Selecting New IMac

[PandaBear]

16 GB of RAM WILL future-proof you. I'd say 8GB is more than enough for general purpose use over the next 10 years, however. You don't need to denote the drive type, because it's a given with the iMac; what you need to decide is how much, since you will not be able to upgrade it. Even for general purpose use, I'd opt for at least 256GB of space, even if 128GB is offered (it might not be).

Personally, I have a ten year old CPU powering a two year-old GPU just fine, since it was nearly to-of-the-line back then. Along with the MB and CPU, the 12GB of generic RAM are original. the HDD was replaced with a $100 Samsung 1TB SSD and the second slot was populated with a 2TB WD Black HDD for backup.

I wouldn't even consider an iMac.

16GB is probably the least you should get if you cannot upgrade (soldered on) the RAM, and SSD would need to be at least 512GB if you want future proof (many people don't want to backup and migrate). You can get a slower CPU however, the difference between top of the line and slower CPU for non workstation workload isn't really that much, 4 cores is all you need and I think most Mac are pretty powerful and they don't sell the bottom barrel stuff like PC does.

Still, all it takes is 1 hardware obsolete to make a machine obsolete. Video codec change? New AVX instruction? New CPU due to security flaw? Too bad, everything must go. Buying cheaper hardware and update more often (and sell the old machine), is the better way forward.

 

[PandaBear]

Up until a few months ago I was using a 2009 imac, it did everything I needed, 1080p video playback was a bit jerking so decided to upgrade.
Got a late 2012 27" imac i7, max ram, dual SSD, baked the GPU for $150, deal

I got this model because it is the last model where the glass is held on by magnets and is not glued to the case.

Does 2012 have hardware VP9 or HEVC decoding? If not then it is probably already obsolete for youtube and netflix as well. I though I future proofed my dad's PC with a FirePro 2270 but then I realized it won't do VP9 or AV1 (well, to be fair nobody can do AV1 until late last year).

My mom's 2015 i3 can do it, and people said if all you do is youtube you can get an atom box with the latest UHD graphics and your CPU utilization will still be near 0, for $150.

 

[DuckRyder]

Still, all it takes is 1 hardware obsolete to make a machine obsolete. Video codec change? New AVX instruction? New CPU due to security flaw? Too bad, everything must go. Buying cheaper hardware and update more often (and sell the old machine), is the better way forward.

In your opinion.

Windows hardware is utter junk. I've got two enterprise level windows boxes here, one a rugged one and theres stuff falling off of them and a 2012 Retina MBP will run circles around them. Plays Netflix and You Tube fine.

I'd rather buy quality and have it a while than change junk all the time.

 

[Skippy722]

Not that little, the market cost of 8GB of DDR4 is about $35, but prebuild will still charge you around $80 or so just because they can. Apple would likely charge you more than that now that they soldered their ram.

A lot of people really have double standard on how "affordable" a Mac is vs PC when their same cost spec is completely different. Yes I know people say 8GB DDR4 and 256GB SSD is all you NEED, but it is only because of what you need to work around vs what you can do with it.

Yes, even a Celeron or i3 with the latest gen Intel UHD graphics will be sufficient if all you do is web browsing, but if you are spending that much money you should compare what you really can do with all the hardware, not just browsing the web. If all you do is browse the web you might as well get a chrome box / book and the biggest 4K monitor you can afford. That'll be all you need anyways.

At work for example, they let you pick a Mac with 13" screen or a real laptop (i.e. Dell Precision, Lenovo Thinkpad) with 15" screen (i7, GeForce Mobile, 16GB / 512GB). You do have to pay a premium for the Mac ecosystem.

If you compare a MacBook Pro vs a similar Windows machine, the price isn’t that far off. I just priced out an otherwise equivalent Thinkpad (backlit keyboard, 13.3”, 16gb Ram, 512gb SSD) and it came out to $2,219 but has a far superior GPU. The cheaper ThinkPad E15 with otherwise equivalent specs came in at $1,672. Lenovo is charging $150+ for 16gb of Ram. But neither Lenovo has as good of a screen as the Pro at $1,800. Not to mention apples build quality... a MacBook just feels solid, I have yet to touch a pc laptop under $1500 that feels even close to as solid as a MacBook feels.

If we compare desktops... the most expensive 27” iMac is $2,300 with 8gb of Ram...you can buy ram far cheaper and just upgrade it yourself, they take SO-DIMM. Building an equivalent PC on pcpartpicker comes to $1,900 (I went relatively cheap on the display, the cheapest 5k I found was an LG for $1,100) but you lose the 5K display and the all in one form factor.

 

[JHZR2]

You may want to wait for the iMacs with Apple's M1 chip. The Intel powered macs will be phased out over the next few years, which might affect support for them down the road.

Apple is pretty good at supporting stuff long term. Id suspect that they will support the OS for 5-6 years after they stop selling their last X86.

Writing this from a 2010 MBA in 2021 after all... 10.12.6 was released in September 2019...

Get the Solid State Drive (SSD), stay away from the Hybrid drive...

Get 16 gigs installed, the new ones may not have a door to access the ram...

Consider an extended keyboard, with the numeric keypad attached...
(Not sure if they even make these anymore)

Agree. Modern browsers are memory hogs when they have lots of tabs. The 4GB on my MBA gets full when browsing multiple tabs on FF/Chrome/Safari...

This has an SSD but I think that gets overwhelmed too. For example, when graphing tens of thousands of data points in my battery charger test thread, excel gets clogged up too... My 16GB MBP only ever uses about half of the RAM, even when doing heavy processing or lots of tabs on browsers, etc. The SSD pipeline might be much faster too....

 

[gathermewool]

16GB is probably the least you should get if you cannot upgrade (soldered on) the RAM, and SSD would need to be at least 512GB if you want future proof (many people don't want to backup and migrate). You can get a slower CPU however, the difference between top of the line and slower CPU for non workstation workload isn't really that much, 4 cores is all you need and I think most Mac are pretty powerful and they don't sell the bottom barrel stuff like PC does.

Still, all it takes is 1 hardware obsolete to make a machine obsolete. Video codec change? New AVX instruction? New CPU due to security flaw? Too bad, everything must go. Buying cheaper hardware and update more often (and sell the old machine), is the better way forward.

The OP said he's only using this thing for light use. In my mind, that means buy the cheapest iMac you can find. I will agree that 512GB of SSD space IS probably more prudent. I never had a problem with space in my old netbook with 256GB, since it was only used for light usage and Navy travel, but times change. EVERYTHING takes up a ton of space these days.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the M1 will be too little any time soon; HOWEVER, this isn't an iPad. I've got a five year-old iPad Pro I'm hoping lasts ten years, but I'm not sure it will if updates stop coming and things start to get glitchy.

How often are you saying the hardware is obsolete? I've been using the same MB/CPU/RAM for almost ten years now. I've upgraded the HDD to SSD and GPU to a 1070ti, which I got used off a member here. The CPU is still pumping out enough for the 1070ti to do its job. An i3 of the same vintage? Probably not.

I agree that Apple doesn't usually put out the bottom of the barrel CPU's, however. They simply can't afford to. Everyone expects a Mac to last ten years. I know I sure would, since my PC's last that long...

 

[gathermewool]

Apple is pretty good at supporting stuff long term. Id suspect that they will support the OS for 5-6 years after they stop selling their last X86.

Writing this from a 2010 MBA in 2021 after all... 10.12.6 was released in September 2019...

View attachment 41032



Agree. Modern browsers are memory hogs when they have lots of tabs. The 4GB on my MBA gets full when browsing multiple tabs on FF/Chrome/Safari...

This has an SSD but I think that gets overwhelmed too. For example, when graphing tens of thousands of data points in my battery charger test thread, excel gets clogged up too... My 16GB MBP only ever uses about half of the RAM, even when doing heavy processing or lots of tabs on browsers, etc. The SSD pipeline might be much faster too....

View attachment 41033

My wife has a brand new MSI laptop that uses half of her available 8GB of RAM. She's now going through a lot of duplicate videos and photos and she's still not using anywhere near 8GB. Right now, she's got 4.2GB used of 7.8GB. That's her average usage.

Having more than a dozen tabs open is an archaic way of doing things these days. That belongs to the days when people thought multitasking several things was actually possible. I have multiple programs I work with at my job and I don't usually have more than 20 PROGRAMS/tabs/etc open. After that, things become overwhelming and I ask myself: do I really need that program open to find a certain drawing based on a valve or its location right now - I haven't used it in three days and it takes 15 seconds to load if I have its host program open. The answer is usually, "shut'er down" and open later when I actually need it.

Regarding home use, I've never even seen someone use more than a dozen tabs. I don't get the point. I usually have my favorite sites open in a few tabs, a one or two more tabs open just for Google or others to research, and MAYBE a tab open to stream something like music (now it's own W10 app) or a show (I usually split screen in this case, so it's not really another open tab)

 

[OVERKILL]

Regarding home use, I've never even seen someone use more than a dozen tabs. I don't get the point. I usually have my favorite sites open in a few tabs, a one or two more tabs open just for Google or others to research, and MAYBE a tab open to stream something like music (now it's own W10 app) or a show (I usually split screen in this case, so it's not really another open tab)

I have three different browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Brave) open right now. I typically have "reference" tabs open for stuff I reference frequently, which could be sites for product ordering, Office 365 management, live grid data....etc.

I have open:
Chrome - 30 tabs
Brave - 7 tabs
Firefox - 9 tabs

 

[gathermewool]

I have three different browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Brave) open right now. I typically have "reference" tabs open for stuff I reference frequently, which could be sites for product ordering, Office 365 management, live grid data....etc.

I have open:
Chrome - 30 tabs
Brave - 7 tabs
Firefox - 9 tabs

That's unusual use, just like my use at work. I also have tons of bloat on my work laptop. Even new laptops where I work are relatively slow to boot and load programs.

Are you actively using all 46 tabs? How often are you using the least active tabs?

How much RAM are you using? Around 8GB?

 

[OVERKILL]

That's unusual use, just like my use at work. I also have tons of bloat on my work laptop. Even new laptops where I work are relatively slow to boot and load programs.

Are you actively using all 46 tabs? How often are you using the least active tabs?

How much RAM are you using? Around 8GB?

Most infrequent tabs might be glanced at one or twice a week? But that's probably only 1 or 2 tabs, the rest of them get looked at more frequently, particularly during the week.

This is a Mac, so memory is handled a bit differently. I have 32GB:

Apps over 300MB:

 

[gathermewool]

You do admit that you're a heavy user and that your use case is irrelevant to what the OP needs, right?

I mean, who has steam open AND running a game while doing other stuff? Just having steam open shouldn't even be on your list.

 

[OVERKILL]

You do admit that you're a heavy user and that your use case is irrelevant to what the OP needs, right?

I mean, who has steam open AND running a game while doing other stuff? Just having steam open shouldn't even be on your list.

Yes, this old Mac Pro gets a good workout I'd probably benefit from 64GB of RAM if I'm being honest.

 

[gathermewool]

Yes, this old Mac Pro gets a good workout I'd probably benefit from 64GB of RAM if I'm being honest.

I honestly should have upgraded from 12 to 24 GB for our main PC way back when or even simply gone with high GB/module and fewer channels. It's hard to find cheap DDR-3 RAM these days, though....

 

[JeffKeryk]

There is no future proofing in computers. Apple products are high quality builds; their hardware and O/S are solid. They last a long time.
For general purpose use, Chromebooks are hard to beat. Low overhead allows for less power requirements.
By far Chrome is the best bang for the buck.
Having said that, people love their Macs. Visit an Apple store and talk to them. Good luck!
Enjoy your new computer!

 

[PandaBear]

If you compare a MacBook Pro vs a similar Windows machine, the price isn’t that far off. I just priced out an otherwise equivalent Thinkpad (backlit keyboard, 13.3”, 16gb Ram, 512gb SSD) and it came out to $2,219 but has a far superior GPU. The cheaper ThinkPad E15 with otherwise equivalent specs came in at $1,672. Lenovo is charging $150+ for 16gb of Ram. But neither Lenovo has as good of a screen as the Pro at $1,800. Not to mention apples build quality... a MacBook just feels solid, I have yet to touch a pc laptop under $1500 that feels even close to as solid as a MacBook feels.

If we compare desktops... the most expensive 27” iMac is $2,300 with 8gb of Ram...you can buy ram far cheaper and just upgrade it yourself, they take SO-DIMM. Building an equivalent PC on pcpartpicker comes to $1,900 (I went relatively cheap on the display, the cheapest 5k I found was an LG for $1,100) but you lose the 5K display and the all in one form factor.

I can only speak from my work laptop: Dell Precision 5520 vs MBP of similar year. I think prices (we lease) is likely based on negotiation and we end up with option of either 15" i7 with 16GB DDR4 and 512GB SSD (forgot which GeForce Mobile), or 13" equivalent of MBP. Both are aluminum frame, both feel heavy and solid.

Now of course, Windows have its own problem, but we do use Windows for work (GCC compiler for ARM) so in a way I'd pick Windows instead of a Mac and then have to remote into another windows. Still if you look at the dollar for dollar comparison you are comparing 15" vs 13" screen. This is a huge work productivity impact regardless of OS.

 

[PandaBear]

How often are you saying the hardware is obsolete? I've been using the same MB/CPU/RAM for almost ten years now. I've upgraded the HDD to SSD and GPU to a 1070ti, which I got used off a member here. The CPU is still pumping out enough for the 1070ti to do its job. An i3 of the same vintage? Probably not.

I agree that Apple doesn't usually put out the bottom of the barrel CPU's, however. They simply can't afford to. Everyone expects a Mac to last ten years. I know I sure would, since my PC's last that long...

To me it is when new software / games need the new SSE instruction that the old one does not support, or in my dad's case the graphics need updating for the latest youtube and netflix playback. Can I add a GT 1030 to let him use the old machine for another 2 years? sure, but that thing is $90 these days so I think it make sense to update the entire machine (build in 2010 with 2009 technology, except the GPU is from 2011).

Well, I guess if you upgrade the GPU you can keep it running for another 5 years. That's reasonable I guess (unless you use integrated machine like iMac).

 

[PandaBear]

My wife has a brand new MSI laptop that uses half of her available 8GB of RAM. She's now going through a lot of duplicate videos and photos and she's still not using anywhere near 8GB. Right now, she's got 4.2GB used of 7.8GB. That's her average usage.

Having more than a dozen tabs open is an archaic way of doing things these days. That belongs to the days when people thought multitasking several things was actually possible. I have multiple programs I work with at my job and I don't usually have more than 20 PROGRAMS/tabs/etc open. After that, things become overwhelming and I ask myself: do I really need that program open to find a certain drawing based on a valve or its location right now - I haven't used it in three days and it takes 15 seconds to load if I have its host program open. The answer is usually, "shut'er down" and open later when I actually need it.

Regarding home use, I've never even seen someone use more than a dozen tabs. I don't get the point. I usually have my favorite sites open in a few tabs, a one or two more tabs open just for Google or others to research, and MAYBE a tab open to stream something like music (now it's own W10 app) or a show (I usually split screen in this case, so it's not really another open tab)

In my case: MS Team uses up almost 3GB, Slack another 1-2GB, Chrome another 2GB, and I have a few text files that are 100k line so they are each 500MB or so.

I haven't added any engineering stuff yet but you get the idea. Work from home means you have loads of messengers and video conferencing apps.

For most home user they don't need multiple things open at the same time, multiple monitors, multiple messengers with corporate bloat ware (our MS Team app is bloated to stratosphere). Those are mandatory even if you don't normally use them.

I honestly should have upgraded from 12 to 24 GB for our main PC way back when or even simply gone with high GB/module and fewer channels. It's hard to find cheap DDR-3 RAM these days, though....

Ebay, Newegg, if you don't mind used AliExpress recycle a lot of server stuff into modules for home use. They were quite popular in Russia, Brazil, Australia (due to sales tax on new stuff), etc.

 

[gathermewool]

In my case: MS Team uses up almost 3GB, Slack another 1-2GB, Chrome another 2GB, and I have a few text files that are 100k line so they are each 500MB or so.

I haven't added any engineering stuff yet but you get the idea. Work from home means you have loads of messengers and video conferencing apps.

For most home user they don't need multiple things open at the same time, multiple monitors, multiple messengers with corporate bloat ware (our MS Team app is bloated to stratosphere). Those are mandatory even if you don't normally use them.


Ebay, Newegg, if you don't mind used AliExpress recycle a lot of server stuff into modules for home use. They were quite popular in Russia, Brazil, Australia (due to sales tax on new stuff), etc.

I fully get that even work-at-home people can get into RAM limitation with the number of documents open, RAM heavy program, etc. I guess you guys have me conceding that 16GB is likely prudent for the OP, unless it's prohibitively costly.

RE: my RAM: it's been sitting for ten years. I feel like this is a, "let sleeping dogs lie" type of scenario. I don't want what has been working error-free to now start giving me problems.