Yes, but you could have got the enrty level model, and had enough left over to have bought a brand new MBP last year that currently beats your model in performance.
The difference between the high and low end MBP is around $400... that's hardly enough to buy a brand new MBP... Changing $400 to $1800 in 4 years would be quite an investment! (though AAPL would bring you close if you got in at the right time! LOL)
The difference between the high and low end MBP is around $400... that's hardly enough to buy a brand new MBP... Changing $400 to $1800 in 4 years would be quite an investment! (though AAPL would bring you close if you got in at the right time! LOL)
Until you start adding RAM and hard drive options...
As far as "future proofing" goes, with these new iMacs, that concept is rather silly. In all likelihood, these will be the last iMacs without USB 3.0. This will also adversely affect their resale value.
That assumes that the average iMac purchaser cares about USB 3. The only things I use USB for are:
- downloading images from my camera, but this is limited by camera speed, not bus
- Backing up to Time Machine. Not time sensitive
- keyboard and mouse (on some Macs).
USB3 is going to be great for some people who can use it. For most people, it's a big yawn.
Not to mention, of course, that in most cases, resale values are not significantly affected by one 'missing' feature since most people who buy a used Mac aren't concerned about the latest and greatest features.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub
Future proofing is a bad goal to set for most people. Look at the jumps in technology within a year. I don't see future proofing as a motivator for up buying.
So you don't. Since no one else asked for you to choose their computer for them, that's relevant only to you.
SOME people keep their computers for a long time. Adding a CPU upgrade for a couple hundred dollars may extend the life considerably.
I bought my iMac a few years ago with the top available processor. I paid a couple hundred dollars extra. Yet, even today, I don't see any reason to upgrade, but if I had bought the base processor, I'd be looking at it very seriously. If a couple hundred dollars allows you to extend the life of a $2 K computer by a couple of years, it can be a great bargain. PLUS, you probably get a large chunk of the upgrade price back on resale.
I have a pet peeve about the new line up. I have a 24" iMac that is just perfect for me size-wise. To upgrade, I must either get a smaller screen or pay for more screen space than I want or need (or that may even fit under my shelf). In short, 21 is a step down and 27 too big for many people. I am going to wait and see what happens next round before deciding on an upgrade. Maybe they'll offer a midsize screen.
If a couple hundred dollars allows you to extend the life of a $2 K computer by a couple of years, it can be a great bargain. PLUS, you probably get a large chunk of the upgrade price back on resale.
I agree that it is a great bargain and just a better idea overall (at least for me), the notion that you would get that "large chunk" back is unlikely. the extra money that you would potentially get back would be negated by the fact that the machine is an extra 2 years older than when you would have originally considered reselling it. The extended timeline (say, 4 years rather than 2) cancels out the additional value of the high end upgrades.
Performance site Bare Feats has compared the performance of Apple's new Core i3, i5, and i7 27 inch iMacs and determined the high end model offers the best performance per dollar.
No surprise., Steve is a marketing genius. This way, he gets both the geeks and the value consumers both to spend the greatest possible amount of money.
I agree that it is a great bargain and just a better idea overall (at least for me), the notion that you would get that "large chunk" back is unlikely. the extra money that you would potentially get back would be negated by the fact that the machine is an extra 2 years older than when you would have originally considered reselling it. The extended timeline (say, 4 years rather than 2) cancels out the additional value of the high end upgrades.
I guess it depends on what comparison you make.
Let's say I could buy a low end model and sell it after 2 years or a high end model and sell it after 4 years.
The resale value of the high end model after 4 years is probably comparable to the low end model after 2 years, true. However, if you compare the high end model after 4 years to the low end model after 4 years, you'll still get more. Either comparison is a win, even if the first comparison is more likely.
Software only grows more complex and hungrier. Files ever larger. My first machine has a whopping 48 K of RAM and no drives at all!
Whoa, Flashback!
You got me beat.
I used to work on mainframes via a remote teletype timeshare, but the first computer I actually bought was 128k of RAM and it had an external 5 inch floppy drive.
It now resides in my kid's friend's Apple Museum. I still use the 10 inch green/black monitor as an aux monitor for headless stuff. After 27 years, Apple's monitor is STILL a useful piece of equipment.
I'd say the best value is determined after purchasing a machine and then weighing up how much you regret your purchase based on usage and for the vast majority of people, spending the extra $500 to get from the dual 3.6GHz i5 to the quad i7 won't be worth it.
I'd say that nobody who buys the i7 will have any regrets whatsoever. The first time they want to convert a movie into Apple format to watch on their iPad, they will be amazed at how fast it goes.
Absolutely. If you need to spellcheck novels or if you work with huge spreadsheet files or you have a lot of videos to put onto your iPad, go for the quad core.
OTOH, if you are a dedicated MacGamer, go for the better video subsystem.
It's not too hard to imagine scenarios where a dual-core 3.6 GHz chip is the better solution. Indeed, I just ordered an iMac with the 3.6 GHz dual core CPU precisely because it will be used in a context where a quad core just wouldn't add much value at all, either now or down the road (plus, I've got my Mac Pro for situations where lots of cores really are helpful).
The dual core is never a better solution. It may be cheaper, but as a solution, it is inferior to the quad core.
I agree with you, however, that the dual core can be a fine machine as a second computer for casual use, if one has a Mac Pro or three laying around.
It can even be adequate for a lot of casual users who don't rip videos or who choose not to visit video or games sites on the internet. But it is not better.
well, adding RAM and upgrading the hard drive through the Apple Store is throwing your money away.
Actually, increasing the RAM and HD at the time of purchase is a very reasonable charge, compared with the hassle of sending the machine away to be upgraded by Apple later.
Actually, increasing the RAM and HD at the time of purchase is a very reasonable charge, compared with the hassle of sending the machine away to be upgraded by Apple later.
Yes, but his point was that it's idiotic to do it at the Apple Store when you buy the machine, rather than buying the components separately and installing them yourself.
I used to work on mainframes via a remote teletype timeshare, but the first computer I actually bought was 128k of RAM and it had an external 5 inch floppy drive.
It now resides in my kid's friend's Apple Museum. I still use the 10 inch green/black monitor as an aux monitor for headless stuff. After 27 years, Apple's monitor is STILL a useful piece of equipment.
Before my family bought a C64, we had a Vic-20. Beat that.
But actually, the first computer I bought with my own money was a Performa 450 at Sears with my Sears card. The Performa 450 was a 25MHz LCIII minus the FPU sold in a package with an Apple 14" 640x480 monitor, but in a few months I went to Sonnet Technologies (yes, the same one that exists today) and bought the FPU for $19. It had 4MB of Ram, if I recall correctly.
I have a pet peeve about the new line up. I have a 24" iMac that is just perfect for me size-wise. To upgrade, I must either get a smaller screen or pay for more screen space than I want or need (or that may even fit under my shelf). In short, 21 is a step down and 27 too big for many people. I am going to wait and see what happens next round before deciding on an upgrade. Maybe they'll offer a midsize screen.
Actually, for the vast majority of users, the 21 and the 27 inch models are the perfect choice.
There are perhaps a tiny number of people who would want something different, but I think that most of them will eventually realize that Steve made exactly the right choices when he gave us the 21 and 27 models.
Yes, but his point was that it's idiotic to do it at the Apple Store when you buy the machine, rather than buying the components separately and installing them yourself.
I understand that. But what he doesn't take into account is that Mac computers are for normal mom and pop type people, and he assumes that the typical Mac user is some sort of ubergeek who opens up the case.
Comments
Yes, but you could have got the enrty level model, and had enough left over to have bought a brand new MBP last year that currently beats your model in performance.
The difference between the high and low end MBP is around $400... that's hardly enough to buy a brand new MBP... Changing $400 to $1800 in 4 years would be quite an investment! (though AAPL would bring you close if you got in at the right time! LOL)
The difference between the high and low end MBP is around $400... that's hardly enough to buy a brand new MBP... Changing $400 to $1800 in 4 years would be quite an investment! (though AAPL would bring you close if you got in at the right time! LOL)
Until you start adding RAM and hard drive options...
Until you start adding RAM and hard drive options...
well, adding RAM and upgrading the hard drive through the Apple Store is throwing your money away.
If you had to choose upgrading the CPU -OR- the GPU on the lower-end 27" model, would you choose the
ATI Radeon HD 5750 w/ 1GB GDDR5 VRAM over the ATI Radeon HD 5670 w/ 512MB GDDR3 VRAM
-OR-
Quad Core i7 2.93GHz (turbo up to 3.6GHz) over the Quad Core i5 2.8GHz (turbo up to 3.33GHz)???
Both upgrades are $200 each.
What do you intend to use your iMac for? Games, or video editing, or...?
As far as "future proofing" goes, with these new iMacs, that concept is rather silly. In all likelihood, these will be the last iMacs without USB 3.0. This will also adversely affect their resale value.
That assumes that the average iMac purchaser cares about USB 3. The only things I use USB for are:
- downloading images from my camera, but this is limited by camera speed, not bus
- Backing up to Time Machine. Not time sensitive
- keyboard and mouse (on some Macs).
USB3 is going to be great for some people who can use it. For most people, it's a big yawn.
Not to mention, of course, that in most cases, resale values are not significantly affected by one 'missing' feature since most people who buy a used Mac aren't concerned about the latest and greatest features.
Future proofing is a bad goal to set for most people. Look at the jumps in technology within a year. I don't see future proofing as a motivator for up buying.
So you don't. Since no one else asked for you to choose their computer for them, that's relevant only to you.
SOME people keep their computers for a long time. Adding a CPU upgrade for a couple hundred dollars may extend the life considerably.
I bought my iMac a few years ago with the top available processor. I paid a couple hundred dollars extra. Yet, even today, I don't see any reason to upgrade, but if I had bought the base processor, I'd be looking at it very seriously. If a couple hundred dollars allows you to extend the life of a $2 K computer by a couple of years, it can be a great bargain. PLUS, you probably get a large chunk of the upgrade price back on resale.
If a couple hundred dollars allows you to extend the life of a $2 K computer by a couple of years, it can be a great bargain. PLUS, you probably get a large chunk of the upgrade price back on resale.
I agree that it is a great bargain and just a better idea overall (at least for me), the notion that you would get that "large chunk" back is unlikely. the extra money that you would potentially get back would be negated by the fact that the machine is an extra 2 years older than when you would have originally considered reselling it. The extended timeline (say, 4 years rather than 2) cancels out the additional value of the high end upgrades.
Performance site Bare Feats has compared the performance of Apple's new Core i3, i5, and i7 27 inch iMacs and determined the high end model offers the best performance per dollar.
No surprise., Steve is a marketing genius. This way, he gets both the geeks and the value consumers both to spend the greatest possible amount of money.
Pure Genius.
If you're going to use a term like "faux pas," it would be a good idea to learn how to spell it first.
It would, unless it was intented to draw attention to how laughable the information in the article is...but thanks for noticing
I agree that it is a great bargain and just a better idea overall (at least for me), the notion that you would get that "large chunk" back is unlikely. the extra money that you would potentially get back would be negated by the fact that the machine is an extra 2 years older than when you would have originally considered reselling it. The extended timeline (say, 4 years rather than 2) cancels out the additional value of the high end upgrades.
I guess it depends on what comparison you make.
Let's say I could buy a low end model and sell it after 2 years or a high end model and sell it after 4 years.
The resale value of the high end model after 4 years is probably comparable to the low end model after 2 years, true. However, if you compare the high end model after 4 years to the low end model after 4 years, you'll still get more. Either comparison is a win, even if the first comparison is more likely.
Software only grows more complex and hungrier. Files ever larger. My first machine has a whopping 48 K of RAM and no drives at all!
Whoa, Flashback!
You got me beat.
I used to work on mainframes via a remote teletype timeshare, but the first computer I actually bought was 128k of RAM and it had an external 5 inch floppy drive.
It now resides in my kid's friend's Apple Museum. I still use the 10 inch green/black monitor as an aux monitor for headless stuff. After 27 years, Apple's monitor is STILL a useful piece of equipment.
I'd say the best value is determined after purchasing a machine and then weighing up how much you regret your purchase based on usage and for the vast majority of people, spending the extra $500 to get from the dual 3.6GHz i5 to the quad i7 won't be worth it.
I'd say that nobody who buys the i7 will have any regrets whatsoever. The first time they want to convert a movie into Apple format to watch on their iPad, they will be amazed at how fast it goes.
I'd say it depends on your intended use...
Absolutely. If you need to spellcheck novels or if you work with huge spreadsheet files or you have a lot of videos to put onto your iPad, go for the quad core.
OTOH, if you are a dedicated MacGamer, go for the better video subsystem.
It's not too hard to imagine scenarios where a dual-core 3.6 GHz chip is the better solution. Indeed, I just ordered an iMac with the 3.6 GHz dual core CPU precisely because it will be used in a context where a quad core just wouldn't add much value at all, either now or down the road (plus, I've got my Mac Pro for situations where lots of cores really are helpful).
The dual core is never a better solution. It may be cheaper, but as a solution, it is inferior to the quad core.
I agree with you, however, that the dual core can be a fine machine as a second computer for casual use, if one has a Mac Pro or three laying around.
It can even be adequate for a lot of casual users who don't rip videos or who choose not to visit video or games sites on the internet. But it is not better.
well, adding RAM and upgrading the hard drive through the Apple Store is throwing your money away.
Actually, increasing the RAM and HD at the time of purchase is a very reasonable charge, compared with the hassle of sending the machine away to be upgraded by Apple later.
Actually, increasing the RAM and HD at the time of purchase is a very reasonable charge, compared with the hassle of sending the machine away to be upgraded by Apple later.
Yes, but his point was that it's idiotic to do it at the Apple Store when you buy the machine, rather than buying the components separately and installing them yourself.
You got me beat.
I used to work on mainframes via a remote teletype timeshare, but the first computer I actually bought was 128k of RAM and it had an external 5 inch floppy drive.
It now resides in my kid's friend's Apple Museum. I still use the 10 inch green/black monitor as an aux monitor for headless stuff. After 27 years, Apple's monitor is STILL a useful piece of equipment.
Before my family bought a C64, we had a Vic-20. Beat that.
But actually, the first computer I bought with my own money was a Performa 450 at Sears with my Sears card. The Performa 450 was a 25MHz LCIII minus the FPU sold in a package with an Apple 14" 640x480 monitor, but in a few months I went to Sonnet Technologies (yes, the same one that exists today) and bought the FPU for $19. It had 4MB of Ram, if I recall correctly.
I have a pet peeve about the new line up. I have a 24" iMac that is just perfect for me size-wise. To upgrade, I must either get a smaller screen or pay for more screen space than I want or need (or that may even fit under my shelf). In short, 21 is a step down and 27 too big for many people. I am going to wait and see what happens next round before deciding on an upgrade. Maybe they'll offer a midsize screen.
Actually, for the vast majority of users, the 21 and the 27 inch models are the perfect choice.
There are perhaps a tiny number of people who would want something different, but I think that most of them will eventually realize that Steve made exactly the right choices when he gave us the 21 and 27 models.
Yes, but his point was that it's idiotic to do it at the Apple Store when you buy the machine, rather than buying the components separately and installing them yourself.
I understand that. But what he doesn't take into account is that Mac computers are for normal mom and pop type people, and he assumes that the typical Mac user is some sort of ubergeek who opens up the case.
Before my family bought a C64, we had a Vic-20. Beat that.
I can't. The best I can do is to say that I once amazed my friend by programming his TI to say "Hello World" over and over again in Basic.
I've never really been an early adopter.