[besson3c]

For those that are looking for the best bang for their buck and something that is future proof, I'm not a big fan of recommending a disposable computer like the iMac to somebody comfortable with opening up their case, and somebody looking for a Desktop machine.

Now that just about every part can be swapped in and out of a Mac Pro including Intel processor(s), do you know anybody that has just taken the hit now in accommodating its higher sticker price, and bought a Mac Pro with plans to upgrade it as needs arise?

Or, is the form factor of the iMac compelling enough to live without any real expandability?


Of course, this is only speaking to people who are comfortable swapping out parts in mind, which I realize isn't the primary target audience of the iMac.

[Railroader]

I have build about a dozen computers... I still think the iMac is superior. Most parts that people upgrade, memory and HD, are upgradable in an iMac. It's rare for someone to upgrade the processor. It is usually not a good move to upgrade a processor these days. You may have a super fast processor, but all of your other components will be last generation and become the bottleneck.

Hey, you don't get why people like the iMac, no big deal.

[Veltliner]

One good thing about the iMac is that it is absolutely silent.

No fan noise.

I cannot state enough how much I appreciate that.

I don't know about the MacPros, if that is still an issue like with the PowerMacs (somebody just posted in the MacPro/Powermac section that he can hear his G5 Powermac across his whole apartment).

In the most recent iMac generation the screen is more a turn-off than the upgrade thing.

Also the fact, that iMacs have, as a breed of a laptop with a desktop, bottlenecks that catch them sooner down the road than MacPros.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

One good thing about the iMac is that it is absolutely silent.

No fan noise.

I cannot state enough how much I appreciate that.

I don't know about the MacPros, if that is still an issue like with the PowerMacs (somebody just posted in the MacPro/Powermac section that he can hear his G5 Powermac across his whole apartment).

In the most recent iMac generation the screen is more a turn-off than the upgrade thing.

Also the fact, that iMacs have, as a breed of a laptop with a desktop, bottlenecks that catch them sooner down the road than MacPros.

Good point about the fan speed, there certainly is a market for silent PCs, including people that want to build them. I don't own a Mac desktop myself (although in my last job I worked on an iMac), so I did not factor this into the mix.

[Railroader]

Don't forget the simplicity of the all-in-one design and overall appearance. Most home-built computers look like something from 1994.

[analogika]

The 24" model is simply sensational.

That is all.

[ghporter]

Silent, tiny footprint, currently very powerful (albeit not a gamer's machine). Expandability via firewire (400 AND 800 unless you get the lowest end model) and USB2 (tons of ports) means that I won't have to worry about anything like a drive media incompatibility or internal storage-ever. I'm currently sitting too close to this gorgeous screen, by the way-a new desk is in order but I haven't found the right one yet.

I have finally graduated to a "desktop" computer that doesn't take up most of my desk with stuff that isn't "computer" and doesn't sound like a turbine engine when it starts up. No, I don't think of the iMac as a limited machine at all. It's liberating.

[bbales]

I just got a 24-inch imac, as a replacement for my G4 tower. I had replaced a number of the components in the G4, including the processor, ram and internal hard drive. I went back and forth and back and forth on whether to buy the iMac or the new tower. But in the end, I just flat out could not justify the price of the tower. The cheapest one is what? $2,500? I bought an off-the-shelf 24-inch iMac for $1,699 (I got education pricing). That's a huge price difference. This is probably the cheapest computer I've ever purchased, really.

If Apple had come out with a mid-priced tower, I would have purchased that, for the expandability. (My old desktop was 6 1/2 years old, so it's not like I turn them over every couple of years.) But ... the company hasn't/won't. So I went with the iMac, and even though it's only been a few weeks, I think I made the right decision.

My biggest issue, to be honest with you, is the sheer size of the screen. I'm only 5' 2" -- and the top of the screen is up pretty darn high. I still am not convinced I shouldn't have gotten the 20-inch. On the other hand, my 5' 7"-inch daughter LOVES it.

[AC Rempt]

Originally Posted by bbales 

I just got a 24-inch imac, as a replacement for my G4 tower. I had replaced a number of the components in the G4, including the processor, ram and internal hard drive. I went back and forth and back and forth on whether to buy the iMac or the new tower. But in the end, I just flat out could not justify the price of the tower. The cheapest one is what? $2,500? I bought an off-the-shelf 24-inch iMac for $1,699 (I got education pricing). That's a huge price difference. This is probably the cheapest computer I've ever purchased, really.

If Apple had come out with a mid-priced tower, I would have purchased that, for the expandability. (My old desktop was 6 1/2 years old, so it's not like I turn them over every couple of years.) But ... the company hasn't/won't. So I went with the iMac, and even though it's only been a few weeks, I think I made the right decision.

I'm with you here, man. The part of me that loves to tinker and spend money on my machines hates the iMac, and I would jump on a mid-tower Mac in a minute. Until that model comes along though, I am all about the iMac. Like bbales, I went iMac after years owning towers, and the price, the specs and the footprint sold me. I love how quiet it is, and since I have a relatively tiny office, I need all the space I can get.

And speaking to the OP's concern about a future-proof PC, let me know when they make one, and I'll buy it. Even expandable towers hit a wall sometime, even if that time is further down the road from an all-in-one like the iMac. I understand the hope that the computer you buy today won't be obsolete right out of the box, but I feel pretty comfortable that the iMac will meet my future needs for at least three years, if not more.

[imitchellg5]

The iMac isn't meant to be ripped apart. They never have been (except maybe my rev a G5), so I don't see why you would ever recommend them. Tower Macs have always been heavily upgradable, all-in-ones not.

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The iMac isn't meant to be ripped apart. They never have been (except maybe my rev a G5), so I don't see why you would ever recommend them. Tower Macs have always been heavily upgradable, all-in-ones not.

I've seen the take-apart pictures for the new aluminum iMacs. You have to go in through the front, taking off the glass in the process. Its one big pain in the rear to get at anything inside them. Unless you want your iMac to undergo major surgery akin to taking apart an iBook or 12" PowerBook G4, don't even consider the hard drive in the new iMac a user-upgradable component. Its looks to be about 500x more difficult than opening the case of a Mac Pro and slapping in another HD.

[bearcatrp]

I have both the 24 inch iMac (1st gen) and a refurb mac pro 2ghz. 1999.00 for the mac pro with plans to swap out the processors at a later date. Couldn't beat the price. Suspect the prices will drop some when the new upgrade comes out. An all in one is nice depending what you plan on doing with it. Me, I got hooked into video editing and needed something a bit faster. The mac pros are just that. With the expandability of the mac pro, you can't find a better machine to do that.
Randy

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Silent, tiny footprint, currently very powerful (albeit not a gamer's machine). Expandability via firewire (400 AND 800 unless you get the lowest end model)

All iMacs now have FW 800.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

For those that are looking for the best bang for their buck and something that is future proof, I'm not a big fan of recommending a disposable computer like the iMac to somebody comfortable with opening up their case, and somebody looking for a Desktop machine.

So were you recommending the iMac before and if so what changed?

The iMac is a beautiful design, quick computer, small foot print. Processing and hard drive speed is fine for most consumers and even the much maligned GPU seems up to snuff. I saw some benchmarks from macworld and barefeats and while slower in some areas its not to the point to be unplayable.

No I think the current iMac is as future proof as any current computer out there. People seem to want to get between 3 and 5 years out of a computer. Some people strive for more, others less.

I used to work in a computer store, and most home consumers could care less what's inside the computer, as long as the components were current and the computer could do what they wanted to do which was moslty office/internet/multi media stuff.

Heck if I didn't have a MacPro sitting besides my desk, I'd be tempted for one of these babies.

[besson3c]

What changed was the processor slot on the motherboard. While the motherboard can't be swapped out, creating bandwidth restrictions, the fact that you can simply jump on NewEgg and buy a new processor (at an uninflated price), pop it into the machine seems like a pretty big deal for those comfortable enough with opening up their machine and swapping out parts.

One can also replace the video card without having to pay inflated prices, as long as there was a driver available. In the past, didn't you have to buy special Mac-only video cards, or else be stuck with having to do a ROM Flash (or whatever that technique is called) with a video card labeled as a PC video card?

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

those comfortable enough with opening up their machine and swapping out parts.

This isn't, and never has been, the iMac's target audience.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What changed was the processor slot on the motherboard. While the motherboard can't be swapped out, creating bandwidth restrictions, the fact that you can simply jump on NewEgg and buy a new processor (at an uninflated price), pop it into the machine seems like a pretty big deal for those comfortable enough with opening up their machine and swapping out parts.

Except you failed to realize the customer base that apple is marketing this computer to generally do not swap out CPUs.

I agree that you cannot recommend this computer to the hobbiest who likes to do such things, but then you could really never recommend this computer to them in the first place. all iMacs have been for the most part limited in their ability to swap out and/or upgrade the parts.

If you're interested in replacing/adding parts the MacPro is the machine for you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Except you failed to realize the customer base that apple is marketing this computer to generally do not swap out CPUs.

That's why I was very careful in providing this qualification in my original post, did you miss this?

[MacosNerd]

Well you're complaining about a non-feature, it makes no sense.

Its like saying I cannot recommend the MacPro because it does not have a Monitor attached

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

This isn't, and never has been, the iMac's target audience.

Yes, but in recent years the iMac has been seen as a completely capable and non crippled machine that pros that might be doing this would consider buying. During this same time, for a long time the pro Desktop Macs were limited as to what could be upgraded (or upgraded cheaply), so the difference between iMac and Powermac was virtually about the initial sticker specs - you accepted this hit if you were going to buy any sort of Mac.

Again, this thread is about a specific demographic of users, and my opinion on this matter has been swayed by you guys regarding the other virtues of the iMac.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Well you're complaining about a non-feature, it makes no sense.

Its like saying I cannot recommend the MacPro because it does not have a Monitor attached

I don't understand why I'm having a hard time communicating to you in this thread, but I'm not complaining - I'm bringing up the idea of adjust recommendations based on this reality.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, but in recent years the iMac has been seen as a completely capable and non crippled machine that pros that might be doing this would consider buying. During this same time, for a long time the pro Desktop Macs were limited as to what could be upgraded (or upgraded cheaply), so the difference between iMac and Powermac was virtually about the initial sticker specs - you accepted this hit if you were going to buy any sort of Mac.

If anything that means the Mac Pro got more realistically Pro. The iMac isn't crippled -- excluding that graphics card debacle in the latest gen. It's still a very capable computer.

[MacosNerd]

Well you stating that you no longer can recommend the iMac to people because you cannot upgrade the parts. My point is you were always limited to doing that with the iMac and if you people wanted this capability the iMac was never the right fit for them in the first place. That is you could never recommend the imac to those folks who want expandability

I'm not sure why you're having a difficult time understanding such a basic concept.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

If anything that means the Mac Pro got more realistically Pro. The iMac isn't crippled -- excluding that graphics card debacle in the latest gen. It's still a very capable computer.

I said *non* crippled. Therefore, I agree.

My motivation behind this line of thinking is exactly because of the fact that the Mac Pro is finally more realistically pro, like you said.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Well you stating that you no longer can recommend the iMac to people because you cannot upgrade the parts. My point is you were always limited to doing that with the iMac and if you people wanted this capability the iMac was never the right fit for them in the first place. That is you could never recommend the imac to those folks who want expandability

I'm not sure why you're having a difficult time understanding such a basic concept.

*sigh* reread my other posts MacosNerd so we can both dispense with these condescending remarks. Like I said, for a long time the Powermacs were virtually crippled in the same way.

[MacosNerd]

Well I haven't started my condescending remarks. I'm just responding to you how you can no longer recommend the iMac because its now less expandable then the previous version

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Well I haven't started my condescending remarks. I'm just responding to you how you can no longer recommend the iMac because its now less expandable then the previous version

I considered this a condescending remark:

I'm not sure why you're having a difficult time understanding such a basic concept.

I don't see how this could have been intended any differently.

Are we at least on the same page now with understanding my original train of thought?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm bringing up the idea of adjust recommendations based on this reality.

If you know someone who is a hardware geek and enjoys modding and upgrading and changing their computer, don't recommend the iMac to them. Period. In fact, you can't really recommend the Mac Pro to them, since a lot of specialty expansion cards are either incompatible with OS X or cost more (e.g. comparable aftermarket video cards for a Mac vs. a non-Mac tend to cost more on the Mac end).

The iMac is for people who (a)want to know nothing about their computer's physical hardware, (b)do not need high-end performance in the long run, and (c)intend on replacing their computer(s) every two or three years. It is not for people who (a)enjoy buying and installing upgrades for their machines, (b)need the flexibility to use any hardware that they may need now or in the future, and (c)is future-proof enough that it can be adequately upgraded for five or six years before really needing to consider buying a new machine.

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

...you were always limited to doing that with the iMac and if you people wanted this capability the iMac was never the right fit for them in the first place.

i think besson's main point was that the "pro" line of Mac desktops has, in the past, been more or less a closed system - it wasn't as upgradeable as the Mac Pros are in terms of hardware. Now that the Mac Pro provides some more upgrade options, his thought was that it would be a better idea for those who need hardware expandability. The Mac Pro is more expandable, but it's still limited compared to using non-Apple hardware. There's no way around that - Apple hardware was never meant to be for computer power users/hardcore geeks.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I considered this a condescending remark:

Well then No flies on you.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Apple hardware was never meant to be for computer power users/hardcore geeks.

I question your definition of "computer power users" - I suspect it has more to do with people who prefer working ON their computers than working WITH their computers. Because audio/video/graphics/publishing pros are quite a "power user" crowd in terms of demands on the machine.

But yes, they will care about content, and whether the machine can deal with it, not the arcane code used out in bizarro PC Upgrade Land product naming schemes, so your point stands completely.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I question your definition of "computer power users" - I suspect it has more to do with people who prefer working ON their computers than working WITH their computers. Because audio/video/graphics/publishing pros are quite a "power user" crowd in terms of demands on the machine.

But yes, they will care about content, and whether the machine can deal with it, not the arcane code used out in bizarro PC Upgrade Land product naming schemes, so your point stands completely.

For many years, the pros you are referring to were power users *despite* the shortcomings of their hardware. Though Apple wanted people to believe otherwise with their little Photoshop bakeoffs, the PowerPC was falling behind, and here we are.

On top of the PowerPC falling behind, hardware expansion has always been limited. We are finally breaking these barriers, the only real obstacle being one of software - drivers.

[Chuckit]

No, the iMac isn't good for people who want to upgrade their computers. However, I can't take it for granted that upgrading a Mac Pro for six years will be cheaper in the long run than replacing your iMac every two years during the same period, so this is not necessarily a concern as far as cost goes. Remember that these computers hold their value fairly well. In fact, there are some people who are willing to pay more for a last-gen iMac than they would for a new one.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, the iMac isn't good for people who want to upgrade their computers. However, I can't take it for granted that upgrading a Mac Pro for six years will be cheaper in the long run than replacing your iMac every two years during the same period, so this is not necessarily a concern as far as cost goes. Remember that these computers hold their value fairly well. In fact, there are some people who are willing to pay more for a last-gen iMac than they would for a new one.

Is it your feeling that most people sell their 3+ year old Macs? If so, where? Ebay? Do you think most people feel comfortable selling something this valuable this way? Or, do most people hang on to the computer in some fashion (give it to a family, donate it to a friend, whatever) until it no longer has any real value?

I honestly have no notion what most people do with their old computers - Mac or PC.

Regardless, I'm not sure I agree with you. Obviously the monitor will not have to be replaced, and I can't think of any single component or even combinations of components that would surpass the cost of a new iMac with similar hardware.

[macs4all]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

One good thing about the iMac is that it is absolutely silent.

No fan noise.

I cannot state enough how much I appreciate that.

I don't know about the MacPros, if that is still an issue like with the PowerMacs (somebody just posted in the MacPro/Powermac section that he can hear his G5 Powermac across his whole apartment).

I don't know what the problem is supposed to be with G5 towers and "fan noise", but my G5 PowerMac 1.8 dualie runs 24/7 in my BEDROOM, and not only can I not hear it from across the room in bed, it is on top of my desk (I have a DEEP desk), and unless I'm crankin' on it, at low usage or idle it is virtually silent, and I have to actually LISTEN for it while working at my desk. ANY room noise completely drowns it out.

Now the XP system I have at work, sitting next to me as I type, sounds like a frickin' HAIR DRYER!

I think the guy that can hear his G5 "all over his apartment" better check into the voices in his head, too...

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

For many years, the pros you are referring to were power users *despite* the shortcomings of their hardware. Though Apple wanted people to believe otherwise with their little Photoshop bakeoffs, the PowerPC was falling behind, and here we are.

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

[JoshKurtz]

While I wouldn't get an iMac if I was wanting to upgrade components I don't think that there are as many upgraders as there used to be. The first time I built a computer, I did so mainly to save money. There's no way I could've gotten the performance I needed from my budget if I would've gone to Circuit City or the Apple Store.

Nowadays, there's not as big of a cost gap between buying an already packaged computer from Dell, Apple, HP... or building your own as far as I can tell.

That all being said, I would not recommend an iMac to someone who likes to tinker with their hardware. As far as future-proofing goes, I don't think that any computers can be future-proofed for too long unless you completely gut it out every couple of years to get an actual jump in usage capabilities which would require something with a tower like the Mac Pro. I can't think of any computer that I would tell someone is the one to get them through the next 5-10 years.

I'm no big Scott McNeally fan but he had a cool quote that went something like, "Technology has the shelf life of a banana."

[kcmac]

iMac starting at 1199. Everything you need.

Mac Pro starting at 2499. Needs a monitor.

Upgrade to an entirely new iMac in a couple of years or so. sell old one on eBay. Still come out way ahead in total expenditure. Plus by that time, you probably get a new version of OS X and a new version of iLife for free.

I recommend the iMac highly.

[AC Rempt]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is it your feeling that most people sell their 3+ year old Macs? If so, where? Ebay? Do you think most people feel comfortable selling something this valuable this way? Or, do most people hang on to the computer in some fashion (give it to a family, donate it to a friend, whatever) until it no longer has any real value?

I honestly have no notion what most people do with their old computers - Mac or PC.

Regardless, I'm not sure I agree with you. Obviously the monitor will not have to be replaced, and I can't think of any single component or even combinations of components that would surpass the cost of a new iMac with similar hardware.

I upgrade every couple of years out of sheer desire, not need, and I usually sell my older machines to people I know who want a good deal on some decent hardware. For instance, since I just bought my 24" iMac, I'm selling my 20" Core Duo to a friend's sister. She's a student and needs a decent machine at a decent price.

What is true is that several of my former Macs are still in service, owned by people who will use them til the machines fail or the new owners can afford to upgrade.

I have also sold machines via eBay, and it's been fine.

I've also had a couple of PCs, and those I donated to charity since they had didn't have any resale value.

Dunno if my experience is common, but there it is.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is it your feeling that most people sell their 3+ year old Macs?

No, but I think people who wouldn't sell their old computer to replace it with a better model also wouldn't put much into upgrading the computer either. For most people, I suspect a computer is (sometimes literally) just a black box. My point is just that the lack of upgradability isn't doesn't necessarily make the iMac a poor financial choice — it might not be right for you, but it's OK just from a money standpoint. The iMac can't have its components upgraded individually, but that doesn't mean you're stuck and the money you spent on it is lost if you actually want to upgrade.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Regardless, I'm not sure I agree with you. Obviously the monitor will not have to be replaced, and I can't think of any single component or even combinations of components that would surpass the cost of a new iMac with similar hardware.

If you don't subtract the proceeds from selling old iMac, sure. Like I said, these are computers that hold their value pretty well traditionally. If you sell your old iMac for $1000 and pick up a new one for $1400, that's less than the usual price of a pair of new Mac Pro CPUs (which tend to run upwards of $500 each when they're new — even the old ones are still $350 on Newegg), much less the CPUs plus a new video card.

[rubaiyat]

If you are using the iMac in any shape or form for business, you are not spending a great deal for an extremely capable tool*. Even if you work on a short product cycle of 24-36 months, you only have to spread the net cost after resale to see that the cost is minimal. You will be spending far more on telephones, stationery etc.

Most expansion can be handled with external drives or peripherals which stay with you after an upgrade. Upgrading the cpu has in nearly every case been frustrated by changes Apple makes to the system. The only time I tried it was a G4 upgrade which was expensive, overheated and required further upgrades when the Video and ATA card became the next weakest links.

A Mac Pro + separate monitor on the other hand will not substantially increase your productivity these days, unless you are working with video or 3D.

They are also much harder to sell IMHO because the market is much smaller and the product appeals to users who will rather spend their money on a late model new machine, or demand a very sharp discount to match the usual disparity in performance between new and superceded machines.

In my experience claims that you will lose the monitor before the cpu are unlikely. In any case it is very hard to sell a 2nd computer that isn't a complete set of monitor, cpu, keyboard etc, in other words ready to go.


* Tempered by the difficulty of editing graphics on the new glossy iMacs. Consider this to be a recommendation for the highly discounted previous models or the next (fingers crossed) iMac with some anti-glare coating.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by rubaiyat 

In my experience claims that you will lose the monitor before the cpu are unlikely. In any case it is very hard to sell a 2nd computer that isn't a complete set of monitor, cpu, keyboard etc, in other words ready to go.

that does happen but its the exception rather then the rule. I have a couple of old Macintoshs, Mac SE, Mac Color Classic and the monitors are still going strong even after all of these years.

[Big Mac]

besson, you want iMacs to serve a market they're not intended to serve. You want iLife to serve a market it's not intended to serve. Do you see a pattern here? These are limited, consumer targeted products. It's unfortunate that Apple doesn't have a low-end MP, but Apple exited that market a while ago and there's nothing you can do about it.

Btw, we all already realize you're an Intel fanboy. Stop bashing real Macs. It's unbecoming.

[Xyphoid Process]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

However, I can't take it for granted that upgrading a Mac Pro for six years will be cheaper in the long run than replacing your iMac every two years during the same period, so this is not necessarily a concern as far as cost goes.

My current home computer is a 400MHZ G4, and it has lasted over 7 years. During that time I've upgraded the memory, graphics, hard drive and optical drive (sometimes more than once). In 2000 the iMac was a toy compared to the PowerMac, so it was a no-brainer decision. However, my total cost has probably been about the same as cycling iMacs every two years. This means I started with a much better machine, but now I'm still using a 400MHZ G4. Would you want to use this as an every day machine? If you get a MP on this logic, you will be in the same position in 2013.

At this point the iMacs are a much better proposition than they were seven years ago, so the longevity argument is even less compelling.

[WhozeJohnGalt]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

One good thing about the iMac is that it is absolutely silent.

No fan noise.

I cannot state enough how much I appreciate that.

Werd. I can't stand using G5 powermacs. They sound like turbines.

BUt to the OP, yeah, the glossy annoying screen and subpar graphics performance are a huge let down. I'd get a powermac if they were as cheap as they SHOULD be, but unfortunately, that isn't hte case, so I'll stick with an iMac for now.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by WhozeJohnGalt 

Werd. I can't stand using G5 powermacs. They sound like turbines.

Then you must have dog ears. Mine is mostly silent unless there's really high ambient temperature in the room.

[WhozeJohnGalt]

I don't think so. Everybody who's used one that I know of has complained about the noise. It's obnoxious.

[Deal]

I agree and disagree with the poster that commented on iMacs being upgradable. The RAM is a pretty easy upgrade, but the hard drive is another story (at least for the recent iMacs.

It used to be, three little screw like releases and the back popped off—viola, there is everything.

The more recent ones require a flat tool, screws, and being very careful to get the front off. Then removing a lot of sticky tape like material, sticky metal shielding, removing the LCD screen, more black stuff, on and on... It's a real pain for anybody to get to the hard drive.

I would recommend an external drive to anybody who has that version of iMac before upgrading it. I haven't been in the most recent iMac yet, but I sure hope it's better than the last.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Then you must have dog ears. Mine is mostly silent unless there's really high ambient temperature in the room.

I don't know what's "really high" to you, but in a room of about 70° F, they can sound like they're getting ready to explode.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't know what's "really high" to you, but in a room of about 70° F, they can sound like they're getting ready to explode.

It's about 85° here and my G5 is whisper quiet.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I question your definition of "computer power users" - I suspect it has more to do with people who prefer working ON their computers than working WITH their computers. Because audio/video/graphics/publishing pros are quite a "power user" crowd in terms of demands on the machine.

I suppose then the "hardcore geeks" nod in my post deserved more emphasis. There's a difference between someone who is a power user in a few applications - my mother is computer illiterate for the most part (she still thinks that Google is the portal to the internets and refuses to use the address bar in any browser), but she's a power user in Blackbaud Raiser's Edge, which is a specialized database solution for non-profit organizations.

I'm talking more about the all-around power users and hardcore geeks - the people who get enjoyment from working with and upgrading and changing their computer hardware, and sometimes have odd hardware needs (most PCI expansion cards just won't work with OS X).

But yes, they will care about content, and whether the machine can deal with it, not the arcane code used out in bizarro PC Upgrade Land product naming schemes, so your point stands completely.

The way you say that makes it sound like sane people wouldn't ever care about computer hardware and messing around with computer hardware. This isn't the case. Some people simply enjoy working with hardware and upgrading their machines, similar to how some people inexplicably enjoy complex physics or math as a hobby. Macs are flat-out not designed with the hardware/hardcore geek in mind.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

On top of the PowerPC falling behind, hardware expansion has always been limited. We are finally breaking these barriers, the only real obstacle being one of software - drivers.

And with a small market share, most hardware manufacturers aren't interested in writing and updating drivers for OS X. It's unfortunate, but true.

Originally Posted by JoshKurtz 

Nowadays, there's not as big of a cost gap between buying an already packaged computer from Dell, Apple, HP... or building your own as far as I can tell.

Right - people who are into computer hardware aren't necessarily into it because they can build the equivalent of a $500 Dell for $350. They do it because they enjoy it - and there are some who are hardware geeks (like myself) who start with a base prebuilt machine and expand it from there.

As far as future-proofing goes, I don't think that any computers can be future-proofed for too long unless you completely gut it out every couple of years to get an actual jump in usage capabilities which would require something with a tower like the Mac Pro. I can't think of any computer that I would tell someone is the one to get them through the next 5-10 years.

What's interesting is that you can adequately keep an older machine up-to-date without gutting the entire thing. I've got a Dell PowerEdge 400SC that I bought around October 2003. Four years later and it still does everything (including the little gaming that I actually do) flawlessly. It's got a 2.8GHz P4 HT, and while that's sh!t compared to the dual-core processors on the market today, it's plenty fast for anything I throw at it. With 2GB of RAM, a dual-layer DVD burner, gigabit NIC, and two monitors on an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro, I'm absolutely not planning on buying a new desktop anytime in the near future.

My mother's computer is almost four years old, and still works perfectly for her needs. A family I do tech support for has a three-year-old Dell that is just fine for their three kids and the mom's stuff.

Obviously ten years is a long time to keep a computer in service, but it's completely doable to keep a computer in use four to six years after you buy it. This idea is the main reason that I always advise people to buy the absolute best hardware they can for their budget - the newer and better you can buy right now, the longer you can keep it before you have to upgrade.

And when it comes down to it, the only reason why someone needs something faster than a 1.2GHz P4 (or even a 700 or 800Mhz P3) today is because Vista requires it - but XP is going to be supported through April 2014, so it's more or less a moot point right now. For browsing the web, organizing digital pictures, ripping and burning music, and doing basic word processing for school and work - and that's all that most consumers do on their computers - you really don't need the hardware that's out there today, let alone what was available five years ago.


=============

edit : company network crapped out. I meant to post this at noon but was just now able to get back on the network. Sorry.