How many people's 24" iMac is still running strong?

[Mike in Kansas]

Because of their all-in-one design, iMacs are the least reliable of all the Mac computers, but I have a friend with a 2007 that he still uses daily as a graphic professional. The DVD drive died a few years ago, but other than that, he hasn't had any significant problems with it.

Least reliable, or hardest to do a DIY repair? I call "bull" on your "least reliable" claim unless you have some stats to back it up.

----------

I would be really interested to hear more about your experience with your fusion drive. Do you think it was worth doing? I have a 2008 24" so I don't think I can do the same as the DVD drive connection is limiting factor in terms of speed. I have however been considering swapping out the HDD for a SSD and just using FW800 external drives for media storage and such.

I have a 2008, and I swapped my internal HDD with an SSD, and then fused my 240GB internal SSD with a 1TB external FW800 HDD. Works great - just helping my to buy time before I eventually invest into a souped-up Mini.

 

[fa8362]

Least reliable, or hardest to do a DIY repair? I call "bull" on your "least reliable" claim unless you have some stats to back it up.

Call bull all you want. It's your loss. I'm amazed that you'd even try to argue. The iMac has a screen. The others don't. Screens have problems, especially when they're part of an all-in-one design. Those problems increase the total reported problems for iMacs relative to Minis and Mac Pros.

 

[Sped]

No, but I've seen reliability study data, and it's also common sense. Among desktops, when the study was conducted (a few years ago), the Mac Mini was most reliable, followed by the Mac Pro, then the iMac. This makes sense. The iMac has more complexity, therefore less reliability.

I think you are confusing reliability with repairability. I have owned two iMacs since 2002 - '02 iMac G4 15" and my current '08 iMac Core 2 Duo 24". I have replaced the hard drives on both machines, and I have replaced the GPU on the '08. The iMac is no more complex than a laptop or the Mac mini. In fact, the iMacs typically have more internal volume than either which reduces the impact of heat in many cases. Bottom line, iMacs are generally more difficult to repair than Mac Pros (non-AIO desktops), but I think you are simply speculating on your reliability claims.

 

[tjdaugherty]

I just sold my 24" late 2009 for $795

 

[fig]

Because of their all-in-one design, iMacs are the least reliable of all the Mac computers, but I have a friend with a 2007 that he still uses daily as a graphic professional. The DVD drive died a few years ago, but other than that, he hasn't had any significant problems with it.

I'm a graphics professional who just replaced my 2007 iMac with a new Mini last month, never had a problem with it. I swapped out the hard drive in the iMac for an SSD late last year and it was like a new machine.

 

[Mike in Kansas]

Call bull all you want. It's your loss. I'm amazed that you'd even try to argue. The iMac has a screen. The others don't. Screens have problems, especially when they're part of an all-in-one design. Those problems increase the total reported problems for iMacs relative to Minis and Mac Pros.

Your original comparison that I called bull on was to "all Mac computers", not just "Mac desktop computers". You then backpedaled to just "Mac desktop computers" and then also invoked the "it's just common sense" or "it's inherently obvious" argument. That just shows that you have no data to back it up, and you are playing on people's desire to NOT look like they don't have any common sense.

In other words, your argument went like this:

• You believe that iMac's are the least reliable Mac computer.
• You believe that other members of the forum believe that iMac's are the least reliable Mac computer.
• I asked for evidence that iMac's are the least reliable Mac computer, and you pointed out that iMac's are the only Mac desktop that has a screen (which is more 'complicated' than a computer without a screen) THEREFORE you feel that this proves that iMac's are more unreliable.
• You then mocked my request for data, and how I could not possibly understand how a more 'complicated' computer would be less reliable than a less 'complicated' computer.

Weak.

Here's a good blog post you should read up regarding so-called 'common sense' arguments. http://morethoughtful.blogspot.com/2013/04/common-sense-argument-against.html

 

[talmy]

I was involved in a thread about iMac reliability. Heres a link to a post by an Apple Certified Macintosh Technician stating more problems with 2009-2011 iMacs than any other Mac. Of course 24" iMacs are older than this. Anyway, I'd suggest reading the entire thread for more details. My personal experience concurs. With 13 Macs of various types I've had no failures in 14 computer-years of notebooks, one failure in 9 computer-years of Mac minis, and five failures in 25 computer-years of iMacs. Still, averaging one failure per five years of use isn't bad, but it isn't as good as the other Mac models.

 

[aarone88]

Mid 08

Mine from mid 2008 still runs like it is brand new, runs 10.8 and has 4gbs of ram

 

[Brian Y]

My 2007 was flawless. I only changed because I needed an upgrade. Currently running a heavily modified 2011 which has again, been flawless.

 

[irnchriz]

Replaced mine in 2009 after the nvidia GPU and PSU blew. Put a hammer through the screen and got a 27" one through the insurance.

 

[kechy]

New to the forum, haven't read through the whole thread but it seems most people's 24's are doing well. My 2007 2.4ghz is not. I think ram is at 4GB. Changed to SSD about 2 years ago, after which the machine flew. Slowly gave it more responsibility - now it beach balls all the time. I assume what's killing it now is eyetv recordings and exports? I eventually bought the turbo.264HD hardware encoder, but hasn't helped much. Using just Safari during an export freezes the machine every 2-5 minutes. iPhoto is a dog, but maybe it's cause the libraries are on FW800 externals? That's pretty much all I run on it now - eyeTV, safari, iphoto and itunes (to stream to appletv). Anyway, finally ordered a new iMac, can't wait. Hopefully removing eyetv from the old machine will make it at least useful for web-surfing. Ok that's all.

 

[rdsii64]

New to the forum, haven't read through the whole thread but it seems most people's 24's are doing well. My 2007 2.4ghz is not. I think ram is at 4GB. Changed to SSD about 2 years ago, after which the machine flew. Slowly gave it more responsibility - now it beach balls all the time. I assume what's killing it now is eyetv recordings and exports? I eventually bought the turbo.264HD hardware encoder, but hasn't helped much. Using just Safari during an export freezes the machine every 2-5 minutes. iPhoto is a dog, but maybe it's cause the libraries are on FW800 externals? That's pretty much all I run on it now - eyeTV, safari, iphoto and itunes (to stream to appletv). Anyway, finally ordered a new iMac, can't wait. Hopefully removing eyetv from the old machine will make it at least useful for web-surfing. Ok that's all.

Something must be wrong. I run eye tv all the time on my 24 inch iMac. I can even rip a dvd while I record a 2 hr hd tv program.

 

[benjai]

New to the forum, haven't read through the whole thread but it seems most people's 24's are doing well. My 2007 2.4ghz is not. I think ram is at 4GB. Changed to SSD about 2 years ago, after which the machine flew. Slowly gave it more responsibility - now it beach balls all the time. I assume what's killing it now is eyetv recordings and exports? I eventually bought the turbo.264HD hardware encoder, but hasn't helped much. Using just Safari during an export freezes the machine every 2-5 minutes. iPhoto is a dog, but maybe it's cause the libraries are on FW800 externals? That's pretty much all I run on it now - eyeTV, safari, iphoto and itunes (to stream to appletv). Anyway, finally ordered a new iMac, can't wait. Hopefully removing eyetv from the old machine will make it at least useful for web-surfing. Ok that's all.

I have a 24" 2007 machine as well and changed to SSD around 2 yrs ago. It also flew but has continued to do so until now (apps still open instantly). Interesting point about iPhoto. I used to have one huge (1TB) library on a usb drive and it was dog slow. I've recently moved to a new fw800 drive and also created a new library. The new library is lightning quick and even though the old one is a bit slower, its still miles faster than on usb.

What size imac did you order? 21.5 is large enough for me but non upgradable ram is an issue. And 27" is a bit too big...and also, did you get a fusion drive? Going to HDD would be a step back I think, even in a new mac.

 

[kechy]

Something must be wrong. I run eye tv all the time on my 24 inch iMac. I can even rip a dvd while I record a 2 hr hd tv program.

Interesting. Agreed then, something must be wrong. Unfortunately I'm a total noob and wouldn't know how to diagnose. Nothing seems out of the ordinary in Activity Monitor. Maybe I reinstall OS?

 

[kechy]

I have a 24" 2007 machine as well and changed to SSD around 2 yrs ago. It also flew but has continued to do so until now (apps still open instantly). Interesting point about iPhoto. I used to have one huge (1TB) library on a usb drive and it was dog slow. I've recently moved to a new fw800 drive and also created a new library. The new library is lightning quick and even though the old one is a bit slower, its still miles faster than on usb.

What size imac did you order? 21.5 is large enough for me but non upgradable ram is an issue. And 27" is a bit too big...and also, did you get a fusion drive? Going to HDD would be a step back I think, even in a new mac.

Yes, I also broke up a large iPhoto library. And it's true, with three smaller libraries iPhoto runs off the FW800 drive pretty well. I seem to remember edits to RAW images taking like 5 seconds to process, but just tested it and it's just 1 or 2 seconds. So maybe iPhoto is okay. It's mostly random beach balls occurring regardless of the application currently in use.

Anyway, I ordered the 27". I figured I haven't sprung for a computer in a while, so went with i7, 680, and 512gb SSD. Agreed that HDD would be a step back, and don't fully trust fusion for some reason. But if my beach balls might be SSD related, maybe I shouldn't fully trust all flash either.

 

[mscriv]

I have a 2008, and I swapped my internal HDD with an SSD, and then fused my 240GB internal SSD with a 1TB external FW800 HDD. Works great - just helping my to buy time before I eventually invest into a souped-up Mini.

Okay, over the holiday I picked up a 250GB Samsung 840 SSD, took apart the 24' iMac, and installed the new drive as a replacement for the original boot drive. The process was less difficult than I anticipated. Following some online guides and referring to iFixit's website were really helpful and pretty much guided me through the whole process. It was definitely easier than the HD replacement I did a few years ago on a 14' iBook.

I'm still in the process of moving stuff over from the old system because I wanted to make a fresh start with Mountain Lion instead of just cloning the old drive or using migration assistant. I think this upgrade is going to enable me to continue to use my 24' as a primary machine for a few more years before I need to buy something newer. I'm really looking forward to putting Mavericks on it when the OS comes out in the fall.

I do have a 2TB external FW800 drive so I'm considering the possibility of doing the Fusion Drive thing? Any concerns or cons with going the Fusion route? In truth, how would it be better than just keeping my media on external drives and running all of my applications on the SSD?

 

[Miat]

I wonder how many people's 24" iMacs that were running strong when this thread was started are still running strong?

Still going strong. Again.

4.5 years of more-or-less continuous use, with only a single repair (dead HD about 7 months back).

I suspect my FW controller is dead, but I only run USB 3 drives these days so it doesn't make any difference to me.

Got my money's worth from this one (a refurb too!). If it died completely tomorrow I would have no complaints, and its long life means I have been able to save the money to fund a new Mac outright. Such luxury.

 

[iSayuSay]

Call bull all you want. It's your loss. I'm amazed that you'd even try to argue. The iMac has a screen. The others don't. Screens have problems, especially when they're part of an all-in-one design. Those problems increase the total reported problems for iMacs relative to Minis and Mac Pros.

Agreed. The built-in display is a gift, but also a curse. I've owned and seen several iMacs, most of the time the problem is in the display. Notoriously something called "smudged iMac display" running around over the internet, and also Apple service provider.

Beside the screen, there is also hard drive, GPU and heat related problems occur. I love iMac form factor and design, when it works. But yeah having everything on ONE BIG BASKET is bad sign for reliability, and pretty much risking it.

My next computer will be a windows gaming desktop + 27" display + Macbook Air. I feel content with this iMac BS. Just no more

 

[ATC]

Agreed. The built-in display is a gift, but also a curse. I've owned and seen several iMacs, most of the time the problem is in the display. Notoriously something called "smudged iMac display" running around over the internet, and also Apple service provider.

Beside the screen, there is also hard drive, GPU and heat related problems occur. I love iMac form factor and design, when it works. But yeah having everything on ONE BIG BASKET is bad sign for reliability, and pretty much risking it.

My next computer will be a windows gaming desktop + 27" display + Macbook Air. I feel content with this iMac BS. Just no more

+1

Love my early 09' 24 iMac and it's still going strong but the display went (3 days before my 3 yr AC expired, would have been a $600+ repair job - talk about luck) and the problem was heat-related that caused an LCD panel failure. Never had an LCD go out like that relatively early in its life. My next mac will not be an iMac, I def want a system with a separate display.

 

[icemantx]

I would be really interested to hear more about your experience with your fusion drive. Do you think it was worth doing? I have a 2008 24" so I don't think I can do the same as the DVD drive connection is limiting factor in terms of speed. I have however been considering swapping out the HDD for a SSD and just using FW800 external drives for media storage and such.

So far so good on the fusion drive. On occasion I do still have the spinning up of the HD, but overall it is snappier than before and was a good upgrade since I had no use for the SuperDrive anymore and taking the iMac apart is fun.

I would do it again if had to. My biggest complaint is minor - iPhoto still takes 5-10 seconds to close and 5-10 seconds to launch. 40k photos simply and iPhoto is the issue as aperture launches and shuts down faster with the same library.

Jeff

 

[talmy]

I do have a 2TB external FW800 drive so I'm considering the possibility of doing the Fusion Drive thing? Any concerns or cons with going the Fusion route? In truth, how would it be better than just keeping my media on external drives and running all of my applications on the SSD?

Both drives have to be internal for Fusion.

 

[marzer]

Both drives have to be internal for Fusion.

Some (in this very thread) have reported otherwise. Also, a quick search around the internet also documents accounts of various internal/external combinations.

 

[talmy]

Some (in this very thread) have reported otherwise. Also, a quick search around the internet also documents accounts of various internal/external combinations.

Let me put it another way, if you use a workaround and the external drive gets disconnected, your system is toast. There is a reason they want internal drives only.

 

[marzer]

Let me put it another way, if you use a workaround and the external drive gets disconnected, your system is toast. There is a reason they want internal drives only.

Sure, but there's a big difference between "have to be" and "want" to be. I have ran external boot drives on and off over the years and wouldn't hesitate to build a Fusion using an external drive if the need arose.

And though I wouldn't recommend pulling a live Fusion component, without some hard test data to back it up I would not make claims that it would toast your system. You may run the chance of corruption, but not guaranteed. I'll try to put something together this week using some of my externals and let you know the results.

 

[Mike in Kansas]

Both drives have to be internal for Fusion.

Not true. Been running a FD setup with an external FW800 drive and an internal SSD for 5 months now. No issue whatsoever, except that I now get SSD-like performance on a 2.2GB drive.

----------

Let me put it another way, if you use a workaround and the external drive gets disconnected, your system is toast. There is a reason they want internal drives only.

Wrong. Apple just wants it to be on internal drives so they can sell you a new computer with their own FD versus doing it on your own. Having a FD spanned across an internal and an external drive should cause no more concern than booting off an external drive.

As far as you system getting toasted, the only thing that happens if you disconnect or shut down the external portion of the FD is that the system just hangs. Plug it back in or turn it back on, and it goes right back to where it was.

Of course, if the external drive became disconnected while it was being written to, you run the risk of it messing up your FD array. Just like if you were booting off an external drive, or if something went wrong to your internal drive if it was being written to. If that happens, you just reformat the drives, set them back up into an FD arrangement, and clone from your back up or reinstall from TM. You still need the same level of redundancy in a FD arrangement as you do in a standard arrangement, and if you are flying without multiple backups you are just asking for trouble.