upgrades from there (especially if you are not a gamer) and that the difference between the first one and the second one is substantially greater than the difference between the second and the third where the price difference in both differences is the same.
If you can afford to spend $1100 on the first piece of crap to begin with, what's an extra $200 to make it not crappy to begin with. Also, again, you can buy the second model for the price of the first model if done through the Apple Certified Refurbished Mac section of the Apple Online Store, making it even that much more of a no-brainer and making the first model that much worse of a proposition.
No, no one is saying buy a Mac Pro, or even a 27" iMac. We're saying that the $200 difference between the low-end 21.5" model and the mid-range 21.5" model buys you substantially more than the same $200 difference between the mid-range model 21.5" iMac and the high-end 21.5" model iMac, let alone more than any other $200 difference between any two models of ANY OTHER single-sized Mac! Why do you guys keep missing this point?
Skimp out on $200 because it's adequate for today, only to spend $1100 substantially sooner? I'm sorry, where's the practical sense in that?
That machine would not last 5-8 years; 3-4 at best. 5, if pushing it. Again, you are making a poor case for saving the $200 instead of spending it.
I think you don't understand the differences between the low-end and the mid-range 21.5" iMacs...
Also, you completely neglect that it's not about what his intended uses are today but about how long he can go before he needs to replace the machine. The low-end iMac (think MacBook Air with a slow hard drive) is dramatically weaker than the mid-range iMac (think low-end 15" MacBook Pro). The former is not meant to last that long FOR ANY INTENDED USE compared to the latter. And at $200, spend the money and pay for longer lifespan!
Not to be rude, but you really don't know what you are talking about here. It's not about what WE want. I don't ask myself which iMac to buy because, that's not the Mac for me. However, when someone asks me what's the better buy, I sure as hell don't point them in the direction of the worst buy just because it's "enough power for what I do TODAY".
Apple wanted an iMac at the $1100 price point because its cheapest iMac is $1300 and it realizes that there's quite a gap between the high-end non-Server Mac mini ($800) and the now-current-mid-range 21.5" iMac ($1300). They made that system so that people who don't care about specs would buy it. That said, such a system does not favor the consumers purchasing it and is a poor buy. Companies like Apple DO give you bad options sometimes.
And no, it's not a waste three years from now when OS X (and current versions of things like Safari and iTunes) will much more favor four cores of processing power instead of two.
Missing. The. Point. Again. Ugh!
Wait, so, spending $200 for greater machine longevity is dumb, but spending more or less the same on warranty (greater machine longevity) isn't? How do you justify that?
1. You can get AppleCare for Apple Certified Refurbished Macs, as well as Apple Certified Refurbished iPads, Apple Certified Refurbished iPods, and Apple Certified Refurbished AppleTVs. The policies are the same; you get a standard 1-year warranty and 90-days of phone support from the time of purchase and are elligable for AppleCare (within the first year if a Mac or AppleTV, within the first 30 days if an iPad or iPod) which extends both to 3-years. The fact that it is "refuribished" means nothing there.
2. Honestly, unless you care about not having a box with a printed picture of an iMac, or unless you plan on doing customizations (which it doesn't sound like you are), there's no reason to not do a refurbished Mac over a new one. Period.
3. The Quad-Core CPU (which, mind you, per-core, is more powerful than the Dual-Core CPU) and the Intel Iris Pro (which mind you, is somewhat significant versus the HD 5000) will not serve to benefit you much more today. Down the road, however (and sooner rather than later), that speed boost will help your machine age more gracefully and more gradually. And honestly, out of any $200 upgrade you have ever spent, the difference couldn't be more vast.
4. You obviously are the type to squeeze as much time out of your things as is possible; which is honorable and wise. You buy, easily, an extra 2-3 years of longevity with the middle-range model versus the low-end. Again, it's not about the power you need today as it is about the needs of the OS and very basic apps (Safari, iTunes, Flash Player, etc.) in the not-so-distant future.
Okay, so in summary you think I am out to lunch.
I think I am more in touch with what this guy needs than you give me credit for. Consider this: he is only now looking to upgrade a machine that is nine years old.
Let's compare the base model with the next one up for 200 bucks more:
You get the following for the added money:
1.)2.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor (Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz) with 4MB L3 cache vs. 1.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 processor (Turbo Boost up to 2.7GHz) with 3MB shared L3 cache.
2.) 1TB (5400-rpm) hard drive vs. 500GB (5400-rpm) hard drive
3.) Intel Iris Pro Graphics vs. Intel HD Graphics 5000
Otherwise, it is pretty much the same computer. Are these upgrades worthwhile for $200.? Sure, if you have the money and are willing to spend it on this. Are they necessary to get say, 5 years out of this system for office apps and web browsing, You Tube, etc.? No, I disagree. For example, would you tell me a current MBA is a waste of money and won't last 5 years?
Let's look at one selling for the same price as the entry level iMac:
11.6-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit glossy widescreen display (smaller than iMac)
256GB PCIe-based flash storage (much faster but half the capacity than iMac)
1.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 (Turbo Boost up to 2.7GHz) with 3MB shared L3 cache (SAME CPU - does this make an MBA a bad value?)
4GB of 1600MHz LPDDR3 onboard memory (Half the memory of the iMac)
Intel HD Graphics 5000 (Same both systems)
Of course, the MBA offers portability. Personally, I think it is an awesome computer with that in mind. I also don't think it is a terrible value or that it will be useless in two to three years if all you are doing is using office apps and browsing the web, using email, etc. For basic tasks on the go this is a great machine and I don't know why you couldn't get 5 years out of it. I think the same about the desktop iMac for somebody who wants the least expensive Apple desktop, it's a fine computer for basic tasks and ought to last someone 5 years I would think. Not everybody is on a 3 year upgrade cycle nor do they need to be.
Why do people keep recommending 24 inch 1080p displays they are awfully pixelated? Anything above the iMacs 21.5 looks awful in my eyes.
I think the people arguing you need higher specs are right apple needs your money more than you do. Please dig deep, dig real deep and get the Mac Pro and 32 inch 4K with it.
In all seriousness get what you want. If it's too slow run an external SSD boot drive later down the road. The chip won't become obsolete in the next three years, read through the forums on people using 4-5 year old machines and happy still. And doesn't the base model run at full turbo the whole time anyways if it needs to because of the thermal capacity of the imac?
I think the people arguing you need higher specs are right apple needs your money more than you do. Please dig deep, dig real deep and get the Mac Pro and 32 inch 4K with it.
In all seriousness get what you want. If it's too slow run an external SSD boot drive later down the road. The chip won't become obsolete in the next three years, read through the forums on people using 4-5 year old machines and happy still. And doesn't the base model run at full turbo the whole time anyways if it needs to because of the thermal capacity of the imac?
Yes. I think you're actually out to lunch. Why?
You miss a very key principle when it comes to buying computers:
Time = Money and Money = Time.
The more money you put into a computer, the more time will pass before you buy a new one.
Albeit, the ratio is never exact; some expenditures give you a better bang for buck for time than others do. For example, the differences between the iPad 2 and the third generation iPad under the hood are minimal compared to the differences between the first generation iPad and the iPad 2 or the third generation and the fourth generation.
Where you are completely out to lunch is that you don't at all grasp the significance of the $200 difference between the entry level iMac and the now-current-middle-level iMac. Because if you think, for anyone's uses, that the current entry level 21.5" iMac can last nine years, then I want whatever you're imbibing.
You are only factoring that the OP has basic needs and that surely an entry level product from Apple would satisfy a vast majority of users that use only the very basics, and that is a very dangerous assumption to make. Take it from someone who has worked with computers for decades and does computer consulting on the regular. It's got nothing to do with power they don't need today, because that's the wrong way to look at it. It has everything to do with how long that machine will last before he discards it and how much TIME you get for $200. More than ANY other $200 difference in models of the same kind of Mac, the difference is HUGE.
You cannot deny that with any modicum of practical sense or logic, I'm sorry.
Yes and you are definitely out to lunch if you think that a lower-end iMac, running with everything that makes a MacBook Air slower than every kind of Mac (the ultrabook CPU), RAM you cannot service or upgrade (and yes, I know what goes into upgrading RAM on a current mid-high-end model 21.5" iMac) minus the things that offset that (super-fast solid-state drives). Hell, you can't even upgrade the RAM on that thing to 16GB AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE, and that definitely can and will effect how long the machine can be useful for.
Dude, this is key. This is a HUGE difference. First off the Cache difference is huge. Secondly, Ultrabook Haswell at 1.4GHz with 2 cores vs. notebook Haswell at 2.7GHz with 4 cores; we might as well be talking about an iMac from 2010 and a TON of things have changed in CPUs since 2010.
I agree with you that this is a minor difference, especially in low-needs situations; however, at least the hard drive in the higher-end Mac is offset by all of the other components being at least somewhat decent. In the case of the low-end iMac, it's lagging like an old dog out of the gate.
Iris Pro (Intel HD 5200) is nothing to shake a stick at. Sure, Intel HD 5000 is probably more than enough for that person for today.
However, let's not forget that Apple routinely (with every OS update dating back to 10.4 Tiger) puts in enhancements that take advantage of the GPU. OpenCL, CoreAnimation, CoreImage, and so forth. Often times, these are features that eventually become required by third party software and become the basis of Apple cutting out support for older models. No support for older models means that it's only a matter of time before basic functions lose viability on that older hardware. Again, Time = Money and Money = Time.
Do you know anyone still rocking a 2009 MacBook Air? Me neither.
Also, you weren't saying 5 years. You were boasting the 9 years that the OP got from his last system. I do think that this machine, if the OP uses it for the VERY basics, could last 5 years. But I don't think it'd be likely. Nor do I think the OP would enjoy the experience all that much and after all that much time. 500GB seems ample, but even with basic media, that can fill quickly. Plus that drive's slow speed, with a slow CPU to process data, that's going to lead to a lot of spinning beach balling. So yeah, I don't think it'll be an enjoyable experience and I believe that it would be that way sooner than you think.
It's technically a better value because:
- It's a laptop!
- Given the above, it includes an integrated keyboard, LED-backlit LCD display, glass, multi-touch trackpad
- Therefore it has a battery with some pretty advanced battery technology!
- Also, SSDs are pricey, let alone PCIe ones!
In fact, the fact that you have these two machines at the same price where the only serious technical advantage is the 21.5" display of the iMac (and mind you, these days, it's REALLY NOT that hard to find 21.5" monitors with the exact same technical display specs of that iMac for super cheap), so that's really not all that advantageous anyway! So yes, when you compare those two machines, the low-end iMac is still a crap deal.
Again, how do you refute that?
Look, I'm on a 5-6 year upgrade cycle with my Macs. My Mac of choice is a 15" MacBook Pro. I last got one in 2012, I do not need to even think about replacing it until 2017. Before that, I had a 20" iMac from Early 2006 (the first Core Duo Macs that kicked off the Intel Transition), that lasted me about 5 years. That was the 2006 equivalent of a decked out 27" iMac. Similarly, what I got in 2012 was the maxed out version of the last non-retina-laden 15" MacBook Pro. These are higher-end Macs. That's why they last so long.
The thing you don't get is that neither Apple nor third party developers who code for OS X are doing anything to slow down the advancement of the minimum system requirements for software. They are able to continue innovating with the underlying foundations of their software because they are able to push out new hardware on which to run it on and are good about getting their customers to upgrade in order to run it more optimally. At some point Apple may mandate that a machine needs a quad-core processor or 16GB of RAM to run a future version of its Mac operating system. At that point, a soldered on 8GB of RAM won't help, nor will a dual-core ultrabook CPU. You may think that time is 5 years down the road. It is not. It'll be here much sooner than that. But even if it isn't, it's not like that day won't be inevitable, at which point, $200 gets you past an inevitable cut-off and will still make the computer last longer than it would otherwise; therefore making it a smart use of money no matter how you slice it. Again, I'm not sure how you can be impervious to that kind of reasoning.
Last edited:
While I agree with you, that doesn't mean that this new iMac is for no one. I know of a lot of elderly people who would just want a reliable computer (which Windows PCs just never bring) that they can just use to surf the web and write emails. You made the point of the iPad jumps but an iPad 1 is still functioning perfectly fine for anyone that just uses it for the basic uses. It still does its job. Elderly people don't care about upgrading the OS or getting any new features so that rules out you above statements entirely for them. Spending £200 more, while I would suggest, they just wouldn't. Because the 200 pound is and never would be justified. That entry level iMac would last them just as long as the higher models because when they need to upgrade is when the computer no longer works.
While I recommend an iPad to these people, the entry iMac would still be a great option for those who wishs to keep a large screen. Lets make the comparison in their eyes:
It is just as easy to use as the more expensive model
It costs less
It is just as reliable
It would use less electricity that the higher end models
It is just as reliable
It still just works
It has the same great IPS display
That is all they care about. The extra power would never be of any use for web browsing and emails. The lower hardware specs are null and void as they won't upgrade it because they would never benefit from the features. The computer will last them until it no longer works therfor both models are equal. Just because the higher end iMacs are of much better value, that doesn't mean there is not a valid target audience.
This sort of reasoning was what I had in mind responding to an OP where the guy had kept a dinosaur of a Mac, finally looking to replace it at nine years of age. Presumably, up until relatively recently it was still doing what he wanted it to other than playing back video well I think it was. So it seemed logical to me that going for the cheapest iMac would be fine in simplest terms. He does not seem to need anything but enough power for basic tasks and the most basic iMac ought to last him a long time. Exactly how many years? Who knows? We can never really predict that but by the same token I don't think we can predict that spending another 200 bucks is going to get this particular user any added lifetime use either.
You make great points about somebody like this not bothering with OS upgrades, etc. and therefore hardware limitations over time become far less an issue. As you said, it more comes down to when the machine actually breaks or will not do some desired thing anymore as is the case now with his nine year old Mac which is still working.
I do understand the argument that one is only looking at another $200. for something costing over a grand and it would provide improved performance over the computer's lifetime, particularly as it ages but this consumer was price sensitive so I guess only they can really make the call which is best for them over the long haul.
My mother in law was in a similar situation. She had an old 2003 G4 iMac until a few weeks ago. I tried talking her into a Macbook Air, but she wanted to stick with a desktop with a bigger screen. She is very price sensitive and hardly uses her machine for anything -- email, web, storing a few photos.
I got it for her at the $979 price from B&H which saved her over $300. That ~30% savings was significant for her and made it well worth it.
It's the same innards as MBA, minus the flash disk, so it should at least last as long as those will.
It all depends on your personal situation. If you were mostly fine with your 2005 iMac for nine years, then the 2014 iMac will likely be fine for you for another 5-6 years. Maybe longer.
I got it for her at the $979 price from B&H which saved her over $300. That ~30% savings was significant for her and made it well worth it.
It's the same innards as MBA, minus the flash disk, so it should at least last as long as those will.
It all depends on your personal situation. If you were mostly fine with your 2005 iMac for nine years, then the 2014 iMac will likely be fine for you for another 5-6 years. Maybe longer.
I find this thinking upside down and backwards. An MBA is all about light and small. If you can pack plenty of power in that package then great, all the better. But it's not for a desktop to be just as good as an MBA. It can be much better than that and the difference is noticeable.
Pretend the low-end iMac doesn't exist. Go mid-level referb instead.
My comparison to the MBA was only to say that the guts are the same, so if you think the 2014 iMac will have a limited lifespan, then you must also think the 2014 MBA will have a limited lifespan. I disagree and believe that each will be usable for the typical, expected Mac lifetime of 5-6 years if not more.
The incremental cost of $200 makes the old entry-level (now mid-level) iMac look good. That's what Apple is counting on. They want everyone who will to bump up a level, or add a fusion drive or SSD, etc.
But why should my mother-in-law spend $200 or even $100 more to do email and web browsing? She lived with a entry level 2003 iMac for 11 years! She'll be fine.
Guaranteed? Those are some strong words my friend!
I have a Pentium 4 from 2002 with 2 GB of RAM running Windows XP and it browses the web just fine. It also runs Microsoft Office 2003. The machine is still more than usable, even after all these years. Frankly I'm surprised the power supply hasn't crapped out yet. It's in the guest bedroom and if you're not paying attention, I don't think you'd notice it's a 12 year old machine! You can argue that it's not secure to run such an old system but that's a different debate. There's a reason Microsoft has such a problem convincing people to upgrade...
My main machines are a MacBook Air (2012) and an HP with an i7 processor. Yes, they're more capable than the Pentium 4 box but I wouldn't be so hasty in dismissing some of these older systems.
The attitude/mentality you express is a big problem with our disposable society IMHO. I'm more than willing to take the complete opposite side of that bet: I'm willing to bet that the OP won't notice a lick of difference on the base iMac in 2016 for the use he has intended for it (web browsing and office apps).
Again, given the specs of the lower-end machine, the "when the computer no longer works" scenario is subjective and, more likely than not, will occur sooner.
Similarly, Time = Money and Money = Time, and I don't care if you are elderly, a child, or hopelessly computer illiterate; I'm not talking about elements that would require one to be a whiz with computers; I'm talking about people who just want to do the basics. An iPad 1 is riddled with security flaws and uses an out of date web browser, which will soon be unable to load a lot of web-pages. Try using a first generation iPhone or iPod touch to browse sites; you'd actually have some difficulty doing it.
If you are left out of an OS update, then it's only a matter of time before you are left out of a Safari update (as well as FireFox and Chrome updates) and then you suddenly don't have a computer that can browse the internet. These days, people want to be able to sync their iPhones with iTunes; guess what? You eventually will lose support for the latest version of that too and will be unable to sync your iPhone.
Again, to buy something costing over $1000, what is an extra $200 to get a minimum of 30% longer of a lifespan out of it? Not doing so is the bigger waste of money if you look at spending money long term. Sure, some people can afford to be cheap with that stuff; but it is really needless and not sensible at all.
You're forgetting the simple fact that they'll need to dole out another $1000 a good 2-3 years sooner (which more than covers the extremely minor difference in electric bills between the two models). And no, with a weaker processor, and a lower/fixed capacity of RAM the hard drive will have to work harder when storing data. Those 2.5" 5400RPM drives are already unreliable as it is. So, no, not as reliable.
It's a pretty safe bet that a quad-core notebook CPU running at 1.3GHz faster with an additional MB of L3 Cache than a dual-core ultrabook CPU will last that much longer. Basic users abandon their computers for one of the following reasons:
1. Too slow (and yes, with a 5400RPM 2.5" Hard Drive and a MacBook Air CPU, that will happen sooner than you realize)
2. The cost of repair is greater than the cost of a similar vintage machine (totally apt to happen after the poor 2.5" drive dies or the RAM [soldered onto the board] stops working and the whole logic board needs to be replaced after AppleCare runs out).
3. They can't do something they need to do on it. (Again, we're talking about the slowest Mac on the market today; look up Geekbench scores; that sucker doesn't rank highly. And while that speed isn't at all important TODAY, that is directly indicative of how these machines age.
It's a bad idea to not keep your OS up to date. Not doing so does open your Mac up to security vulnerabilities. I know that here on MacRumors, we tend to heavily drink the Kool-Aid that says that Macs are the best and they are not prone to any security vulnerability issues, but that's just not true. That's why they release security patches and OS updates. Someone running Leopard right now, or hell, even Snow Leopard, is not safe as Apple has abandoned OS Update support for that platform and any known security vulnerabilities in those OSes could be easily exploited, especially for basic users that don't know better. So, no, bad practice. Maybe it wasn't years ago before the Mac platform grew in popularity, but it is now.
I really hate car analogies, but this one is simple: Are you going to spend $5,000 on a used car that runs, or are you going to spend $7,000 on a used car that runs reliably? The former will get you from point A to point B, but odds are decent that it will do so for much less time than the latter, which is known to do so reliably.