Forums | MacLife

volk wrote:

This is why I will never understand this argument.  You say you want to pay a couple hundred for a new graphics card, but what good is that?  You aren't going to get better performance for that kind of money.  If you want cutting edge gaming, you have to pay BIG money on graphics cards that would bring a cheap tower squarely into Mac Pro territory.  Unfortunately, within two years, that $700+ card will be bottom end for the latest games, and you have half the machine of a Mac Pro to upgrade with yet another rediculously expensive card.  How does this really make any sense at all?

In that same time, the iMac you have labeled as "decent" for gaming will have gone through another revision with massive architecture upgrades creating a better overall performance package making it perfectly suitable for all the games available at the time.  The upside is, your existing iMac will likely still have enough re-sale value to get into the next iMac for under the cost of the latest and greatest graphics card.

Just how long do you really expect the usable life to be on any machine designed for gaming that you think a consumer tower would slow your upgrade cycle, anyway?  Besides, as Sci already stated, what makes you so sure no one will build a card for the upgradable graphics slot in the 24" iMac anyway?

Not really.  the 8800GTX is still pretty pricey, but we picked up a 7950GT for less than $300, same prices for an X1950XT.  Better than dropping $2K on a new rig.  If you buy midrange cards, you can upgrade for even less.  The point being that the 7600GT in the iMac is already a midrange card and isn't DX10 compatible.  It will be obsolete sooner.  I run an X800XT and it's still fine for most games.  But when I want a better card, I can upgrade.  It runs about as well as most of the current midrange cards do now, so I have some time.  The point being that I can without replacing the whole machine.  Sure, the high-end cards run around $600, but only really dedicated gamers buy those, most settle for the slightly lower options (i.e. 7950GT vs. GTX).

Also, there won't be any major architectural changes until Intel makes them.  PCIe will be around for some time.  Even now, ATi and NVIDIA make upgrades for AGP systems.

I realize the iMac isn't for everyone, but I hardly see how your experience with a 1st gen iMac really translates the the Core 2 models.  The iMac can be upgraded by anyone willing to open the case, or better yet, expanded through Firewire 800.  This machine is easily better than a 2 year cycle.  As to the comment about outgrowing the iMac, are you under the impression that you won't outgrow a tower?  Rediculous.  The 24" is hardly a "huge chasm" jump from the Mac Pro...in fact, in some ways it offers superior performance.

You need to get on the Intel bandwagon...it really is a brave new world for Apple performance.

Opening the case can void your warranty.  It's also much more difficult than opening up your typical tower.  Removing a few screws and pulling off a case cover is much simpler than the steps required to pop open an iMac.  FireWire 800 is good for hard drives and that's about it - and some people prefer internal to external drives (external drives are considerably more expensive and there's a performance hit).  For casual use, yes, it's good for several years - as are many Windows PCs.  For others, the upgrade cycle is a bit more frequent.

The iMac offers better performance in some respects because of the memory architecture.  The FB-DIMMs are considerably slower and you need to install four sets of DIMMS to make use of the quad-channel memory.  The iMac's chipset is limited, but that will change in a few months.  The point being that quite a few common upgrades - optical drive, hard drive, video card, adding new I/O - cannot be done with an iMac.  At least not easily and not for your average person.

I'm also on the Intel bandwagon.  My laptop is a MacBook and it's a great little machine and I use it for most tasks.  I accept the fact that it's not very upgradeable (although swapping out the hard drive is surprisingly easy - easier than the iMac definitely) because I gain the advantage of mobility.  The iMac is a desktop that has the same upgrade limitations as a laptop.

Mr. T wrote:

Czachorski wrote:

I routinely edit video on an almost 5 year old Mac.  I am managing a larger media library now than I was 5 years ago (18,000 songs, 15,000 photos) using the latest versons of iTunes and iPhoto.  I am running the latest Mac OS on a nearly 5 year old Mac.  I have never had a slow down on my nearly 5 year old Mac from viruses or spyware.  I have never had to reinstall the OS on my nearly 5 year old Mac.  The only reason I am looking to upgrade is to add new functionality like HD editing.  Can similar claims be made about that PC fro 2002?  Doubtful.  These items support my claim that Macs last longer because they continue to adequately perform the functions they were purchased for longer than Windows PCs.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying.  Is it your claim that 5 year-old Macs still function as they did 5 years ago, whereas PCs do not?  If so, this is false because the same is true of PCs as well.  The machine I gave my brother is even older (800MHz PIII) and it manages a vast music library also.  There never was any useful PC-equivelent to iMovie, but it's certainly capable of running pro/prosumer solutions such as Avid or Premiere (albeit with Pentium III speed).  It's been outfitted with a half-gig of RAM (in four sticks), an 80GB HD, and also a GF Ti4200 video card, enabling the system to run some classic games like GTA Vice City, Call of Duty, Brothers In Arms, No One Lives Forever 2, among several others.  It's got the usual Anti-Virus/spyware apps, so it should be good for at least another few years before another XP reinstall.

This is what I was saying:  Macs last longer than PCs.  And not because they are more expensive, or are less upgradeable.  They last longer because the adequately perform the tasks the were purchased for longer than PCs.

Is that 800 MHz P3 capable of running the latest version of windows?  Is it running the latest versions of those video editing, photo management and music software?  Does it require nearly zero mainteance to keep it going.  All doubtful.  But this is the case with the Mac world.

I am not just saying "a 5 year old Mac can perform the same functions it did as the day it was bought" - thay would be a silly thing to even bother typing - any PC can do that!  My Old Commodore can do that.  I am saying that with little to no troubles, my 5 year old Mac is running the latest versions of the OS, video editing software and media management software, and doing so quite snappily.  Could the same be said of most 5 year old PCs running Windows?  No.

What's so hard to understand about that?  It's the very basis behind most Mac owners claim that "Macs last longer".

Czachorski wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

Czachorski wrote:

I routinely edit video on an almost 5 year old Mac.  I am managing a larger media library now than I was 5 years ago (18,000 songs, 15,000 photos) using the latest versons of iTunes and iPhoto.  I am running the latest Mac OS on a nearly 5 year old Mac.  I have never had a slow down on my nearly 5 year old Mac from viruses or spyware.  I have never had to reinstall the OS on my nearly 5 year old Mac.  The only reason I am looking to upgrade is to add new functionality like HD editing.  Can similar claims be made about that PC fro 2002?  Doubtful.  These items support my claim that Macs last longer because they continue to adequately perform the functions they were purchased for longer than Windows PCs.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying.  Is it your claim that 5 year-old Macs still function as they did 5 years ago, whereas PCs do not?  If so, this is false because the same is true of PCs as well.  The machine I gave my brother is even older (800MHz PIII) and it manages a vast music library also.  There never was any useful PC-equivelent to iMovie, but it's certainly capable of running pro/prosumer solutions such as Avid or Premiere (albeit with Pentium III speed).  It's been outfitted with a half-gig of RAM (in four sticks), an 80GB HD, and also a GF Ti4200 video card, enabling the system to run some classic games like GTA Vice City, Call of Duty, Brothers In Arms, No One Lives Forever 2, among several others.  It's got the usual Anti-Virus/spyware apps, so it should be good for at least another few years before another XP reinstall.

This is what I was saying:  Macs last longer than PCs.  And not because they are more expensive, or are less upgradeable.  They last longer because the adequately perform the tasks the were purchased for longer than PCs.

Is that 800 MHz P3 capable of running the latest version of windows?

Yes - but the latest version of Windows sucks.

Is it running the latest versions of those video editing, photo management and music software?

Yes, though in the case of pro video apps, it will run at Pentium III speeds - Cut me a little slack; this machine is from the 90's!!  FCP won't even let itself run it on a Mac as old as this.

Does it require nearly zero mainteance to keep it going.

No, but how is that relevant?  That has nothing to do with the useful life of a machine.

I am not just saying "a 5 year old Mac can perform the same functions it did as the day it was bought" - thay would be a silly thing to even bother typing - any PC can do that!  My Old Commodore can do that.  I am saying that with little to no troubles, my 5 year old Mac is running the latest versions of the OS, video editing software and media management software, and doing so quite snappily.  Could the same be said of most 5 year old PCs running Windows?  No.


What's so hard to understand about that?  It's the very basis behind most Mac owners claim that "Macs last longer".

Look, this isn't some intrinsic knowledge.  To me, your argument is so obviously false that I couldn't possibly have assumed it on my own.  That's why I needed the clarification (which I thank you for providing, btw).

Anyway, in a truly fair comparison, a typical 5 year-old PC would have a 2.5GHz P4, and would run all the latest software (even games with a vid card upgrade) with no qualifications whatsoever.  My brother's PC is obviously much older, but I used it in the comparison for added emphasis.

Pariah wrote:

BTW I dont game at all unless Snood or Klondike counts.

They do.

Mr. T wrote:

To me, your argument is so obviously false that I couldn't possibly have assumed it on my own.

My experience is based on my last PC, which we kept as our main machine for about 4 years, and my Mac (which replaced that PC), which we have had for about 5.  In your world, a view point which is so obviously false, is my reality each day I use my Mac.

PS - so Mr T- is your stance the same as Jax?  Are you saying that PCs don't last longer than Macs?  Are you saying they do last longer, but for the reason Jax stated?  Are you saying something else?  What are you saying?

Last edited by Czachorski (2007-04-11 10:26 pm)

robco wrote:

I just put a new motherboard, CPU and RAM into an existing machine.  Carried over the hard drive, graphics card and optical drive.  Much less than buying a whole new machine.

PC or Mac?

Everything you mentioned is upgradeable on an iMac, outside of the Graphics Card (aside from on the 24")… if you replace Motherboard with CPU.

this is off topic i know, and i dont mean to derail this thread, but i have to say i am continually impressed with the intellectual arguments on these maclife boards.  vwvortex is the forum i post on most often and everybody just bitches at each other and takes personal attacks at each other and calls each other "gay".  i definitely prefer these intellegent arguments in here.

Apple - here's an idea.
When a machine is returned for being smurfed, refurb the mobo and sell it to people like me.

Pariah wrote:

What are you talking about? Not one of the upgrades I put on my G4 can be done on an iMac. You cannot add internal storage, you cannot upgrade the video card, you cannot add additional ports.
Certainly you can create a big hairy mess of externals but then what exactly is the point of an AIO if you surround it with clutter?
Ironically I want a tower because I want a tidy desk instead of the mess I would have if I got an iMac or a Mini.

BTW I dont game at all unless Snood or Klondike counts.

Not being able to upgrade in the way you want aesthetically is not the same as not being able to upgrade.  I have already conceeded that it would be nice to have a mid-range tower, but we don't.  If you want to run OS X, your choice is an mini, iMac, or Pro.  Sorry, that's just the way it is.  That said, the "it's not upgradeable" label that gets hurled at the iMac is just flat out false.  Is it AS upgradable as a tower?  No, but with the exception of the display and the video card (which is upgradable if a card is developed) everything else is in one form or another.

The iMac already comes in with 802.11N, a standard that will be fully useful for several years, built in Bluetooth, USB 2.0, Firewire 400 and 800, gigabit ethernet, a GOOD video card, and an option for 750 gig HD.  RAM can be expanded to 3 gigs.  Hard drives can be added via Firewire 800...as many as you want!  USB 2.0 can easily be expanded with a hub if desired.  Outside of the video card here, what is there to complain about? 

Again, the iMac isn't for everyone, but the machine is so capable out of the box that I'd be willing to bet 90% or more of the users on this board could get everything they need accomplished with one, including "upgrading".  The exception being media professionals and hardcore gamers.  Saying the iMac isn't upgradable is a PC fanboy argument largely grounded in ignorance.

volk wrote:

Pariah wrote:

ConnertheCat wrote:

People always complain about lack of upgradeability, but how often do you guys actually do it?  My three year old G5 tower has gotten a few RAM upgrades, and a new harddrive - both of which can be done on an iMac…

My G4 has 3 internal HDDs, 1.128 gig of ram in the form of 4 sticks, an additional USB card, an additional Firewire card, a 3rd party wireless card, an upgraded VidCard, a 3rd party 900mhz  cpu and a standard DVD/CD/r drive (as opposed to an oddball, half assed, sideways mounted slot loader). I also have my choice of monitor which matters to me.
So, yeah...I get my moneys worth out of a tower.

Not to discount your upgrade philosophy on your tower, but aside from the upgraded video and your choice of monitor, what edge exactly does your highly upgraded tower have over the iMac?  Everything else you added is available stock on the iMac.

Until 2-3 years later. I could add Firewire800, USB2, & SATA ports on a tower anytime but not on a iMac. Sure. iMac has almost the latest and the greatest when it's released but once it hits a couple of years old, it's behind most of consumer level computers.

Firewire800 is only on a 24" iMac.

Czachorski wrote:

And how do any of these points support your claim that the reason Macs last longer than PCs is "macs have such limited upgrade options and cost enough that you don't want to replace the thing very often"?  That is what I was calling bs on.

I never claimed a mac lasts longer, I said the opposite. A PC can last just as long.

Is that 2002 PC doing video editing?  Is it running the latest version of Windows?  Is it running the latest versions of the programs she runs?  Is she managing a large media library with it?  How much time/effort have you spent properly "maintaining" it?  Have you reinstalled the OS or had to erradicate a virus/spyware infestation?

She never did video editing to begin with. It runs XP Pro (there is no case for upgrading to vista) and yes it runs the latest versions of the apps she uses (primarily photoshop, dream weaver, iTunes and Picasa + some others I'm not familiar wtih) Yes she manages a large collection of photos and videos with the machine.

The machine has been upgraded in this time, it has 2 newer HDs installed, a different video card, an extra 512 megs of RAM (1.5 gigs total) and a USB2/Fireware PCI card installed to make transfers to her iPod faster.

Can similar claims be made about that PC fro 2002?  Doubtful.  These items support my claim that Macs last longer because they continue to adequately perform the functions they were purchased for longer than Windows PCs.

I haven't had to do much to it from that standpoint. I re-installed the OS about 2 years ago when we upgraded her Primary HD.  She runs AVG on the machine for virus protection and of course the computer is on a network that has a hardware firewall that I configured.   

In my experience my PCs have outlived my macs. You feel I'm full of it with my assertions and its obvious our personal experiences differ greatly with our computers.

I can't really think of a reason to keep debating this.

HackerJax wrote:

In my experience my PCs have outlived my macs. You feel I'm full of it with my assertions and its obvious our personal experiences differ greatly with our computers.

I can't really think of a reason to keep debating this.

I agree that PC and Macs have similar life spans when they are of similar configuration. Comparing the life of an iMac to a bargain basement pc is really stupid (just as stupid as comparing their prices and saying PCs are cheaper).

I think the main problem is that there are more people who own PCs that have problems with their OS. They don't want to bother trying to learn it so they just run out and buy a new machine.

I think we can see from the posts here that Apple needs to release a Tower that offers the upgrade paths people want, and its not just for gaming either. Setting the OS fight aside, PC's last as long as Macs, I know of one that is Running WindowsME that sits in a closet since it was retired from Main Status that runs as a file server on the house network, going on I think like 6 or 7 years without any problems. This whole PC vs Mac battle is just overstated, Since I worked out the install bugs in Vista, it is running fine, yes I have upgraded the Video Card to a ATI X1900 for like 300 bucks and 512 Ram for 60 bucks, thats all and that was before Vista, if I want to upgrade or slap in a new harddrive I just unscrew 2 screws and BAM I can upgrade, not hard at all, but if I want to do it on my  iMac I have to buy a external Drive , because if I open this smurfing case it voids my warrenty and after looking at the article in MacAddict there is no way I am going to mess with it, talk about unfriendly ! For the people who say that average people do not upgrade or its just for Gaming , you are WRONG get over it, stop spouting that crap , its not true the upgrade market is going strong , I see people all the time buying video cards and Harddrives and TV tuner cards for the Computers. it just comes down to choice, I seem to recall the Apple Clone makers and how well they did until oh Jobs killed them off, so you have to by his computers. Will I buy another iMac ? Maybe , But I  would like more choices. I would love to have a Apple Tower that is not 3000 bucks, thats insane. So the fight goes on.

All Spelling and grammer mistakes are mine, I left them in so you know I wrote it  !

Supergoo