Overbuying - Is it a bad thing?

[mw360]

I was just thinking about this and thought it would be interesting to see what other people think (maybe it is the huge Powerball lottery jackpot up for grabs in the US ). If money were not really a major concern, would you go for (or recommend) the highest spec (or close) even if the intended use perhaps didn't absolutely require it?

This is pretty much what Apple want you to do. The soldered-in components, and the peculiar spec ranges (16GB / 64GB) are designed to give you a dose of the FUDs and encourage you to bump your spec at purchase time. This may have you buying RAM or SSD capacity at 2016 prices, while not actually needing them until they're worth half as much in 2018. And its difficult to recommend resisting the temptation because the OSes are bloating significantly these days.

 

[bogg]

This is pretty much what Apple want you to do. The soldered-in components, and the peculiar spec ranges (16GB / 64GB) are designed to give you a dose of the FUDs and encourage you to bump your spec at purchase time. This may have you buying RAM or SSD capacity at 2016 prices, while not actually needing them until they're worth half as much in 2018. And its difficult to recommend resisting the temptation because the OSes are bloating significantly these days.

To be fair, when you're paying for say 1TB of SSD from Apple you are paying 2x 2016 prices
If they weren't so soldered-in, proprietary and glued down you could easily buy it without the SSD and put one in yourself for half the price

 

[jazzer15]

To be fair, when you're paying for say 1TB of SSD from Apple you are paying 2x 2016 prices
If they weren't so soldered-in, proprietary and glued down you could easily buy it without the SSD and put one in yourself for half the price

I feel better about my iMac already. I keep waiting for the Apple consumer backlash.

Seriously though, the SSD was the one thing I couldn't justify going all out for (of course, I probably don't need 1TB of internal storage as I was going to be using external in any event). I felt the premium over the 512GB SSD was just too high, but I certainly appreciate that others might reach a different conclusion based on their own situation, needs and use.

 

[Coldmode]

If money were not really a major concern, would you go for (or recommend) the highest spec (or close) even if the intended use perhaps didn't absolutely require it?

In the case of iMacs I can't think of a reason you'd want anything less than the best, but I know that I prefer my rMBP 15" with the lower clock speed CPU and no discrete graphics card for heat reasons.

 

[dogslobber]

Nobody likes to waste money, but aside from the obvious financial issue, in your opinion, is there a downside to buying more computer than is truly needed?

People often ask questions on this forum (some of which I have contributed ) about whether to purchase a particular upgrade. Presumably, everyone is trying to get good value for their purchase. But assuming one can easily afford that upgrade(s) (e.g., the person has sufficient savings, can easily pay bills and the money won't prevent any other important purchase or cause the person to go into debt), is there any reason not to recommend that larger SSD, i7 or M395X?

I was just thinking about this and thought it would be interesting to see what other people think (maybe it is the huge Powerball lottery jackpot up for grabs in the US ). If money were not really a major concern, would you go for (or recommend) the highest spec (or close) even if the intended use perhaps didn't absolutely require it?

I think buying a Mac nowadays comes down to three variables, size, RAM, and storage. Usually people will instinctively know what size they want so not make a mistake there. RAM is now not upgradable in most cases so I know I'd regret buying a system with only 8gb. Storage is something that needs to be fast so has to be SSD and not the toy fusion drives. For a Mac system I find the best balance for me is 256gb as 128gb is too constraining and 512gb or greater is redundant. If it came to RAM V Storage then I can find alternative external storage methods but can never have alternatives to RAM.

Processor speed doesn't matter anymore. All cpus are very fast and 2 cores is good enough for my needs as I simply don't stress 4 cores. Also if it's a laptop then driving the cpu hard makes no sense as the fans kick in quickly. For short bursts it's fine but a desktop is for extended cpu loads.

All IMHO, of course

 

[jazzer15]

I think buying a Mac nowadays comes down to three variables, size, RAM, and storage. Usually people will instinctively know what size they want so not make a mistake there. RAM is now not upgradable in most cases so I know I'd regret buying a system with only 8gb. Storage is something that needs to be fast so has to be SSD and not the toy fusion drives. For a Mac system I find the best balance for me is 256gb as 128gb is too constraining and 512gb or greater is redundant. If it came to RAM V Storage then I can find alternative external storage methods but can never have alternatives to RAM.

Processor speed doesn't matter anymore. All cpus are very fast and 2 cores is good enough for my needs as I simply don't stress 4 cores. Also if it's a laptop then driving the cpu hard makes no sense as the fans kick in quickly. For short bursts it's fine but a desktop is for extended cpu loads.

All IMHO, of course

I guess you are thinking about Apple laptops? The RAM in a 27 inch iMac is user upgradeable and most people buy third party RAM. Also I don't believe there is an SSD option that is less than 256gb in an iMac.

FWIW, I opted for a pure SSD, but those with fusion drives are also very happy. It is just two separate drives - an SSD and a regular HDD. Not too much different than buying an SSD and an external drive, except that Apple software takes care of allocating what goes on each.

 

[maflynn]

I guess you are thinking about Apple laptops? The RAM in a 27 inch iMac is user upgradeable and most people buy third party RAM. Also I don't believe there is an SSD option that is less than 256gb in an iMac.

Actually other then the Mac Pro and the 27" iMacs, Macs are not upgradeable, i.e., Mac Mini, 21" iMacs etc. Its just not Apple laptops

 

[jazzer15]

Actually other then the Mac Pro and the 27" iMacs, Macs are not upgradeable, i.e., Mac Mini, 21" iMacs etc. Its just not Apple laptops

Yes, that's true. I guess I was thinking about the 27 inch iMacs particularly.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

In most cases it doesn't make sense to buy overbuy, There are a few exceptions e.g. I bought a i7-5820k because I believe the 6 core CPU will help future-proof my system 5 yrs down the road.

With the iMac that's not really the case IMO. M395X, is a good gpu but for $2K+ you could build a much better gaming rig than the iMac. So I don't think it really makes sense to get. I think if you are doing light video work or something then the i7 may be worth considering. Under heavy workload it'll thermally throttle tho. So again not exactly the most high performance machine even if the specs on paper look good.

For me, when I see the iMac 5K, i see an entry level PC with a 5K display slapped on. Spending more on upgrades won't really extend the longevity of the system because by the time those slightly better specs matter you'll get much better performance on a brand new system.

 

[86939]

I just bought a fully maxed out 5k. I want it to be fast 8 years from now, not a year or two from now. I made a mistake when I bought my previous iMac in 2010. I skimped on graphics processor and all that, and it really has become a problem 6 years later. To me you should buy the most machine that you can afford.

 

[maflynn]

Yes, that's true. I guess I was thinking about the 27 inch iMacs particularly.

ITs definitely a nice benefit of the 27", while that feature was not the major point of my getting the computer, its definitely a nice to have