Longevity of current iMac

[Fishrrman]

I agree with throAU in reply 4 above.

If you can "hold off" until the 2018 models, the improvements will be worth it.

ESPECIALLY if you have interest in 4k video. 2018 should bring to the Mac CPU's with hardware decoding for HEVC built right into the chips. This is going to result in a BIG difference insofar as 4k is concerned.

That's not the case for the 2017's...

 

[Hrodriguez77]

I agree with throAU in reply 4 above.

If you can "hold off" until the 2018 models, the improvements will be worth it.

ESPECIALLY if you have interest in 4k video. 2018 should bring to the Mac CPU's with hardware decoding for HEVC built right into the chips. This is going to result in a BIG difference insofar as 4k is concerned.

That's not the case for the 2017's...

Isn't this already built into the Kaby Lake CPU's? Serious question, this is just what I assumed.

 

[guibo]

Isn't this already built into the Kaby Lake CPU's? Serious question, this is just what I assumed.

Yes it is, dont know what he is talking about. High Sierra will unlock it for the 2017 imacs.

 

[EugW]

I agree with throAU in reply 4 above.

If you can "hold off" until the 2018 models, the improvements will be worth it.

ESPECIALLY if you have interest in 4k video. 2018 should bring to the Mac CPU's with hardware decoding for HEVC built right into the chips. This is going to result in a BIG difference insofar as 4k is concerned.

That's not the case for the 2017's...

Yes it is, dont know what he is talking about. High Sierra will unlock it for the 2017 imacs.

Yup. In High Sierra, my iMac 2017 plays high bitrate 10-bit HEVC files with under 10% CPU usage, right in QuickTime.

In fact, my 2017 Core m3 MacBook will even do it in High Sierra, with about 25% CPU usage.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/4k-hevc-10-bit-on-the-2017-core-m3-macbook-is-gorgeous.2054232/

BTW, I indeed try to "future proof" my machines to a certain extent, with some of that future proofing related to video standards. I was using a 2009 MacBook Pro until this year, and was able to do because I made sure it could decode h.264 in hardware. I did have to upgrade the hard drive to SSD and replace a fan though. And upgrade the memory. For my MacBook purchase this year, I can't do any upgrades after the fact, so I got 16 GB RAM.

I was also using a 2010 iMac. That still has OK CPU performance but I wanted a new 5K screen and didn't feel like paying for an SSD upgrade, so I waited for 2017 for an HEVC-capable Kaby Lake iMac.

2018 will bring 6-core mainstream models though.

 

[kschendel]

...
I've decided though either this year or next year I'm going to make the leap to a newer mac and currently the iMac seems to be the best option, my question is can you typically get the same sort of Lifespan out of the past few generations of iMac's?

I have no idea what the statistics say, but I'd guess that except for the model(s?) with GPU failure problems, iMac hardware is likely to last at least 5 years and very possibly more. I would avoid over-spec'ing the machine, e.g. stay away from the highest clock rate CPU's, because they generate more heat and heat is a killer. HDD vs SSD is an interesting question when you're talking 6 years or more, and I'm not sure we know the answer for sure yet; HDD's are a significant source of failure with age, but SSD's have lifetime write limits and some may have heat related issues, so who knows. (I'd get pure SSD myself.)

 

[Fishrrman]

EugW wrote:
"Yup. In High Sierra, my iMac 2017 plays high bitrate 10-bit HEVC files with under 10% CPU usage, right in QuickTime.
In fact, my 2017 Core m3 MacBook will even do it in High Sierra, with about 25% CPU usage."

Then what was it I heard that in the case of 4k content from Netflix (I believe), there is some kind of encryption/encoding that will require hardware decoding, which won't be ready until the Coffee Lake CPU's arrive?

Seems like there were a few threads that specifically mentioned that here at MacRumors.
Perhaps I have that wrong.

 

[tibas92013]

The way I view it, anything beyond AppleCare+, 3 years, is likely to cost a lot to repair. I believe after 5 years, Apple stops stocking repair parts for particular models so then you're having to rely on 3rd parties at that point for repairs. A lot of time and money just to say your machine lasted 8 years.

You make a good point as I have both a Refurbished MM(Late 2012) 2.5GHz,16GB Ram, 500GB HD and a Refurbished MM(Late 2014) 2.8GHz, 8GB Ram, 256SSD. My AppleCare(AC) expired on the MM(Late 2012) last year and the AC on my MM(Late 2014) expires in June, 2018. I am presently having a minor "beachball spinning problem" with the MM(Late 2012) but to have it checked-out with an Apple Distributor Dealer here in Costa Rica will cost at least $100. I do not plan on spending any major money on some old hardware, so, my next step will probably be buying a iMac when these MM's not longer meet my computer needs.

 

[EugW]

EugW wrote:
"Yup. In High Sierra, my iMac 2017 plays high bitrate 10-bit HEVC files with under 10% CPU usage, right in QuickTime.
In fact, my 2017 Core m3 MacBook will even do it in High Sierra, with about 25% CPU usage."

Then what was it I heard that in the case of 4k content from Netflix (I believe), there is some kind of encryption/encoding that will require hardware decoding, which won't be ready until the Coffee Lake CPU's arrive?

Seems like there were a few threads that specifically mentioned that here at MacRumors.
Perhaps I have that wrong.

The DRM support is included with Kaby Lake. So, the hardware is there.

The issue is the software/OS support. Right now neither macOS nor Netflix's software support it on Macs. (Netflix can't support it unless the OS implements it.) But if Apple and Netflix decide to support this, even if they don't support it until 2018, they will probably support it on 2017 iMacs because they have the hardware to support it.

In fact, that's what I think will happen. They'll bring it in 2018 to include 2017 Macs. They won't support the 2015/2016 Macs because they can't, but having the support only in 2018 will ease the pain a bit for 2015/2016 Mac owners somewhat, psychologically.

 

[AtomicGrog]

I find they last well and have great resale value...

My iMac history:

• Bought a 24" iMac in 2007, was maxed graphic/cpu at purchased and I maxed it with 3rd party memory after.
  
  Sold around 2011... 4 years. Nothing phyically wrong with it but I needed more GPU for mmorpg gaming (Eve Online)
  
  
• Bought a 27" i7 iMac in 2011, was a apple refurbished device. Maxed with 3rd party memory and kept it until 2016.
  
  Sold last November, again nothing particularly wrong with it... just needed more graphics grunt for gaming.
  
  
• Bought a Mac Pro late last year, 6 core, Maxed GPU (2 * D700). Looking forward to keeping it for some time
  
  (I know it's not an iMac, but wanted to reflect on having bought an Mac pro with the now iMac pro line comming out.. On reflection happy with my approach, and not inclined to ditch if for the iMac again as the investment would be huge for imho little benefit.

In addition to the above my wife has a 2010 21" iMac still going strong.

Personally I think the longevity comes from maxing cpu/graphs up front, and allowing memory and disk to be retrofitted (e.g. adding SSD to the 2010 device gave it a new lease of life).

 

[Glideslope]

Mine has been working it's Power Supply off for the past 4 weeks if that helps. Like a Swiss Watch. I expect it to meet my needs for at least 6-7 years.

 

[EugW]

I find they last well and have great resale value...

My iMac history:

• Bought a 24" iMac in 2007, was maxed graphic/cpu at purchased and I maxed it with 3rd party memory after.
  
  Sold around 2011... 4 years. Nothing phyically wrong with it but I needed more GPU for mmorpg gaming (Eve Online)
  
  
• Bought a 27" i7 iMac in 2011, was a apple refurbished device. Maxed with 3rd party memory and kept it until 2016.
  
  Sold last November, again nothing particularly wrong with it... just needed more graphics grunt for gaming.
  
  
• Bought a Mac Pro late last year, 6 core, Maxed GPU (2 * D700). Looking forward to keeping it for some time
  
  (I know it's not an iMac, but wanted to reflect on having bought an Mac pro with the now iMac pro line comming out.. On reflection happy with my approach, and not inclined to ditch if for the iMac again as the investment would be huge for imho little benefit.

In addition to the above my wife has a 2010 21" iMac still going strong.

Personally I think the longevity comes from maxing cpu/graphs up front, and allowing memory and disk to be retrofitted (e.g. adding SSD to the 2010 device gave it a new lease of life).

I'm still using my 2010 i7 iMac... but as a second monitor for my 2017 i5 iMac.

BTW, I actually returned a 2017 i7 iMac. The extra performance isn't really necessary for me, but the i5 is much quieter.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/dual-imacs.2052555/

Too bad you can't do this with the current 5K iMacs. It would have made for a nice second monitor in 2024...

 

[cynics]

EugW wrote:
"Yup. In High Sierra, my iMac 2017 plays high bitrate 10-bit HEVC files with under 10% CPU usage, right in QuickTime.
In fact, my 2017 Core m3 MacBook will even do it in High Sierra, with about 25% CPU usage."

Then what was it I heard that in the case of 4k content from Netflix (I believe), there is some kind of encryption/encoding that will require hardware decoding, which won't be ready until the Coffee Lake CPU's arrive?

Seems like there were a few threads that specifically mentioned that here at MacRumors.
Perhaps I have that wrong.

Kaby Lake can decode HEVC 10-bit and VP9 10-bit natively. Skylake could even decode HEVC.

That said, I still plan on waiting for a Coffee Lake release. Curious to see more cores at lower power levels. I want a faster processor without all the noise. Lol

 

[EugW]

Kaby Lake can decode HEVC 10-bit and VP9 10-bit natively. Skylake could even decode HEVC.

View attachment 710628

That said, I still plan on waiting for a Coffee Lake release. Curious to see more cores at lower power levels. I want a faster processor without all the noise. Lol

The DRM issue is not directly related to the HEVC decode / encode capabilities. It's DRM, and Kaby Lake supports it while Skylake does not.

I don't know what it will be called on macOS, but on Windows, it's called Playready 3.0.

And it's not as if Coffee Lake will see more cores at lower power levels. It will be more cores at similar power levels, or maybe even somewhat higher power levels, at least on paper. Currently the higher end mainstream i5 / i7 chips have a 91 Watt TDP. The new higher end mainstream 6-core i5 / i7 chips will have a 95 Watt TDP, and will be lower clocked. So actually, for stuff like Photoshop, current 4-core models might actually be faster than next year's chips. For video encoding though, next year's chips will be quite a bit faster.

There will be a 6-core 65 Watt chip, but I wonder if Apple will use it, or if Apple will stick with 4-core at the lower end for the 27" iMacs.

 

[cynics]

The DRM issue is not directly related to the HEVC decode / encode capabilities. It's DRM, and Kaby Lake supports it while Skylake does not.

I don't know what it will be called on macOS, but on Windows, it's called Playready 3.0.

And it's not as if Coffee Lake will see more cores at lower power levels. It will be more cores at similar power levels, or maybe even somewhat higher power levels, at least on paper. Currently the higher end mainstream i5 / i7 chips have a 91 Watt TDP. The new higher end mainstream 6-core i5 / i7 chips will have a 95 Watt TDP, and will be lower clocked. So actually, for stuff like Photoshop, current 4-core models might actually be faster than next year's chips. For video encoding though, next year's chips will be quite a bit faster.

There will be a 6-core 65 Watt chip, but I wonder if Apple will use it, or if Apple will stick with 4-core at the lower end for the 27" iMacs.

I was just referencing the CPU's native codec and that Kaby Lake is nearly fully capable of natively decoding HEVC streams. Skylake is also able to native decode HEVC albeit in a much more limited nature.

Although I know you guys were talking DRM that wasn't the intention of my post.

You guys are actually talking about a specific DRM scheme btw. Playready is a microsoft based DRM and its been around forever. Remember back when Silverlight was required to play Netflix? Playready was baked into Silverlight and Intel had a security "feature" called SSE (Streaming SIMD Extension) that fully supported Playready.

Netflix 4k content (and Amazon) requires Playready 3.0 and Intel has a security "feature" called SGX (Software Guard Extension) that fully supports Playready 3.0.

This is just business as usual.

Regardless, since Netflix produces a lot of their own content they could (they won't, but hypothetically) make some of their own 4k content fully playable on Skylake CPUs (with limitations when its comes to HDR of course). Regardless its arbitrary and as 4k content becomes more and more popular you'll see less mainstream and open services support software and gpu decoding if there isn't a DRM bottleneck.

As far as power usage with Coffee Lake I think you are right. I was saying Coffee Lake but thinking Cannonlake. The later consist of a die shrink (10nm) and will use less power. They are scheduled to co-exist however Cannonlake will have lower yields and likely relegated to specific series (Y and U from what I'm reading). Regardless Coffee Lake desktop CPUs are supposedly 6 core, if Intel maintains their power targets we should see significantly more powerful CPU's across the board (relative to Kaby Lake) for multi core based task (ex 6 core no HT @ 3.5ghz).

 

[jlseattle]

Just my two cents. Every year there will be something better than there is this year. In the end you are rolling the dice and land on a specific device in a specific year. I'm rolling the dice on the 2017 iMac. If a new better one comes out I'm not waiting (was was already waiting for the 2017 iMac). But I could have just as well waited for the supposed 2018 iMac. Who knows. Knowing how often Apple touches this line I anticipate that we'll get something else probably in 2019 or 2020. But it is all sifting the tea leaves to figure out what is going to happen in the future and what Apple will adopt. I think the processors and video card options (versus previous models) are great for this year.

My macs last me a long time (5-6 years +) with great performance and reliability. I'm anticipating my next purchase would be in 2022 or 23. Which is now perfect. Most upgrading this year are on 2009-2011 machines or new to Apple.

 

[EugW]

As far as power usage with Coffee Lake I think you are right. I was saying Coffee Lake but thinking Cannonlake. The later consist of a die shrink (10nm) and will use less power. They are scheduled to co-exist however Cannonlake will have lower yields and likely relegated to specific series (Y and U from what I'm reading). Regardless Coffee Lake desktop CPUs are supposedly 6 core, if Intel maintains their power targets we should see significantly more powerful CPU's across the board (relative to Kaby Lake) for multi core based task (ex 6 core no HT @ 3.5ghz).

Yes we will.

Just my two cents. Every year there will be something better than there is this year. In the end you are rolling the dice and land on a specific device in a specific year. I'm rolling the dice on the 2017 iMac. If a new better one comes out I'm not waiting (was was already waiting for the 2017 iMac). But I could have just as well waited for the supposed 2018 iMac. Who knows. Knowing how often Apple touches this line I anticipate that we'll get something else probably in 2019 or 2020. But it is all sifting the tea leaves to figure out what is going to happen in the future and what Apple will adopt. I think the processors and video card options (versus previous models) are great for this year.

My macs last me a long time (5-6 years +) with great performance and reliability. I'm anticipating my next purchase would be in 2022 or 23. Which is now perfect. Most upgrading this year are on 2009-2011 machines or new to Apple.

If I could have waited, I would have definitely waited for 2018. 6-core is where it's at. And it's not as if we would be rolling the dice, since the chips have already been announced. They're essentially almost drop-in chips which would be compatible with current iMac designs. (In fact, one wonders if you could install one in a 2017 iMac.) And all other things being equal, a 6-core iMac would likely last longer in terms of performance than a 4-core iMac, which is important for people like you and me, who keep our Macs a long time.

Furthermore, Apple usually updates the iMac line every year. 2016 being missed was not the norm, but an anomaly:

Mid-2017
Late-2015
Late-2014
Late-2013
Late-2012
Late-2011
Mid-2011
Mid-2010
Late-2009
Mid-2009
Early-2009
Early-2008

So, in the last decade, we have had 12 iMac releases. Some of them were pretty minor upgrades but nonetheless, they happened. Overall, we are getting about 1 decent release per year.

The only reason I did not wait was because of a very mundane reason. I had to buy it in my 2016 fiscal year, which ends July 31, 2017.

The main thing we'd be rolling the dice about would be case design. I don't know if 2018 will bring a redesign or not. Clues that we won't is that Coffee Lake can use the existing design, and the iMac Pro also has a very similar outward design (besides the colour), which may suggest that it might not be until 2019 or later for a form factor redesign.

 

[kazmac]

My 2010 21.5" iMac is still working fine, albeit slower (according to a former coworker who inherited it earlier this year). ...and my 2013 27" is just fine too (I got it almost 2 years ago).

As everyone has already said, it's hard to predict the lifespan of an iMac now, but at least 4-5 years of good, solid use. Trying not to pull the trigger after Thursday's trip to the Apple Store, I want to wait til about this time in 2018, but famous last words.

 

[propower]

Its always challenging to buy a computer. There is always a "better" one coming. Next time for iMacs there will likely be hex core versions - but its not for certain - its unknown when - and unknown "how much". Whatever one chooses today it really should (at least IMO) solve a need, problem or desire. If true then todays choice is still a good one. At least with Macs resale for recent models is usually quite good. If it turns out that in 9 months - the next thing will solve problems that the current one won't - sell - take your loss - and buy the better one

 

[Wrathwitch]

Here's my 2c. Just 2 weeks ago my top of the line 2009 27" iMac's GPU died. There was a fix posted online about re-applying paste and baking it in the oven and re pasting the contact. It actually worked for a week. Man, talk about sad.

During my ownership, I have played on average 3hrs World of Warcraft per day, kept her in sleep mode mostly, and used it for streaming, banking, surfing, emails etc. I have had to have the LCD replaced at the latter part of the second year of Apple Care, dude came right to my house to assess, fix and replace free of charge which was great because that bugger is HEAVY. Also, past the Apple Care warranty, there was a recall on the hard drive, so I had it replaced free of charge as well.

As a replacement I purchased the mid range 21.5" on the web site (didn't go with the fusion drive for stupid reasons) and realized that it was NO faster than my 2009 iMac in calling up apps etc, booting etc. So I caved and went for the higher end option 27" (default config) in hopes that she will last at minimum for 8 years. There is no reason, barring unforseen thunderstorms, power bumps etc that it shouldn't.

Beautiful machine so far.

 

[jlseattle]

As a replacement I purchased the mid range 21.5" on the web site (didn't go with the fusion drive for stupid reasons) and realized that it was NO faster than my 2009 iMac in calling up apps etc, booting etc. So I caved and went for the higher end option 27" (default config) in hopes that she will last at minimum for 8 years. There is no reason, barring unforseen thunderstorms, power bumps etc that it shouldn't.

Beautiful machine so far.

I went through that as well. 21.5" was slow with 1tb fusion drive. Returned and ordered 27" with 512 ssd.

 

[pixelatedscraps]

Here's my two cents on iMacs and general longevity of Mac hardware.

I'm a professional photographer working with 35mm digital and medium format files (100Mb+ transfers, imports and multiple (10-50?) 16-bit Photoshop TIFF edits of images regularly between 1-2Gb alone. That's just for a single image.

50-150Mb raw files are stored usually on external SSDs over USB 3.0, Thunderbolt 2 and recently USB-C and Thunderbolt 3. There is a mass of data constantly streaming between the 5-6 computers in my studio, Dropbox eats up at least 20% of every computer's CPU almost 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, MacBooks are connected to external displays, sometimes two, we're rendering contact sheets, compressing, reading and writing to hard drives almost all of the time. Year in, year out for almost 5 years now. Our computers are being used in every sense of the word.

I run SMCFanControl and iStatMini on all my Apple hardware to tinker fan speeds and keep an eye on temps. I think I thrash my hardware pretty hard - so if I can make use of this, I think most of you should as well. Making it 3 years on a top of the line Apple hardware and then offloading? Poor judgement and / or your buying into marketing bs.

I've been getting 7 years out of my Apple hardware. Granted, my 2010 27" iMac (which I only just offloaded two of this week) was upgraded halfway in to 20Gb RAM and a 256Gb SSD - this isn't an option anymore so I'm fully behind the theory to buy the best you can (afford), ignore the marketing hype and focus on maximising the value of your hardware.

I was running Sierra 10.12.6, Photoshop CC 18.1.2 and Lightroom 6.12 up to a week ago on my iMac and the only thing that got in the way for me was USB 2.0 - that's why it had to go. Once we started playing around with 1-2Gb exports, the writing was on the wall for our two studio iMacs from 2010. Don't let anyone convince you that you need to update every 2-3 years just because you're wanting to suddenly stream 4k Youtube videos (seriously?), encode H.265, do that light bit of editing you've always wanted to do or - bane of all - game on a Mac (ugh, get a PC or a console already - these are simply not gaming machines and never will be, everyone who is serious about gaming knows this.)

Anyone who thinks flipping their hardware every 1-2 years for the latest thing is either juvenile, isn't a professional using their hardware effectively or doesn't take themselves or their bank balance very seriously. Sure, you can get the latest toy but where does that really get you? You're buying into hype and The Next Great Thing That Is Never That Great To Begin With.

Am I happy with the way Apple is going with their hardware? Yes, I still think they make some of the most beautiful machines in the world. Could they be doing more for the pro market? Undoubtedly, that has slipped down the priority list for Cupertino. Are they focusing their attention on the slimmest, the smallest, the most locked-in - yes, but hell, if they weren't innovating in this way, I'd be worried. I know how long Apple hardware can last and its a lot longer than most may think.

Would I buy another iMac for professional work? Hell, yes. Do I think its better than a MP and a monitor of my choice? Nope, but thats only for the 5% of us out there who can / need to tell the difference.

Long live the iMac; boo, hiss the fanboys and marketing hype. Maximise value and don't buy into the hype. Your machine is fine, life is good, dissipate that obsession into something more worthy.

 

[Glideslope]

My 2017 27" iMac just replaced my Early 2008 "Cheese Grater" MP. While slow the only thing it really could not do was 4K Video. It was a Tank.

 

[RuffDraft]

In terms of long-term use: I've just got an iMac to semi-replace my 2011 17" MBP. Frankly, although the iMac is certainly a substantial upgrade, the only reason I needed a new machine is the Sword of Damocles that is the MBP GPU fault - my MBP has been repaired once (free, quickly, after 4 years) which is great but as I understand it the weakness was never actually fixed and, if it goes again, it is landfill. Otherwise, my main gripes could have been solved with a couple of Thunderbolt Docks (USB 3 + 2 external displays, albeit not 4k) now that they've dropped in price a bit - but I don't want to invest £300+ on a machine with a known ticking time-bomb.

I am about to upgrade to an iMac Pro in December, but have been using a 2011 17" MBP myself. I am typing this on a 2011 MacBook Air too, so I can honestly say that both machines have served their purpose over the six years that I've had them. Both machines are early 2011 models, and so by the time the iMac Pro arrives (modified) I'll likely have enjoyed 7 years with each machine. That's quite a substantial length of time for two Macs that were upgraded at purchase point with only the 17" receiving modifications - a new GPU courtesy of Apple for free (when the GPU died two years ago), as well as a 1TB SSD and 16GB RAM. The computer still runs like new, though I do have problems with the Express Card slot sometimes re-booting my Mac when I'm importing footage.

Overall, I think the new iMac can run for six years off the basis of my experiences, but no one can every truly say because we never know what tech is around the corner. I think the six years would be a reasonably bet though, as they are truly brilliantly built machines in my experience and my 17" has been running my business for the last two years too through the help of an 8-bay RAID, admittedly, but it's coped. Every day I thank it and hope that it will make iMac Pro release date.

 

[FrozenInferno]

The only thing that killed my 2011 MacBook Pro was a cup of tea on the keyboard a few months back. The one thing I ever did to it was double its base RAM from 4GB to 8GB and I would have EASILY gotten 7-8 years out of it for our usage (Office, browsing, basic photo editing, and the occasional game). My sister-in-law has an iMac from back around 2008-2009 when she started college and even that is working great still.

We now have a 2015 iMac 21.5" (purchased "new" just a week ago from Apple Refurbished) the with the 2.8Ghz i5 and barring any unforeseen catastrophes I'm very confident about another comfortable 5-6 year run for this computer with our basic home usage. At least I know tea won't kill this one

 

[cynics]

Hi, I've not been on here in a while and I'm looking for a little advice. I currently have a 2008 Mac Pro which I've been running since release, I've been really happy with the robustness and how long it has lasted.

I've decided though either this year or next year I'm going to make the leap to a newer mac and currently the iMac seems to be the best option, my question is can you typically get the same sort of Lifespan out of the past few generations of iMac's? If i can get a good 8 years again I'll be more than happy

Hopefully that didn't sound that stupid to ask.

Far from a stupid question, probably one of the most important actually.

I'm going on 4 years with my iMac. Nothing special however it transcodes video for 8-10 hours a day, everyday, for the last 4 years. CPU sitting at 90 c, constant HDD activity, high memory usage, etc and generally done over the network so constant wireless activity.... Never had a problem.

However short of the occasional fan and HDDs dying I never had much problem with PC's either.

So that is reliability, and in my experience is great.

The problem you could run into is upgradability. Graphics and storage shouldn't be a problem since you'll have external options. However you could potentially run into issues with future native codec support via the CPU you may want/need. And other things like next versions of wifi, bluetooth, thunderbolt, usb etc etc. That may or may not be an issue for you.

As far as software support from Apple, around 8 years is about the max they support OS updates and bug fixes on Macs. So your good there.