Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
10 years is a stretch, and its really impossible state how SSDs will be in 10 years, there's just no evidense at this point to provide any direction.

I think other components should be fine, but then what about the dGPU, apple's track record with dGPUs hasn't been stellar (maybe that's why they went with AMD), all I'm saying is its impossible to project that far into the future :)
Lol, it was 50/50 that my post would read as perhaps disagreeing with you, I was indeed agreeing with you. Cheers
 
You don't have to be a millionaire to get a 40" 4K display.
No-- but I'd have to have an awful lot of resources to build and extensively test things that aren't yet on the market. Stuff like-- "does a 34 inch 8K imac even make sense?" "What aspect ratio is optimal for computing"? "Is OLED worth the cost"? Some of that can be tested with projector screens, but most people don't do their computing in darkened rooms.
 
Lol, it was 50/50 that my post would read as perhaps disagreeing with you, I was indeed agreeing with you. Cheers
I didn't take it that way, but I was thinking about the 10 year mark and it occurred to me that we don't have any track record with regards to long term usage with SSDs. They're a fairly common component and with its limited write cycles in them, its hard to say how things will fare as time goes on :)
 
They're a fairly common component and with its limited write cycles in them, its hard to say how things will fare as time goes on

http://techreport.com/review/27436/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-two-freaking-petabytes

The results of our experiment do, however, point to some more general conclusions about SSDs as a whole. Although only two drives made it to 2PB, all six wrote hundreds of terabytes without issue, vastly exceeding their official endurance specifications. More importantly, the drives all survived far more writes than most users are likely to generate. Typical consumers shouldn't worry about exceeding the endurance of modern SSDs.
 
The machine may or may not last you that long, but you probably won't be getting 10 years of OS X updates.
 
No-- but I'd have to have an awful lot of resources to build and extensively test things that aren't yet on the market. Stuff like-- "does a 34 inch 8K imac even make sense?" "What aspect ratio is optimal for computing"? "Is OLED worth the cost"? Some of that can be tested with projector screens, but most people don't do their computing in darkened rooms.
Sounds like you are nitpicking excuses man. 4K 40" displays are on the market. You can go try one if you want.
 
I am kinda torn between these 2 iMac systems:

Both are new 27" retinas. I want it to last me 10+ years for normal use: browsing, YouTube videos, office apps, music etc. No gaming, nothing work related. But I want it to be smooth and not laggy when doing basic tasks and being able to watch any movie quality such as 4K ( or 6K, or 10K...
smile.gif
in future) for the next 10 years.

My plan is to not make any upgrades in future (besides RAM which can be easily done)

Oh and I am fixed on iMac, please do not offer me to switch to PC or ask me why. Thank you!

1.

27-inch iMac with Retina 5K display

4.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4.2GHz

8GB 1867MHz DDR3 SDRAM - two 4GB (WILL UPGRADE RAM AS NEEDED)

256GB Flash Storage or 512GB Flash Storage or go all the way up to 1Tb Flash Storage???

AMD Radeon R9 M395X with 4GB video memory


2.

27-inch iMac with Retina 5K display

3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz

8GB 1867MHz DDR3 SDRAM - two 4GB (WILL UPGRADE RAM AS NEEDED)

256GB Flash Storage (Using less than 60Gb right now, but any chance apps will get tremendous in the next 10 years???)

AMD Radeon R9 M380 with 2GB video memory



I just ran a 1440p 4K video on a i3 with GT 610 1Gb and it was pretty sharp and smooth, however, 2160p was choppy. Don't see why R9 380 would not last me 10 years considering GT 610 equals to a 10 year old mid-range gaming GPU...

I started my career as an electronics tech. We used to say that if a gadget lasted 90 days, it would last forever.

Apple products are well built, so you should get 10 years out of your iMac easily. If you're really planning on keeping it that long, buy #1 and max out the storage to as much as you can afford.
 
"If we build a wall long enough and high enough, it'll keep out the barbarians!"

Can the components of a modern PC last 10 years? Sure. Even with a spinning HDD, if you plan for a replacement halfway through the machine's life, you'll probably survive (consider it an expendable part, like an oil filter).

The problem is you can't stop technological change, and nobody can predict what great new features will come along five years down the road, no less 10. What if Apple moves to ARM CPUs in, say, five years? What if there's a great, new iCloud feature that requires OS X 10.20, but it won't run on an Intel processor?

Currently, people with some 2007- and 2008-vintage Macs (like the plastic MacBook) are learning that there's no way for them to sync an iPhone 6s - their Macs won't run OS X 10.8.5 (or higher), so they can't install iTunes 12.3.x, and iOS 9.x requires that version of iTunes. Now, that's not far from 10 years - close, but no cigar.

I have an Early 2008 iMac that's going strong, and if I replaced the current HDD with an SSD... who knows? No reason I couldn't run El Capitan on the thing for another few years, at least. But already there are a few OS X features I'd like to have on that machine, but can't (need newer version of Bluetooth, for one). And since it doesn't support Internet Recovery, I'm dependent on having the original install DVD (are you kidding?!) or bootable thumb drive (sitting right in front of me), in case of disaster.

I used to do some support for public accountants. Talk about averse to change! They bought a software package, and never upgraded (it cost money, after all). You'd think they'd understand "productivity improvements," but "I'm not paying a red cent more" seemed to be a more important principle. They ran MS-DOS long after most offices had moved to Windows... But even they couldn't hold out for a full 10 years. Eventually, there was a piece of must-have software (tax prep, in most cases) that demanded Windows, additional disk space and RAM... And at that point they'd shrug, and say, "It's OK, I've gotten more than my money's worth."

And "more than my money's worth" is a useful point. Say you spend $2700 on a tricked-out 27" iMac. Will it matter, in the end, whether you used it for 8 years at an annualized cost of $337.50, or 10 years at $270?
 
ApfelKuchen: You seem to be on the same page as me (but better at expressing yourself). Mimics my thoughts exactly, there will always be new features, new functions, software and the like you want to try.
As I've written numerous times, there's no reason for it not to support the exact same software and stuff that it is delivered with for 10 years (or even a 100), but technology and software will evolve and in a few years time there will probably be a load of new features OP wants to try out. If OP really doesn't do anything different now than 10 years ago, why update in the first place? ;)
 
I noticed M380 does have DirectX 11.1 support and R395 offers DX 12.

Do I care? Is DX even supported on Macs?
 
It means that if those additional features catch on, the card that doesn't have them will become obsolete quicker.
 
It means that if those additional features catch on, the card that doesn't have them will become obsolete quicker.
Does it relate to gaming I assume?

There is a difference between something becoming obsolete and being no longer fully up to date with all the current features (unnecessary ones for the most part)

What other Apple apps use DX? I read DX12 only benefits Windows 10 gamers.

Anyway, thanks all for your time and replies. I am not setting myself to get X amount of years out of this iMac, but I rather bought a machine that suites my needs right now and will in the future. This is the config that I got:

• 3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
• 8GB 1867MHz DDR3 SDRAM - two 4GB (Will throw in another 4Gbx2 myself if needed)
• 256GB Flash Storage
• AMD Radeon R9 M380 with 2GB video memory
 
Last edited:
Anyway, thanks all for your time and replies. I am not setting myself to get X amount of years out of this iMac, but I rather bought a machine that suites my needs right now and will in the future. This is the config that I got:

• 3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
• 8GB 1867MHz DDR3 SDRAM - two 4GB (Will throw in another 4Gbx2 myself if needed)
• 256GB Flash Storage
• AMD Radeon R9 M380 with 2GB video memory
That sounds like a good choice for your usage. Enjoy it for as long as it lasts :)
 
DirectX is not supported or used in OS X
Graphics cards manufacturers tend to design their cards against Direct3D specifications. But these new feature sets can also be used in a openGL environment using appropriate extensions.
 
Graphics cards manufacturers tend to design their cards against Direct3D specifications. But these new feature sets can also be used in a openGL environment using appropriate extensions.
Yes, but directx in itself is not supported on OS X, that OpenGL can benefit from hardware features I see as obvious. (But might not be for OP, so I could have worded that post better)
 
Many of us are trudging along with Mac Pro 1,1s from 2006, but these are the exception rather than the rule(and I haven't owned mine for even a full year).

Mine is still plenty fast and very useable in 10.9 and could run 10.11 if I wanted to, but that comes with caveats. The most important thing is that I have an upgraded video card. I splurged and bought one from MacVidCards so I could get a boot screen, but as of 10.7 there are a lot of PC video cards that are plug and play with no flashing(you just give up the boot screen). I have an SSD in it, which of course was unheard of in 2006, and have 16gb of RAM(not the max for this system). I upgraded the CPUs to dual quad core.

The MP is an exception, though, in terms of staying current, and offers a level of upgradeability that went away when the "cheesegrater" Mac Pro was discontinued in 2013. At the other extreme, I have a first generation Intel Mac Mini. It runs headless with Snow Leopard Server, which-as shipped-was the newest version of OS X that was supported. I upgraded the CPU to a Core2Duo which would allow it to run Lion with no trouble and even beyond with some hacking, but the GMA950 GPU is a real handicap. I'm stuck at 2gb of RAM.

On the other hand, I am still using a Quicksilver from 2002 regularly. It's running 10.5.8, the most current OS supported on any PPC computer. Again, though, as a tower computer it offers a degree of upgradeability not currently offered. I installed a GPU that would support Core Image(it makes a huge difference in the operation of Leopard), have a USB 2.0 card, and am getting ready to switch everything over to SATA(and likely an SSD for the boot drive). It works fine for what I use it for, but keeping it on the internet is a constant battle of dealing with crummy, bloated websites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LightBulbFun
How many CPUs?

Do you mean how many currently, or how many it has been through?

It's a dual 1ghz model(I guess I should list it in my signature since it's one of my more used machines). I've avoided the temptation to throw an upgrade in it, but the 2mb of L3/processor makes up somewhat for the relatively slow speed compared to most of the 7447A-based upgrades(such as the dual 1.6 giga and dual 1.8 Sonnet I list in my signature).

I haven't owned the computer from new, but have no reason to think it's not on its original CPU.
 
Jus checking. I have a single CPU Powermac G4 1.25 GHz, and aside from the powersupply getting a bit flaky-- I do think that the "hinged case" may be to blame-- I found that Time Machine stressed the hell out of it. I haven't actually fired it up in years, but it still sits underneath my desk.It has a Radeon 9600, not the Radeon 9000.
 
Jus checking. I have a single CPU Powermac G4 1.25 GHz, and aside from the powersupply getting a bit flaky-- I do think that the "hinged case" may be to blame-- I found that Time Machine stressed the hell out of it. I haven't actually fired it up in years, but it still sits underneath my desk.It has a Radeon 9600, not the Radeon 9000.

I'm running a Radeon 9600 in my main Quicksilver. I actually am using a "taped" G5 version of the card, which, with a small amount of extra work, supports an ADC display without the "brick"(I use the 23" HD display as my primary).

I recently acquired a Radeon 9700, which was a build to order card for the MDD G4s. Unfortunately, it's dead. If it worked, I'd use it in my Quicksilver.

Unfortunately, the AGP slot in the Quicksilver can be "flaky" with a lot of the better cards. I've had good reliability with the G5 edition 9600XT, but the 9600 Pro PC & Mac(retail) gives me fits at times(I do currently have one Quicksilver with a working 9600 Pro). I've never had any luck getting the ATI FireGL X3(flashed to an X800XT) working in a Quicksilver, although it does work in MDDs fairly reliably. I have a Digital Audio G4(similar internally to a Quicksilver) that I bought with a FireGL installed and it works fine. This is one of the better cards for PPC Macs, and again a good core image GPU makes all the difference.

One of my Sawtooths(Sawteeth?) has a flashed Radeon 9800. This is probably the best GPU that will work in a 2x AGP slot. I also have an nVidia 6200 waiting to be flashed-this one is on my "to do" list because it will work in a Cube, and as far as I know is the only way to get a Core Image in one.

I also have a flashed nVidia FX5200 PCI that I've juggled between a few B&W G3s and Yikes! G4s. It's one of a very few cards that gives Core Image in a PCI PowerMac. I have the Quadro version of this card(nice because it is dual DVI rather than dual VGA) that I need to flash.
 
In this day and age I would expect to at least be able to hit the 6-7 year mark easily and 10 if the workload is kept pretty simple. No guarantee of course but things have come so far over the last 10 and even older PC's (and Macs) hitting the 10 year mark with core 2 duos are still able to run modern operating systems like Windows 10.

I've still got a Mid 2007 iMac (purchased August 20, 2007) running full time at the house. It shipped with 10.4 Tiger and is currently running the latest release of El Capitan. It's one of the few and its also among the oldest still supported by Apple for OS X updates, but it's hanging in there. It will be 9 years old this summer and I can see no reason why it wouldn't hit 10 years in 2017.

It's not even what I would call slow. I have upgraded it a couple times over the years. First to 4GB of RAM, 2nd to an SSD back in 2012. Still going strong.

It's main uses are web browsing in Safari/Chrome, iTunes and media management (2TB FW800 HD), Office 2016 writing papers and spreadsheets, Adobe Creative Suite (CS5 is very quick, CC 2015 also works), Logic Pro X/Mainstage 3, Serato DJ, and the occasional short FCPX edit.

For a base model Mac from 2007 with a couple of cheap simple upgrades, it's gotten its money's worth for sure. $1,200 in 2007 +$120 in upgrades = 1,320/9 years = $146/yr. that's pretty impressive for a Mac.

Couple of older pics, but there she is! Still looks like it just came out of the box. Got the original discs too.

b81wl71.jpg


K2pcbwv.jpg


I think a new 5K iMac would go a long time. Particularly with the SSD only model. No spinning disc to worry about.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.