[bluedino]

Curious to the reasons you didn't go with the iMac? Did you need a ton of cores, didn't want to deal with external disks...?

[veidr]

I am not the poster you are replying to, but one other reason I always choose Mac Pro is the ECC RAM.

This may be mostly superstition on my part, but the fact that it can correct when cosmic rays from outer space[1] flip arbitrary bits in my computers' RAM really satisfies me.

I have tried to use spare Mac Minis or notebooks as servers, too. Among my couple dozen Macs, nothing other than a Mac Pro has ever had a > 1 year uptime when really being used.

Don't really know that it's the ECC RAM, but I'm sticking with it.

[1]: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r6/scv/rl/articles/ser-050323-talk-r...

[jacques_chester]

Two reasons.

First: I have 2x30" screens. I don't want to go down.

Second: I can't put multiple HDDs and SSDs in an iMac.

The new system replaces a 24" iMac I bought in 2008. It made it for 5 years; the only upgrades were extra RAM when new and swapping the HDD for an SSD about 2.5 years into its lifetime.

I don't know how long I'll keep this one. Under Australia's small business equipment rules, it's already fully depreciated. So there's no accounting purpose to hold onto it if I don't want to.

[interpol_p]

With the iMac you would have 1x27" and 1x30" — that's not too bad is it? (That's my current setup and I find it quite good.)

[jacques_chester]

I dunno why, but the inconsistency is grating to me.

[girvo]

I'm the same. I even put my monitor on a book to make it perfectly in line with my imac.

[jacques_chester]

I did this too, when I had the iMac. I have a nice hutch arrangement now.

[bluedino]

The 27" iMac has two ThunderBolt ports so you could run both of those monitors, and the 27" that's built-in.