On Apr 25, 2010, at 10:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> [...] Mac Pro. Lot longer useful lifespan as it is full upgradeable to
>> more memory, bigger screens, bigger HD, etc and lots of fast cores to start
>> with to keep you going.
>
> that can be true -- it depends what you need; for many people that lifespan
> advantage often means little in the end; i have found a middle ground that
> works better for me -- buy an intermediate machine, upgrade it sooner rather
> than later, replace it in two years; so when i hear someone wondering where
> to compromise, i often suggest get a midrange machine; if i didn't really
> need a laptop i'd buy a 27" iMac, and arrange my space to make the glossy
> screen okay
It's interesting how the target market for the iMac has changed. Started as
strictly consumer, but is now very much a hobbyist/professional machine even in
the middle of the range.
Mac Pros are not a good buy at the moment. I suspect something interesting is
going on with Apple and Intel. Having said that, different stokes for different
folks; the huge internal storage capacity, replaceable video card, and
extra-large memory capacity were all big selling points for me. The internal
storage alone simplified and uncluttered my workspace a great deal, and I can
foresee needing 32GB of RAM by the end of this year.
"Needing 32GB of RAM." My first Apple had 64K of RAM and it was fine. Oy... ;)
Matt_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
