Investing in a high-spec model with "headroom" versus buying a new machine more frequently

[ric22]

In the past it seemed undeniably bad value fully speccing up a computer- a year later you could just upgrade things like storage and RAM, and at the same time processors were coming on leaps and bounds every year.

These days I try to avoid speccing up for different reasons. Laptops now are essentially disposable and it's difficult to repair anything and nothing can be upgraded. The rate of progress is slower and all Apple computers now have great CPUs that will handle whatever you throw at them for years to come. However, if you might need more RAM or storage in a year you might as well just go ahead and buy it, because those elements get bumped by Apple so infrequently. There would be no point in selling that laptop after a year for a new one, because that new one won't have a significantly better processor, and you'll still have the annoying dilemma of how much to improve the spec on RAM/storage.

 

[CraigJDuffy]

Question for those who buy a fully specced Mac for longevity: Considering that it usually costs about twice as much, wouldn't it be more sensible to just buy a new machine more frequently? After all, technology is constantly advancing, so newer models typically offer more than just performance. Purchasing a new Mac more frequently offers the advantage of regularly accessing the latest features, performance improvements, and design innovations.

Upgrades over the base models are so extortionately overpriced that I agree, buy lower specced models more frequently.

 

[fatTribble]

My current MacBook Pro is from 2018. For that one I went with low end processor, 16GB memory and 4TB storage. My next machine will probably be the same type of configuration.

My BASIC version of Trek doesn’t require much processing power, but I do take a lot of photos at the Trek convention. 🤓🤭🖖

 

[Siliconguy]

Low end Mac is nothing like low end PC. The M1 from a little while ago still compares well to the top half of all processor sold today. primarily because AMD and Intel are forced to ship very poorly performing processors in order to pad out the bottom line. I wonder what year will be the first one that AMD and Intel doesn’t release a single chip that performs poorer than the m1?

The "very poorly performing processors" may still good enough for many tasks. The CPU in the 2014 mini in the stereo cabinet can still do anything it needs to play music and videos, and run the disk drives and network needed to stay connected. An M1 chip is totally wasted in there.

The same for the file and backup server, a different 2014 mini. For that matter, the 2002 Quicksilver could handle that job given SATA 3, SMB2, and a security updated OS.

I don't know what the internet is doing that has sucked down so much CPU capacity, but for normal use (excluding video compression) processors from 20 years ago are still very capable. The new ones are much more power efficient, but that is a different matter.

 

[sublunar]

remember that repair and OS updates may be harder 5 years after a Mac is discontinued. I would just buy with as few options as you can get away with and plan to buy a more up to date model sooner.

newer macs will be more capable, faster, and supported for longer. Crucially with applecare up to 3 years you will get hardware support from Apple too and with Mac values relatively high you can dispose of the older model for decent money, or have a still capable backup machine.

 

[Analog Kid]

Question for those who buy a fully specced Mac for longevity: Considering that it usually costs about twice as much, wouldn't it be more sensible to just buy a new machine more frequently? After all, technology is constantly advancing, so newer models typically offer more than just performance. Purchasing a new Mac more frequently offers the advantage of regularly accessing the latest features, performance improvements, and design innovations.

It obviously depends on what people use their machine for and whether they can truly plan for future needs, but in general I agree with your point here.

I think this will become very clear to people who argued they needed a lot of RAM to support generative AI, but will find themselves without the M4.

For me, I buy what I need, I use it until I can't, then look buy something new. My needs don't change too quickly, I tend to keep machines for 5-8 years even with that philosophy.

 

[henrikhelmers]

Question for those who buy a fully specced Mac for longevity: Considering that it usually costs about twice as much, wouldn't it be more sensible to just buy a new machine more frequently?

My experience has been that Apple devices(except phones) last a really, really long time.

And as long as Apple provides OS updates it is convenient to keep using the same device.

I went for maximum storage and will probably use my Mac Studio until it falls apart.

 

[Sami13496]

My experience has been that Apple devices(except phones) last a really, really long time.

And as long as Apple provides OS updates it is convenient to keep using the same device.

I went for maximum storage and will probably use my Mac Studio until it falls apart.

My iPhones have lasted 5 years for me which is pretty good I think.

But yes Mac can last even longer I guess. I had 2014 MacBook Air which I used until 2019 and could have used even longer. 2019 I got my current MacBook Pro 13 inch (most basic model with TouchBar) and still using it. Funny enough it has 8 GB of RAM and 128 GB storage. And it’s Intel machine…

 

[120FPS]

It obviously looks better for Apple if people are upgrading often. I think it's forcing them to make poor choices that aren't good for customers that do not need the latest Mac. While something new and shiny is great, it's disruptive as you have to move everything and sell your Mac on the second hand market along with limitations around storage as you have to keep it within the entry level specs. Who knows how long Apple will stick to a storage tier either as that stopped growing when Cook took over.

 

[CrysisDeu]

The add-ons, mainly ram and storage worth nothing when you sell it. Just buy one that fit your current need and sell it in 2-3 years. It will actually cost you less.

For cpu/gpu, generation leaps are better than spec bump in the same gen. You most likely won’t feel the difference, and higher spec consumes more battery

 

[heretiq]

Looks like this changes with the AI stuff coming. You can max out your mac and you get only limited features in future cause we will see a big focus on AI and NPU. This wasn't the case years ago when it was more about CPU and GPU speed.

Agree. This is why I‘m thinking it may be time to trade-in my M1 Max MacBook Pro and M1 iPad — which have both been reliable and virtually flawless (only “gripe“ is bulkiness and weight but I still love both) — and tool-up early for the next 3-5 years, based on what is announced next week and at WWDC.

 

[veena3]

If you want cutting edge performance, you probably upgrade to every new high-end model.

If you want good computer for reasonable cost I'd suggest to by second-hand middle tier model and keep it till you can.

 

[ChrisA]

Question for those who buy a fully specced Mac for longevity: Considering that it usually costs about twice as much, wouldn't it be more sensible to just buy a new machine more frequently? After all, technology is constantly advancing, so newer models typically offer more than just performance. Purchasing a new Mac more frequently offers the advantage of regularly accessing the latest features, performance improvements, and design innovations.

I agree, except for bragging rights, an over-specified computer does nothing for you. The other problem is you might not know what you will need in five or six years. For example, a few years ago my AI development/experients was done 100% in a Linux-PC with Nvidia GPU and now Apple Silicone is competitive. For this work, I am much better off with a new M3 than an older M1 that sold at the same price and I'm glad I'm not using an over-spec'd M1. With Apple's push to AI, I might be able to upgrade every 2nd or 3rd generation and not have to go back to Nvidia.

A lot depends on what you are doing, if you are Watching YouTube and reading emails, an entry-level Mac is overkill. I have a 2014 vintage iMac (8GB RAM) that is only used for web and emails and it does just fine for that use case. I'd say buy it based on what you do today and plan on upgrading when you have a good reason to. and not before.

 

[throAU]

So, yeah, 256GB is too tight if you're going to be installing "pro" apps or doing almost anything with media, 512GB is adequate and 1TB is perfect for most purposes. Sure, if you know your current 1TB drive is bursting at the seams and it would take more than $400 worth of your time to clean it out, get 2TB but that's not what I'd call "future proofing" (...and you should consider an old phrase including the words "eggs", "one" and "basket").

Whilst I pretty much agree with your premise... no matter how much storage you have, it should be regularly backed up and/or synced.

If any of my machines die, they're both backed up off-site (physical drives at work) and iCloud synced.

If any of my machine dies or is stolen I'd lose maybe 12 hours of data (tops - more likely less than 5 minutes if I was working on the network) and be mildly annoyed at having to use a secondary device and/or restore to a new one.

I can't stress enough how much less stress is involved when you know you have multiple backups and a single point of failure won't wipe you out

 

[Boing123]

Question for those who buy a fully specced Mac for longevity: Considering that it usually costs about twice as much, wouldn't it be more sensible to just buy a new machine more frequently? After all, technology is constantly advancing, so newer models typically offer more than just performance. Purchasing a new Mac more frequently offers the advantage of regularly accessing the latest features, performance improvements, and design innovations.

It’s the wrong question imo

Question for those who buy a fully specced Mac for longevity: Considering that it usually costs about twice as much, wouldn't it be more sensible to just buy a new machine more frequently? After all, technology is constantly advancing, so newer models typically offer more than just performance. Purchasing a new Mac more frequently offers the advantage of regularly accessing the latest features, performance improvements, and design innovations.

There is a very common notion in economics: buy or maintain (e.g. stock) only what you need.

If you pay now for capacity you do not need ‘now’ you have a sunk opportunity cost: You could have spent the resources on other, more immediately useful things.

Also, let’s be honest: how often have we seen advances in SW tools or things which have suddenly imposed a 2X or whatever increase in HW requirements? In anything other than gaming, that is simply not a thing and high power Mac’s are not gaming machines anyway.

 

[Mike Boreham]

In fact, I rarely experience the bulk of issues I see reported on MR and elsewhere.

I suspect most base spec users would say the same thing. Most issues are experienced by a small percentage because people report about what doesn’t work not what does work.

 

[TracerAnalog]

My Mac’s typically are used for more than 10 years. Saving some money and having the hassle of reinstalling software licenses and all that is not worth it to me.

I buy the best I can afford that fulfills my needs as to RAM and storage.

 

[Boing123]

Laptops now are essentially disposable

Macs last 10 years or more

 

[Torty]

Maybe a good question would be to ask “ what configuration

Macs last 10 years or more

Was valid for the last decade when CPU speed somehow peaked (single thread performance) so they went with multi core but from that you only profit in specific workflows like 3D rendering video coding etc.
GPU speed also increased but only valid for gamers and IMO MacOS is not a gaming platform.

But now we have the NPU topic and we are just at the beginning. Lot of improvement and AI OS integration to be seen here.
MS already defined an AI pc to have at least 40TOPS. M3 does only 18 TOPS.

I will be very surprised if my M3 MBA will last as long as my 2012 MBP did.

 

[Boing123]

Maybe a good question would be to ask “ what configuration

Was valid for the last decade when CPU speed somehow peaked (single thread performance) so they went with multi core but from that you only profit in specific workflows like 3D rendering video coding etc.
GPU speed also increased but only valid for gamers and IMO MacOS is not a gaming platform.

But now we have the NPU topic and we are just at the beginning. Lot of improvement and AI OS integration to be seen here.
MS already defined an AI pc to have at least 40TOPS. M3 does only 18 TOPS.

I will be very surprised if my M3 MBA will last as long as my 2012 MBP did.

My dad ran my 2010 MBP until last year. HDD was replaced with an SSD and the only reason for replacing it was the fact his bank didn’t trust the browser any longer.

A 2016 intel MBP also runs A-OK, even for non trivial tasks like coding in VM’s

Majority of users don’t need TFLOPs, they need browsers, email and a bit of Word and Excel…

 

[Torty]

My dad ran my 2010 MBP until last year. HDD was replaced with an SSD and the only reason for replacing it was the fact his bank didn’t trust the browser any longer.

A 2016 intel MBP also runs A-OK, even for non trivial tasks like coding in VM’s

Majority of users don’t need TFLOPs, they need browsers, email and a bit of Word and Excel…

Agree but I see all those AI stuff to be integrated into OS. So it will be mandatory. iPhone X didn't got the latest iOS cause of practically missing NPU.

 

[leifp]

I suspect most base spec users would say the same thing. Most issues are experienced by a small percentage because people report about what doesn’t work not what does work.

Ignorance or “have cake/eat cake” oxymorons tend to shout large. They don’t know what they need but they know they’re overpaying for it… and that they need more for less.

I’m certainly content to get more for less but my secondary Mac (base M2Pro mini) is a powerhouse for my needs and I do not require all that it offers. I do, however, require more than the base M2 mini offers… so I purchased accordingly. Would I have loved to get that M2Pro model for the price of the M2? Sure. But I’m happy to eat the cake I have…

 

[Mike Boreham]

Ignorance or “have cake/eat cake” oxymorons tend to shout large. They don’t know what they need but they know they’re overpaying for it… and that they need more for less.

I’m certainly content to get more for less but my secondary Mac (base M2Pro mini) is a powerhouse for my needs and I do not require all that it offers. I do, however, require more than the base M2 mini offers… so I purchased accordingly. Would I have loved to get that M2Pro model for the price of the M2? Sure. But I’m happy to eat the cake I have…

Struggling to see how your reply is relevant to the question of whether high spec machines experience fewer of the problems reported in MR than base spec machines. 🤔

 

[leifp]

Struggling to see how your reply is relevant to the question of whether high spec machines experience fewer of the problems reported in MR than base spec machines. 🤔

Deleted my post as I don’t want to continue down a rabbit hole irrelevant to the original point of the OG post.

 

[leifp]

Struggling to see how your reply is relevant to the question of whether high spec machines experience fewer of the problems reported in MR than base spec machines. 🤔

Also also: I was agreeing with your position 🤗