Will this iMac last me 10 years of normal use? (no gaming, no video editing etc)

[bent christian]

You seem to think that the web will stagnate and stay the same as it is now

No. I am saying that decently spec'd machines built today are very capable. Much more capable than the average users needs are. Internet technology will of course advance. Those advancements will not out-strip what even a mid-tier iMac built in 2016 is fully capable of.

Apple is still selling selling dual core configurations as brand new machines. While processors have improved, the basic design of having two cores is at least ten years old. Why is Apple doing this? Because it's still viable technology for basic use and people are buying them.

 

[navaira]

This question makes an assumption that computing in itself will not change.

Within 10 years we might all be using some variations on Google Glass, implants, watch-like computers, holographic displays, watch 30K movies and complain about how **** our old 20K screens are. With the assumption that none of the above will happen, a maxed out iMac will probably function quite well 10 years from now. Processors no longer get twice as fast every year, and the best proof is that Apple's own rMB is "underpowered", as in the speed of 2012 Air, yet Apple deemed it fast enough to release in 2015.

Now, will the iMac last 10 years without some small part breaking down and OP discovering that due to the glued innards repair costs more than a new iMac...

 

[johngordon]

Very refreshing to see a thread about keeping a computer for so long rather than upgrading every 2-3 years.

I have 2009 iMac bought in April 2010, so coming up to six years old and still going just fine for my needs - nothing too taxing probably - normal stuff and web development, bit of Illustrator / InDesign etc.

Funds permitting I would like to upgrade to a 5K retina, but mostly for the hi res screen rather than the 2009 iMac struggling much.

It's impossible to predict the future, but if I upgrade this year I'd hope it would last 8-10 years.

I'd probably fall into the spend as much as you can afford to future proof it as much as possible.

Buy a maxed out model in 2016, and that spec might be the base model in 3-4 years.

One maxed out computer every 8-10 years will probably be cheaper than two base models in the same time.

 

[eRondeau]

While it's no longer my main Mac, I have a 24" Mid-2007 iMac C2D 2.8GHz "Extreme" that is approaching ten years old and is still completely functional in every way. I use it daily six months of the year at my family cottage. It has 4GB RAM and a 1TB HDD; it was top-of-the-line when I bought it and it shipped with OS X 10.4 "Tiger". Today it runs El Capitan and everything else I have ever downloaded flawlessly. Sure the spinny HDD's booting & loading is slow compared to a SSD, and the Airport Extreme is missing some current functionality, but I have never once cursed it for being unusable or even inconvenient. Indeed I can't think of anything I've ever owned that has kept me this happy for this long as this iMac. Hard specs & peripheral port changes aside, a lot of people would be perfectly happy with its performance as a brand-new computer if it was still being sold today.

I guess my point is -- if you live & die purely by the specs of the chips you will never be happy because there's always something just a little bit better in the pipeline. But if your primary goal is to buy a computer that will make you happy and impress you with its capabilities every time you turn it on, either of the iMac's you are considering will do that for many years to come.

 

[Malus120]

I just have to ask OP... Why?

You want to have a nice computer for the next 10 years without a lot of hassle?

Feel like spending a lot of money now?

I'll tell you how.

Buy either of the iMacs you're looking at today, get Applecare, and in 2 years and 9 months when your Applecare is about to run out, sell it and buy a new iMac one or two models down from the "level" you have. Because they include a (high end) screen, iMacs hold their resale value VERY well. You'll end up with a fast Mac for all 10 of those years (instead of a dog for the last 3-5), and if you do it right you won't even spend more money doing so. Especially if you just buy the lower end model and invest the difference in your financial vehicle of choice.

Yeah you gotta sell periodically, but as long as you keep the box, its really not that hard (although you pay for that convenience in the form of high fees if you use something like eBay)

No offense, but given the resale value of iMacs at the "sweet spot" of 2-3 years of age, running an iMac until it breaks down (and yes, if you try to run it for 10 years, chances are something WILL break down) just isn't a very good choice IMO. Also, be aware that with the current design, if anything other than the ram breaks, you're in for some serious hassle, some serious costs, or both.

Just my personal opinion but I would highly recommend it as something to consider.

 

[throAU]

Tip from someone who's been buying computers since the 90s:

Don't try and "future proof" beyond 3 years.

Buy something mid-spec (or rather, "appropriate" spec) today, and upgrade more often.

When you need the additional power it will be cheaper. Pass your 2-3 year old machine onto someone else, and get something more powerful sooner. Put the money you WOULD have spent on the top of the line system in the bank, and spend it in 2 year's time on a new box. Sell the old one for reasonable money.

Trying to stretch a machine out for more than 5 years is just setting yourself up for hardware failure (and then you're screwed anyway and wasted your money), super expensive purchase price, and if you do ever need to upgrade it, expensive upgrades because the standards for everything change (look up the prices of DDR2 RAM vs. DDR3 or DDR4 some time - and DDR2 is slower).

Trying to stretch a machine to 10 years is just sheer lunacy. Well let me re-phrase. trying to purchase with the intent of keeping for 10 years is. If it is still working after 6, fine... just be aware that any spec upgrades you do today will do very little to improve your system's longevity vs. the current mid-range/base.

The price/performance curve is not a straight line. A machine half the cost of top of the line typically has 80% of the performance unless you're talking about specialist tasks.

Tech does not stand still.

To put things in context, 10 years ago I was using (I think) a Pentium D 930 (dual core) with 1 GB of RAM, Nvidia 7600GT and a 250 GB hard drive. That, at the time was a reasonably high end PC. It wouldn't run much of anything today. Certainly not quickly, and it would have been slow garbage for the past 6 years at least.


Don't get me wrong, if you're doing something for work that demands maximum performance today, get it. But then you'd be looking at the Mac Pro... and even if you were to buy one of those, expecting it to last 10 years is wishful thinking. You might get lucky, but banking on it is foolish.

Especially with so much revolutionary tech right on the horizon like intel Xpoint memory, the coming massive increases in core counts, massive storage speed improvements we're seeing right now, etc.

edit:
re: dual core still on sale... sure. but clock-rates have stopped increasing and all the major operating systems have done major work to increase threading, and the ability to use more threads. intel is working on many core CPUs, the Xeons are already up to 20 cores or more, you're going to see an explosion in core counts over the next 5-10 years. Software has been holding multi-core back, but this problem is far less of a thing with recent OS platforms.

 

[nightcap965]

Tip from someone who's been buying computers since the 90s:

Don't try and "future proof" beyond 3 years.

Buy something mid-spec today, and upgrade more often.

When you need the additional power it will be cheaper. Pass your 2-3 year old machine onto someone else, and get something more powerful sooner.

Trying to stretch a machine out for more than 5 years is just setting yourself up for hardware failure (and then you're screwed anyway and wasted your money), super expensive purchase price, and if you do ever need to upgrade it, expensive upgrades because the standards for everything change (look up the prices of DDR2 RAM vs. DDR3 or DDR4 some time - and DDR2 is slower).

The price/performance curve is not a straight line. A machine half the cost of top of the line typically has 80% of the performance unless you're talking about specialist tasks.

As someone who's been buying computers since the 80s (and until a massive "Hoarders: Buried Alive!" style cleanout still had most of them up until two years ago), I quite agree. Owning an antique fountain pen is good. Owning an antique computer, not so much.

 

[bogg]

I'm with you throAU and nigthcap965. Bought my first own computer in 92, and trying to predict what will happen the next 10 years and buy for that situation is more or less impossible.

With that said, I'm all for more cores and maybe if intel could implement ZiiLabs tech in x86 CPUs we could see a fantastic leap in single thread performance again.

The attached screenshot is my soon 2.5 year old MBP Retina 13" (Early-2013) with a 2.6GHz i5...

The screenshot was taken during normal webbrowsing with a few tabs, a video playing on youtube and a torrent downloading in the background, other than that no applications was running (the huge peak in the end is me starting Mail.app).

Almost everything on this computer would benefit from a faster CPU. To have that type of load on a CPU might not seem much, but people have got to remember that every time those peaks comes up the end result is the user waiting for something. We are still very much bound by our CPUs performance. If this CPU would by magic become twice as fast today I'd notice the difference immediately. S
Things like Siri and smart suggestions and added intelligence to spotlight will add to the CPU requirements.

As said, of course the computer will behave the same in 10 years if you do exactly the same things, surf the same websites and use the same versions of all applications. But who does that? And what websites doesn't evolve with added bandwidth and performance?

 

[kazmac]

From my experience, I'd say 5 - 6 years is a more realistic estimate. I was delighted to have my 2010 iMac for 5.5 years before school and updated / problematic software forced me into upgrading.The 2010 still runs, but cannot do what I need.

I will be super happy to get that life span from this newer model.

 

[throAU]

FYI, here's the CPU i was running 10 years ago compared to newer stuff... (and i don't think that even takes into account new instructions in the more recent CPUs that can speed up AES and stuff by 30x on top of that).


http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/Intel/Pentium_D_930.html

Everything is going GPU these days too, and in the past 5 years, intel integrated GPUs have become 30x faster.

Will a 2016 machine run anything in 2026? Maybe... but will it run current software in any way acceptably at that point? I think not.

edit:
and yeah 5 years or so is a far more reasonable estimate. but the failure rate on many PC components goes up drastically after 3-4 years. which is why you'll be hard pressed to find anything longer than a 3 year warranty except on enterprise level gear, and you PAY for it.

 

[sunapple]

You can also just buy what you need and can afford right now, upgrade whenever you need to.

Looking back our 'family iMac' from 2007 has served quite well all these years, but the usage has dropped a lot since the MacBook and iPad took over. It's also rather slow and laggy with El Capitan. And it still has to keep going for another year and a half to get to your 10 years of life expectancy which just seems... Too much of a pain if it would be your main machine.

It's great to keep using computers for over a decade, but it will probably not be used for the exact same purposes in its lifespan. Can you still use a 30 year old Macintosh Plus? Yes, as a clock.

 

[bent christian]

As said, of course the computer will behave the same in 10 years if you do exactly the same things, surf the same websites and use the same versions of all applications. But who does that?

Most users do that.

 

[throAU]

Most users do that.

You say that, but the web from 2007 is a lot different to the web of today.

Even if your usage doesn't change, web browsers inflate, web content becomes heavier, video quality goes up, the codecs get more CPU intensive, etc. (e.g., right now a single tab in safari, Facebook is consuming 960 megabytes of memory on this system).

Try to run a h.264 video on a machine from 2005 and see how it goes, for example.

For an even more extreme example of how times change, try to use the modern internet on dial up.

 

[navaira]

Most users do that.

You think most users still use applications from 10 years ago? Like Photoshop CS6, Firefox 1.5, iTunes 7.0? And their homepage is MySpace?

 

[bent christian]

You say that, but the web from 2007 is a lot different to the web of today.

Yeah, of course...but my 2007 Thinkpad navigates the Web just fine in 2016. I have no trouble viewing websites and playing Youtube videos (what the OP wants to do). I shoot home movies using an SLR camera, h.264 video codec at 1080. I have no trouble viewing what I upload to Dailymotion. I don't any of the problems a few posters here are going on about. Our very old machine function just fine in the current environment. My Thinkpad feels like it did on day one. It is actually much faster 2016, due to the solid state drive I installed. There is no way I should have sold this machine after three or four or five years. It probably has at least two or three years left.
[doublepost=1453129761][/doublepost]

You think most users still use applications from 10 years ago? Like Photoshop CS6, Firefox 1.5, iTunes 7.0? And their homepage is MySpace?

Yes. Lots of people still use Photoshop CS6. I use it every day at work in a professional print environment. I have CC here too, but there is very little difference between the two for most purposes, so I don't use it often. The main advancements in Photoshop that people will care about are in ACR, and you can't get ACR without Photoshop.

I haven't accessed my MySpace account in a very long time, but the Facebook account I set up in 2007 is a regular stop for me and many other people.

iTunes software has always been a bit of a joke. I don't even use it on my new iMac. Can't comment.

We don't have issues using Firefox on any of our nearly ten year old machines. I don't expect that web browsers will be a problem for us any time soon.

 

[bogg]

You say that, but the web from 2007 is a lot different to the web of today.

Even if your usage doesn't change, web browsers inflate, web content becomes heavier, video quality goes up, the codecs get more CPU intensive, etc. (e.g., right now a single tab in safari, Facebook is consuming 960 megabytes of memory on this system).

Try to run a h.264 video on a machine from 2005 and see how it goes, for example.

For an even more extreme example of how times change, try to use the modern internet on dial up.

Haha, My 2006 Mac mini couldn't even play 720p h264 without skipping a bunch of frames, upgrading it to 2007 specs let it play 720p but 1080p was still beyond playable...

Just the new security features/handshakes/encryptions on ssl traffic slows down browsing on older computers...

 

[throAU]

It is actually much faster 2016, due to the solid state drive I installed. There is no way I should have sold this machine after three or four or five years. It probably has at least two or three years left.

This is where you may not be so lucky next time, this time around, you happen to have been able to do an upgrade which has been basically one of the largest performance upgrades in the history of computers.

It just so happens that the SATA bus could handle it to a degree.

If you sold at 2-3 years old you'd still get a decent portion of your money back and be able to get something that still has a warranty. You'd now be rocking a 2010-2011 machine that had AES encryption built into the CPU, DDR3 RAM, faster SATA interface, possibly quad core, etc. It would be getting the video processing done MUCH faster.

It would also have a battery that held reasonable charge.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

The biggest problem with keeping a brand new iMac for 10 years is [ironically] the display. I think by 2020 40" 4K displays will be mainstream. They are already available at a reasonable price (Crossover 404k is $650). So while your iMac will work fine, the user experience will be noticeably inferior to a modern machine. To put this in context you are getting a 27" screen now and 10 years ago 19" was the standard; no one wants 19" now and that's kinda how 27" will be in a few years.

 

[navaira]

I wouldn't bet on that particular horse. I would need a new room to house two 40" monitors next to each other.

 

[throAU]

I'd say by 2026 (the time this machine is expected to survive), 8k or higher will be mainstream (8k displays already exist).

The successor codec to h.265 (in order to get an acceptable size video file) will be in use. It will consume far more CPU for video compression and playback. We will be running some new form of encryption (who knows, maybe quantum based), and the RAM (or maybe Xpoint) in a typical laptop will be 1/4 to 1/2 a terabyte (I already have 2-3 year old servers with 128 gigs in them, and they're specced to handle 512 GB).

Applications will grow to make use of those resources.

X-point and many core CPUs are game changers. They're both coming. There's plenty of uses for the power if it is out there and it will be within the next couple of years.

 

[navaira]

...and iPhone will still come with base storage of 16GB, yes.

(What would an average user ever need 256 GB RAM for?)

 

[ToroidalZeus]

I wouldn't bet on that particular horse. I would need a new room to house two 40" monitors next to each other.

You must have a really small room. I also never said anything about 2 monitors. I don't think multi monitor setups will ever be mainstream and will be only for power users.

I'd say by 2026 (the time this machine is expected to survive), 8k or higher will be mainstream (8k displays already exist).

The successor codec to h.265 (in order to get an acceptable size video file) will be in use. It will consume far more CPU for video compression and playback. We will be running some new form of encryption (who knows, maybe quantum based), and the RAM (or maybe Xpoint) in a typical laptop will be 1/4 to 1/2 a terabyte (I already have 2-3 year old servers with 128 gigs in them, and they're specced to handle 512 GB).

Applications will grow to make use of those resources.

Ya I think 8K will be standard by 2026. By 2020 4K will be standard with 5K and 8K monitors for the high-end.

I don't think RAM will matter as much because besides google chrome, most applications don't need a lot of RAM. I think 32GB max of the iMac will be perfectly fine 10 years from now. Only issue will be getting that RAM since DDR3 is being phased out for DDR4 right now.

 

[bent christian]

This is where you may not be so lucky next time, this time around, you happen to have been able to do an upgrade this time around which has been basically one of the largest performance upgrades in the history of computers.

It just so happens that the SATA bus could handle it to a degree.

If you sold at 2-3 years old you'd still get a decent portion of your money back and be able to get something that still has a warranty. You'd now be rocking a 2010-2011 machine that had AES encryption built into the CPU, DDR3 RAM, faster SATA interface, etc.

But, I we have been doing just fine. And I didn't have to worry about buy/selling/buying/selling.

I actually made that SSD upgrade just a couple of weeks ago. Previously it had a 5400rpm drive running through a SATA 1 bus. The Middleton BIOS upgrade put me at SATA 2 speeds, and the SSD improved things immensely.

But still...I didn't have any trouble doing basic tasks before the upgrade. I did it mainly because of the age of the drive and for $100, the 300% increase in speed was a no-brainer.

 

[throAU]

(What would an average user ever need 256 GB RAM for?)

There's a Bill Gates quote about 640 kB being enough for anyone out there somewhere....


We don't know, we can only speculate, but for the past 40 + years memory, storage and CPU power has trended upwards at an exponential rate. We're currently in a bit of a lull, but the long term trend will continue.

I remember thinking that 8 MB was a huge amount of memory back when my 486 was running DOS. And then i tried OS/2 warp... and Linux... 8 MB was the bare minimum for acceptable performance... that was in 1993-1995.

I remember thinking that the FPU in my machine was pretty pointless, but fast... and then Quake happened. And the 486 FPU was suddenly JUNK, Quake needed a Pentium to run properly.

... and a heap of other anecdotes regarding machine spec being awesome until suddenly it was crap...

 

[bogg]

...and iPhone will still come with base storage of 16GB, yes.

(What would an average user ever need 256 GB RAM for?)

In 2001 I couldn't imagine why someone would need 4GB of RAM and I was content with my 128MB. I updated to 384MB in 2002, I have had 24GB the past 4.5 years... In less than 10 years i went from 0.384GB to 24GB. The next computer I buy will have at least 32.