Upgrading within a small ecosystem that has no possibility of expanding requires some good cost/benefit thinking. I decided upon a robust mid-tier system that can carry the office workflow years into the future - also thinking that I don't really want to pull out components that I paid a lot for and replace them with 'somewhat' better components - thus losing $$ on the initial purchase. Is it really worth buy the base model and then every year adding 32 Gb more RAM and upgrading to the next level CPU and keep doing that every two years?The Cascade Lake Xeon , which Apple is currently using , is absolutely the last processor family that can be installed in the MP7,1 . And it appears only W Xeons are fully compatible . The MP 2019 will never be compatible with Ice Lake or Tiger Lake Xeons , as they utilized a different socket type .
[automerge]1578963072[/automerge]
If the computers I buy for my company can still effectively get the job done, I don't replace them. Once they have paid themselves off - the rest of the time is pure profit off their workload. That needs to keep going as long as possible and up to the point that the machine still works but can't keep up with expanding demands of workflows. I then sell them very cheaply. I'm not a miser. That's the system I use.What many people do is buy a Mac with AppleCare so that it's under warranty for three years then sell it when there is still a month of warranty left & the price is still high then buy a new Mac with AppleCare etc etc Companies usually do the same with leasing & swapping out equipment every three years.
Last edited: