Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iMac 21.5 - which one for longevity?

B

bnghle234

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Dec 14, 2012
15
0
Just looking for something trustworthy, reliable, and durable. Something to last me a few years in terms of performance. I don't do anything crazy like audio/video processing. Will the basic model do, or should I go with the middle option w/ 4k and 3.0Ghz processor?
 
Definitely recommend not getting the basic model. Get a 4K for sure and, if at all possible with your budget, get a SSD rather than a hard drive or fusion. Also, make sure you order enough RAM memory as it is not user upgradeable - 16 GB, perhaps. Built-to-order iMacs are easy to order and will in your hands in a few days.
 
The SSD is the most important component of all.
That will keep it running at its best, for the longest period of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pam14160
bnghle234 said:
Just looking for something trustworthy, reliable, and durable. Something to last me a few years in terms of performance. I don't do anything crazy like audio/video processing. Will the basic model do, or should I go with the middle option w/ 4k and 3.0Ghz processor?
Click to expand...
i used basic 21' . The only limit is hard disk is slow. If you buy external, should be fine but you will loose a port. I rarely by laptop with nvida/ati because to lot of problem.

But , if you want long term, 27 ' and ssd should be the best.
 
If there is a local Apple Store or Best Buy, try out the entry level iMac. It may be fine for your needs, and should last for several years.

Going with 4k, SSD and more memory will all provide significant improvements, but will also increase the price quite a bit and may not be necessary for your needs. These options will also likely require you to special order it, which will likely wipe out any sale prices.

Best Buy has $250 off a basic 21" 4K iMac this weekend, so it may be worth a drive to a Best Buy to check it out.
 
Define "nothing crazy". I know people who would be perfectly fine with a basic 21.5" iMac with a spinning platter hard disk drive and others who will go absolutely crazy if their applications don't appear within mere microseconds of clicking. It really depends on your personal requirements and needs, and the tech bubble on the internet is the worst possible place to ask for advice as you might end up with a 44-core dual processor 128GB NVMe-RAID10-SSD 19" rack device Hackintosh for basic word processing.

I agree that SSDs are a big plus, and that the difference between an SSD and an HDD is tremendous. However, not everybody will profit from its benefits in the same way, and the only person to really know whether or not an SSD is a must is you. Especially considering Apple's exorbitant barefaced unreasonable SSD premium.
 
bnghle234 said:
Just looking for something trustworthy, reliable, and durable. Something to last me a few years in terms of performance. I don't do anything crazy like audio/video processing. Will the basic model do, or should I go with the middle option w/ 4k and 3.0Ghz processor?
Click to expand...

Even if you're not doing video editing, the SSD will make a huge difference in overall responsiveness in everyday tasks. So the question then becomes how much time you will spend using the iMac to justify the upgrades... if it's a 30-60 minute session every day or two, you might even just suck up the spinning 5400rpm. Not something I could tolerate after years on SSDs. From there it's as basically the more you spend, the better performance you'll get. What performance you need and what is valuable to you is only a question you can answer.

I recently went through the a similar scenario. Had a 27-inch 2012 and used it for Lightroom (large RAWs) and Final Cut Pro X editing 4K. I'd maxed the RAM and put an SSD into it and it was fine. Except for the display and graphics card. Decided to sell it and buy something to last a few years but didn't like the prices for where we were/are in the product cycle. I settled on the 4K iMac with the i5 3.4, 8gb RAM, 4GB 560 Pro and the 5400 HDD. Since it was £949 refurbished instead of £1,449 new, I decided to spend the savings (heh) on 32GB RAM (£180) and an i7-7700 (£180) to go DIY instead of the eye-watering upgrade prices Apple wants.

Sliced it open, took it to pieces to swap out the CPU and RAM. Added in my 500GB Crucial SSD as well so it's effectively the £2,439 BTO i7 model (aside from the slower SATA3 SSD but it's speedy enough for me). Sold the stock RAM and i5-7500 for £160 so all in, it came to £1249 which is not bad for the performance and it runs LR and edits 4K in FCPX very well for my needs. Runs 4-5 degrees cooler too which is no surprise given the applied thermal compound in the factory is horrendous.

If you're not comfortable DIY upgrading and/or don't want to void the warranty then you'll need to spend up front. I'd say the i5 is more than enough for everyday needs for a good few years. RAM is another matter and I wouldn't go below 16gb these days for future-proofing. Or get by on 8GB and then when warranty is out upgrade it yourself. Heck, RAM module prices might have ceased rising by then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kazmac
mreg376 said:
The last thing you want to do is buy a new iMac and then open it up to do your own "upgrade." Apple may then decline to do any warranty work on your new machine.
Click to expand...

Opening one's Mac does not void the warranty.

From the FTC:

The letters warn that FTC staff has concerns about the companies’ statements that consumers must use specified parts or service providers to keep their warranties intact. Unless warrantors provide the parts or services for free or receive a waiver from the FTC, such statements generally are prohibited by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a law that governs consumer product warranties. Similarly, such statements may be deceptive under the FTC Act.

Each company used different language, but here are examples of questionable provisions:

  • The use of [company name] parts is required to keep your . . . manufacturer’s warranties and any extended warranties intact.
  • This warranty shall not apply if this product . . . is used with products not sold or licensed by [company name].
  • This warranty does not apply if this product . . . has had the warranty seal on the [product] altered, defaced, or removed.
“Provisions that tie warranty coverage to the use of particular products or services harm both consumers who pay more for them as well as the small businesses who offer competing products and services,” said Thomas B. Pahl, Acting Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
Click to expand...

From MacSales/OWC:

Unfortunately though, there exists a misconception among some users and even technicians that opening the machine voids the warranty.

We address this topic directly with customers via our support portals and are happy to inform you here of the same fact: upgrading your Mac does not void its warranty.

This consumer protection is owed to the little known Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975. Put simply, the act states that a company can’t require you to upgrade with only its own branded parts to retain the warranty. This important act protects your rights as a consumer and allows you to install upgrades with peace of mind confidence.

However, the warranty doesn’t cover any damage incurred while installing upgrades.
Click to expand...
 
This does not apply to the Apple warranty situation, those cited FTC letters were, by their own terms, not sent to any computer manufacturers, and Apple regularly refuses to work on any machine that it determines was opened by a non-authorized service provider. This is true whether the opposite is said once, or 50 times. MacSales/OWC is an authorized Apple reseller.
 
mreg376 said:
This does not apply to the Apple warranty situation, those cited FTC letters were, by their own terms, not sent to any computer manufacturers, and Apple regularly refuses to work on any machine that it determines was opened by a non-authorized service provider. This is true whether the opposite is said once, or 50 times. MacSales/OWC is an authorized Apple reseller.
Click to expand...

Section 102 (c) of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance (other than an article or service provided without charge under the warranty or unless the warrantor has obtained a waiver pursuant to section 102(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2302(c)). For example, provisions such as, “This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ‘ABC’ parts,” and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c), ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of “unauthorized” articles or service. In addition, warranty language that implies to a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances that warranty coverage requires the consumer’s purchase of an article or service identified by brand, trade or corporate name is similarly deceptive. For example, a provision in the warranty such as, “use only an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer” or “use only ‘ABC’ replacement parts,” is prohibited where the service or parts are not provided free of charge pursuant to the warranty. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by “unauthorized” articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.
Click to expand...
 
Apple regularly refuses to work on any machine that it determines was opened by a non-authorized service provider. This is true whether the opposite is said once, or 50 times.
 
mreg376 said:
Apple regularly refuses to work on any machine that it determines was opened by a non-authorized service provider. This is true whether the opposite is said once, or 50 times.
Click to expand...

Apple regularly refuses to work on any machine that it determines was damaged by a non-authorized service provider.

This is in compliant with the Section 102 (c) of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act which said:

(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance (other than an article or service provided without charge under the warranty or unless the warrantor has obtained a waiver pursuant to section 102(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2302(c)). For example, provisions such as, “This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ‘ABC’ parts,” and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c), ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of “unauthorized” articles or service. In addition, warranty language that implies to a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances that warranty coverage requires the consumer’s purchase of an article or service identified by brand, trade or corporate name is similarly deceptive. For example, a provision in the warranty such as, “use only an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer” or “use only ‘ABC’ replacement parts,” is prohibited where the service or parts are not provided free of charge pursuant to the warranty. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by “unauthorized” articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, that's true too. But Apple regularly refuses to work on any machine that it determines was opened by a non-authorized service provider. People should understand this before listening to advice that simply says their warranty "cannot be voided," which even if technically true, won't help them. Most people don't want to go from an Apple store into a lawsuit, at the same time being stuck with a broken iMac.
 
mreg376 said:
Yes, that's true too. But Apple regularly refuses to work on any machine that it determines was opened by a non-authorized service provider. People should understand this before listening to advice that simply says their warranty "cannot be voided," which even if technically true, won't help them. Most people don't want to go from an Apple store into a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that Apple don't give a **** about the laws and is openly violating the laws.
 
Last edited:
Look, like I said from the beginning. I'm not defending Apple, and laws are always open to interpretation. How a court will decide this is unknown. I'm only saying that the honest approach is, if you think Apple cannot legally void its warranty under these circumstances, say so, as you have been, but include the caveat that Apple can and does refuse warranty work if they think the machine was opened. If you want to say "sometimes,' then say sometimes. But at least people will have all the actual facts, and know of the possible consequences, when deciding whether to open their iMacs.
 
mreg376 said:
Look, like I said from the beginning. I'm not defending Apple, and laws are always open to interpretation. How a court will decide this is unknown. I'm only saying that the honest approach is, if you think Apple cannot legally void its warranty under these circumstances, say so, as you have been, but include the caveat that Apple can and does refuse warranty work if they think the machine was opened. If you want to say "sometimes,' then say sometimes. But at least people will have all the actual facts, and know of the possible consequences, when deciding whether to open their iMacs.
Click to expand...

It's an open and shut case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back