Why I sold my M1 iMac and bought a 2017 21.5" iMac as my main computer

[tornado99]

On paper the M1-M4 iMac seems like the ideal desktop computer. Fast, bright retina display, all-in-one design so no cable clutter, thunderbolt for external drives, and 24" screen size (not too big, not too small)
I use my computer for work to read technical literature, write, code, and analyse data. Also occasional light photo processing (Pixelmator).
Unfortunately after several months these are the issues I have with the new iMac that you won't read in any reviews!

• The screen in reality is less bright than the older iMacs (I measured 490 nits with my SpyderX compared to 609 nits for the 21.5"), and has noticeably poorer viewing angles. During the daytime in my well-lit home study I found myself wanting more brightness than the maximum. The 2017 model simply works in all lighting conditions.
• The white reflective screen borders make it hard to draw yourself in and focus on the screen content. I think this is an intentional design choice as Apple want this to be a device that blends more into your living space - a kitchen recipe/yoga video machine rather than a machine for professionals. In contrast, the thick black unfashionable borders of the older iMac are excellent for focusing.
• The screen is not really a substitute for the real estate to spread out windows you got with a 27" iMac (or ASD). It just feels slightly more spacious than the 21.5" model, and my workflow/window management is very similar on either.
• (Minor point) it is not visually a pure all-in-one computer now that the power adapter is a big white brick, unless of course you can hide it.

Also, the Apple Silicon processors are definitely a big step up for some tasks - but now that Chrome-based browsers are so well optimised any web based tasks are completely smooth on older hardware, and I really don't notice any speed difference for the type of work I do.

I sold my M1 after buying a 2017 iMac with SSD storage second-hand. Thanks to OCLP I run Sequoia 15.5 with no issues at all. Of course, in Autumn 2028 this machine loses security updates but I'll cross that bridge (cough Linux) when the time comes.

 

[russell_314]

On paper the M1-M4 iMac seems like the ideal desktop computer. Fast, bright retina display, all-in-one design so no cable clutter, thunderbolt for external drives, and 24" screen size (not too big, not too small)
I use my computer for work to read technical literature, write, code, and analyse data. Also occasional light photo processing (Pixelmator).
Unfortunately after several months these are the issues I have with the new iMac that you won't read in any reviews!

• The screen in reality is less bright than the older iMacs (I measured 490 nits compared to 609 nits for the 21.5"), and has noticeably poorer viewing angles. During the daytime in my well-lit home study I found myself wanting more brightness than the maximum. The 2017 model simply works in all lighting conditions.

Is it in a room with no curtains? I use my MacBook Air at about 50% brightness inside and I believe it’s around 500 nits full brightness. I can see if you need more brightness though. There’s no arguing if your environment is extremely bright then you need it.

• The white reflective screen borders make it hard to draw yourself in and focus on the screen content. I think this is an intentional design choice as Apple want this to be a device that blends more into your living space - a kitchen recipe/yoga video machine rather than a machine for professionals! In contrast, the thick black unfashionable borders of the older iMac are excellent for focusing.

I’ve never had problems focusing with the white border. I think it’s just the design is bugging you. Also, nothing wrong with that if you don’t like the design, you don’t like the design. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so what one person thinks looks nice, another thinks looks ugly.

• The screen is not really a substitute for the real estate to spread out windows you got with a 27" iMac (or ASD). It just feels slightly more spacious than the 21.5" model, and my workflow/window management is very similar on either.

This sounds like a non-reason. You’re saying it’s not as big as a 27”. Well of course it’s not but you didn’t replace it with a 27”. It’s slightly bigger than the one you replaced it with. I’m not sure with a 27” iMac has to do it.

• (Minor point) it is not visually a pure all-in-one computer now that the power adapter is a big white brick, unless of course you can hide it.

I put mine under the desk, but I could see being annoyed with that.

Also, the Apple Silicon processors are definitely a big step up for some tasks - but now that Chrome-based browsers are so well optimised any web based tasks are completely smooth on older hardware, and I really don't notice any speed difference for the type of work I do.

Web browsing should feel snappier with the M1, but I don’t know about Chrome. I try to avoid Google as much as I can.

I sold my M1 after buying a 2017 iMac with SSD storage second-hand. Thanks to OCLP I run Sequoia 15.5 with no issues at all. Of course, in Autumn 2028 this machine loses security updates but I'll cross that bridge (cough Linux) when the time comes.

If it works, then it works. Not everyone needs M1 or the fastest processor. People get obsessed with benchmarks that mean nothing they do with their computer. I have an old Chromebook that works just fine. Yeah I know I said I try to avoid Google so I guess this is my one exception 😂

 

[tomekwsrod]

Unfortunately after several months these are the issues I have with the new iMac that you won't read in any reviews!

It was interesting to read. Thanks.

 

[tornado99]

Yes, for sure a lot of this is just me putting my opinion out there. I do find brighter screens more comfortable on my eyes.

This sounds like a non-reason. You’re saying it’s not as big as a 27”. Well of course it’s not but you didn’t replace it with a 27”. It’s slightly bigger than the one you replaced it with. I’m not sure with a 27” iMac has to do it.

When I bought the M1 iMac I thought I could run it with the "more space" setting (i.e. 2560x1440 equivalent mode) but the screen is just too small for that to be comfortable.

I’ve never had problems focusing with the white border. I think it’s just the design is bugging you. Also, nothing wrong with that if you don’t like the design, you don’t like the design. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so what one person thinks looks nice, another thinks looks ugly.

They could have also made the Apple Studio Display with a white border, but went with black instead. I think this is just different products for different consumer groups. They want to attract more iPad-only people to use desktops by creating a "friendly looking" device, and push serious desktop users towards the ASD+Mac mini.

If it works, then it works. Not everyone needs M1 or the fastest processor. People get obsessed with benchmarks that mean nothing they do with their computer. I have an old Chromebook that works just fine. Yeah I know I said I try to avoid Google so I guess this is my one exception

There are even people who insist the M4 makes their work twice as quick as the 'terrible' M1! I actually use Opera, but hear good things about Brave and Vivaldi. The people behind the chrome engine have done a lot of work from 2023-2005 to make it a speed demon and cut RAM usage. Genuinely surprised how snappy it is on a 2017 CPU.

 

[turbineseaplane]

An interesting read OP, thx for sharing.

Sounds like the moved the iMac a bit downmarket with the M-series redesign.

Disappointing to hear.

 

[russell_314]

Yes, for sure a lot of this is just me putting my opinion out there. I do find brighter screens more comfortable on my eyes.



When I bought the M1 iMac I thought I could run it with the "more space" setting (i.e. 2560x1440 equivalent mode) but the screen is just too small for that to be comfortable.



They could have also made the Apple Studio Display with a white border, but went with black instead. I think this is just different products for different consumer groups. They want to attract more iPad-only people to use desktops by creating a "friendly looking" device, and push serious desktop users towards the ASD+Mac mini.



There are even people who insist the M4 makes their work twice as quick as the 'terrible' M1! I actually use Opera, but hear good things about Brave and Vivaldi. The people behind the chrome engine have done a lot of work from 2023-2005 to make it a speed demon and cut RAM usage. Genuinely surprised how snappy it is on a 2017 CPU.

Well, I’m glad you found an iMac that works best for you. I have an M1 iMac, but I sold it because I’m more of a laptop person. I just don’t like sitting at a desk staring at a screen. Maybe it’s because I’ve done it for years at work so I don’t want to do it at home. A laptop feels more personal almost like an iPhone.

 

[ADGrant]

Relatively minor issues. I am surprised you replaced your M4 with a 21.5", if the screen is a priority, why not a 27" iMac? Either the 2019 or 2020? The 2019 should be able to run Tahoe with OLCP and the 2020 will just run it.

The more forward looking option would have been an Apple Silicon Mac mini with a third party display.

 

[ignatius345]

The white reflective screen borders make it hard to draw yourself in and focus on the screen content.

Hard for you to draw yourself in. You're preoccupied by the bezels and can't stop seeing them. But the fact is, the white recedes to a neutral gray against the backlit screen as the eyes quickly adjust to the brightness of the display. This is what mine looks like right now, with the screen at around 2/3 brightness. The photo is a pretty decent approximation of what I'm seeing. It's not exactly burning my eyes out... 🤣

I think this is an intentional design choice as Apple want this to be a device that blends more into your living space - a kitchen recipe/yoga video machine rather than a machine for professionals.

No. Just... no. That's something you made up. It's not a "kitchen recipe/yoga machine". I've been using an M1 iMac and now an M4 iMac for the past 4 years for paid, professional design work 40 hrs/week. It's fine. You find the bezels distracting, and there's nothing wrong with that -- but don't assume that's something that applies to the world at large.

 

[tornado99]

Relatively minor issues. I am surprised you replaced your M4 with a 21.5", if the screen is a priority, why not a 27" iMac? Either the 2019 or 2020? The 2019 should be able to run Tahoe with OLCP and the 2020 will just run it.

The more forward looking option would have been an Apple Silicon Mac mini with a third party display.

Yes, my long term plan would be a Mac Mini + one of the new 27" 5K displays with the 2000:1 contrast panel. Problem is nobody's made a good one yet. Also, currently, the CPU power of a 4-core Intel from 2017 covers me nicely. I don't think or type any quicker with Apple Silicon ;-)

The photo is a pretty decent approximation of what I'm seeing. It's not exactly burning my eyes out... 🤣

Question - why doesn't the Studio Display have white borders if they are better for professional design. Also, your photo illustrates the problem, when you look towards the top of the screen your eyes switch focus to the wall in the background - so perhaps it's not the colour, but the thinness of the bezels that's the problem.

 

[Spock]

Question - why doesn't the Studio Display have white borders if they are better for professional design. Also, your photo illustrates the problem, when you look towards the top of the screen your eyes switch focus to the wall in the background - so perhaps it's not the colour, but the thinness of the bezels that's the problem.

The Studio Display and Cinema Displays almost all had white or aluminum bezels. I think this is more of a you issue than an issue with the iMac. A simple solution would have just been getting a second display for the iMac and using it as the primary or getting a MacBook or Mac mini. The 27 inch iMac is most likely never coming back and I don't think that you are going to get the positive reaction that you thought you would by downgrading to an almost ten year old machine.

 

[subjonas]

On paper the M1-M4 iMac seems like the ideal desktop computer. Fast, bright retina display, all-in-one design so no cable clutter, thunderbolt for external drives, and 24" screen size (not too big, not too small)
I use my computer for work to read technical literature, write, code, and analyse data. Also occasional light photo processing (Pixelmator).
Unfortunately after several months these are the issues I have with the new iMac that you won't read in any reviews!

• The screen in reality is less bright than the older iMacs (I measured 490 nits with my SpyderX compared to 609 nits for the 21.5"), and has noticeably poorer viewing angles. During the daytime in my well-lit home study I found myself wanting more brightness than the maximum. The 2017 model simply works in all lighting conditions.
• The white reflective screen borders make it hard to draw yourself in and focus on the screen content. I think this is an intentional design choice as Apple want this to be a device that blends more into your living space - a kitchen recipe/yoga video machine rather than a machine for professionals. In contrast, the thick black unfashionable borders of the older iMac are excellent for focusing.
• The screen is not really a substitute for the real estate to spread out windows you got with a 27" iMac (or ASD). It just feels slightly more spacious than the 21.5" model, and my workflow/window management is very similar on either.
• (Minor point) it is not visually a pure all-in-one computer now that the power adapter is a big white brick, unless of course you can hide it.

Also, the Apple Silicon processors are definitely a big step up for some tasks - but now that Chrome-based browsers are so well optimised any web based tasks are completely smooth on older hardware, and I really don't notice any speed difference for the type of work I do.

I sold my M1 after buying a 2017 iMac with SSD storage second-hand. Thanks to OCLP I run Sequoia 15.5 with no issues at all. Of course, in Autumn 2028 this machine loses security updates but I'll cross that bridge (cough Linux) when the time comes.

Everyone is different and has to do what suits them, but if you’re looking for any feedback to your decision and reasoning, of your three major points I can only really understand wanting more brightness/wider viewing angle. I don’t really understand being extremely distracted by white bezels considering walls are usually white behind our displays—but even if one is distracted or simply doesn’t like the bezels, I’m sure one can buy (or make?) a skin for the bezels in whatever color. And I wonder, as bezels are trending toward getting thinner and thinner, how will it affect you when bezels are completely gone? Will you be distracted by whatever is behind your display? “24 inches is not that much bigger than 21 inches” is a valid opinion, but 24” is still bigger so I don’t know why it’s included in your list of reasons to downgrade. The rest of your reasons show how the 21” is better for you, but this is the odd one out. It really belongs in the same group as your comment about Apple Silicon—as in, not reasons for you to stay with the M1” (but also not reasons for you to leave).

Regarding brightness, according to specs, both displays should have 500 nits, so I don’t know why you measured 609 for the 21”. Regarding viewing angles, not sure what the specs are. But even if the 21” is significantly brighter and has a wider viewing angle, I still question whether downgrading to it was the best course of action considering how much shorter of a life it likely has left compared to the M1 (even if you don’t benefit from the other advantages of the more modern M1). Unless you saved a very significant amount of money selling your M1 and buying the 21”.

 

[tornado99]

I don't think that you are going to get the positive reaction that you thought you would by downgrading to an almost ten year old machine.

The studio display has black bezels.

What precisely, in your own work, is made faster by Apple Silicon? I bet if you were to record your CPU usage over a week, 90% of the time you would be using 20% of your computer's power. Historically the big leaps were a) CPUs with multiple cores b) hardware-accelerated tasks using the GPU c) solid state storage. Any machine with all 3 is fast enough for most people, especially with a discrete GPU. In 10 years time are you going to be saying that an M4 Mac is terribly slow?

Regarding brightness, according to specs, both displays should have 500 nits, so I don’t know why you measured 609 for the 21”.

Because the spec is a minimum. LG were clearly able to manufacture the 21.5" panels with a higher brightness (I checked with a colleague's 21.5" machine at work, and their's measured 599 nits).

but if you’re looking for any feedback to your decision and reasoning

Actually what I'm curious about is Apple's design decisions and if they took any shortcuts in the manufacturing process. We can only speculate, but my strong feeling is that they have settled on the Studio Display+Mini as their Pro option, and the iMac is now the "casual, fun" machine for consumption rather than creation. Whereas in the era of the Intel iMacs Apple didn't even have a standalone display, and the Mac Mini was pretty underpowered.

 

[Spock]

The studio display has black bezels.

What precisely, in your own work, is made faster by Apple Silicon? I bet if you were to record your CPU usage over a week, 90% of the time you would be using 20% of your computer's power. Historically the big leaps were a) CPUs with multiple cores b) hardware-accelerated tasks using the GPU c) solid state storage. Any machine with all 3 is fast enough for most people, especially with a discrete GPU. In 10 years time are you going to be saying that an M4 Mac is terribly slow?


Because the spec is a minimum. LG were clearly able to manufacture the 21.5" panels with a higher brightness (I checked with a colleague's 21.5" machine at work, and their's measured 599 nits).



Actually what I'm curious about is Apple's design decisions and if they took any shortcuts in the manufacturing process. We can only speculate, but my strong feeling is that they have settled on the Studio Display+Mini as their Pro option, and the iMac is now the "casual, fun" machine for consumption rather than creation. Whereas in the era of the Intel iMacs Apple didn't even have a standalone display, and the Mac Mini was pretty underpowered.

it does now, but for several years the bezels were white/aluminum and it was fine. I edit videos and photos, work with audio, make files for 3D printing and engineer spaces for AV systems all on an Apple Silicon Mac. After using Intel for over a decade, Apple Silicon is far superior in every way. Also, the iMac was intended to be the “casual, fun” machine when Jobs announced it. Apple just took it in another direction and then brought it back.

 

[subjonas]

Because the spec is a minimum.

It’s not. For one thing, how can 500 be the minimum when you measured 490 as the maximum? Are you just saying the first thought that pops into your head as if it’s established fact?

iMac - iMac Technical Specifications

See all the technical specifications for iMac with the M4 chip and 24-inch display.

www.apple.com

iMac (Retina 4K, 21.5-inch, 2017) - Technical Specifications - Apple Support

support.apple.com

Actually what I'm curious about is Apple's design decisions and if they took any shortcuts in the manufacturing process. We can only speculate, but my strong feeling is that they have settled on the Studio Display+Mini as their Pro option, and the iMac is now the "casual, fun" machine for consumption rather than creation. Whereas in the era of the Intel iMacs Apple didn't even have a standalone display, and the Mac Mini was pretty underpowered.

I think we all know the iMac was designed to appeal more to casual users, and Studio/Pro Macs/displays more to intensive users. I refrain from saying “professionals” because pros have a wide range of needs. The iMac is ultimately designed for anyone whose needs it meets. And yes, Apple tends to make their non-Studio/Pro products more fun with fun colors.

I don’t know what you’re referring to by “shortcuts in manufacturing process”.

 

[Corefile]

I picked up a 2015 27" iMac late last year for 150 bucks. After welding an SSD to the monitor stand and plugging it into the USB port, it runs super fast. I run Linux on it due to the incredible screen. The Intel CPU might be long in the tooth and graphics not that great anymore but that doesn't derail it being a great machine still.

 

[ignatius345]

when you look towards the top of the screen your eyes switch focus to the wall in the background - so perhaps it's not the colour, but the thinness of the bezels that's the problem.

I have never had this issue, not once!

 

[aaronage]

I find threads like this absolutely fascinating
You’re basically choosing a considerably worse experience to get a slightly brighter screen*
To each their own and all that, but I’d probably just opt for blinds 😅

*is it even brighter? It seems to also top out at 500 nits?

Edit: Tom’s Hardware review of the 2019 21.5”

At 436 nits of brightness, the iMac's display absolutely crushed the Inspiron 27 (212 nits) and the Zen AiO Pro (247 nits). This all-in-one has enough brightness to make the glare barely noticeable, but it didn't make it to Apple's claim of 500 nits.

Apple iMac 21.5-inch (2019) Review: Big Power Boost, Same Looks

The Apple iMac 21.5-inch (2019) bumps up the performance and display, but keeps those unsightly bezels and has subpar audio.

www.tomsguide.com

 

[tornado99]

I find threads like this absolutely fascinating
You’re basically choosing a considerably worse experience to get a slightly brighter screen*
To each their own and all that, but I’d probably just opt for blinds 😅

*is it even brighter? It seems to also top out at 500 nits?

Edit: Tom’s Hardware review of the 2019 21.5”

Apple iMac 21.5-inch (2019) Review: Big Power Boost, Same Looks

The Apple iMac 21.5-inch (2019) bumps up the performance and display, but keeps those unsightly bezels and has subpar audio.

www.tomsguide.com

Why is it considerably worse? I'm not using the full power of even a 2017 CPU. Will you be saying that the M4 iMac is terrible if we have this conversation in 10 years time?

Most likely they didn't position the colorimeter properly on the display.

I always position my colorimeter carefully, tilting the panel, and working in low ambient light. It gives consistent measurements e.g. a 300 nit office monitor will measure roughly that.

Even my eyeballs tell me that side-by-side the older intel iMac is brighter.

 

[Meedoss]

Well, I’m glad you found an iMac that works best for you. I have an M1 iMac, but I sold it because I’m more of a laptop person. I just don’t like sitting at a desk staring at a screen. Maybe it’s because I’ve done it for years at work so I don’t want to do it at home. A laptop feels more personal almost like an iPhone.

I did the same sold my M1 imac, i found i just spent too much time sitting in my home office when i have a 40 square house and nice patio i can move around in with my 15" M4 MBA.
I was using a M4 ipad pro for that but was overkill, now have a mini 7 if want smaller.
I like track pads too never use a mouse. Plus when i travel for work/family can take my macbook.

At first i tried a cheap Lenovo 27" 4K monitor but didn't like it.

 

[Meedoss]

Never had the issues the OP has with my M1 imac which replaced a 2015 27" imac.

 

[tornado99]

I don’t know what you’re referring to by “shortcuts in manufacturing process”.

The Intel iMacs have an advanced plasma-deposited anti-reflective coating, and expensive polarizers to give the ultra-wide viewing angles. We don't know whether the new iMacs carry on those specs.

It's not unheard of for a company to make a product to a super high spec and then decide that a certain manufacturing process is just too expensive to continue. The 2014 Kindle Voyage with it's micro-etched display is widely believed to be the best e-reader display surface Amazon ever produced.

 

[tenthousandthings]

The Intel iMacs have an advanced plasma-deposited anti-reflective coating, and expensive polarizers to give the ultra-wide viewing angles. We don't know whether the new iMacs carry on those specs.

It's not unheard of for a company to make a product to a super high spec and then decide that a certain manufacturing process is just too expensive to continue. The 2014 Kindle Voyage with it's micro-etched display is widely believed to be the best e-reader display surface Amazon ever produced.

I think your two secondary points (the white bezels and the difference between 21.5" Retina 4K and 23.5" Retina 4.5K) are a distraction from your main point, your issues with the M1 iMac display itself.

I know that the Retina 5K 27" iMac displays were considered superior to the LG UltraFine 5K and others, due to Apple’s designs, including differences in how the glass is fused to the panel, like you say. They also evolved over time, improving with each refresh.

Note that the 24" iMac panel changed between the M1 and the M3, from LG Display LM235UH1-SDC1 to LM235UH1-SDC2. I don’t know if the difference is significant.

Do we know if the M3-M4 iMac displays are improved over the M1? Would someone who doesn’t mind the bezels and likes having two additional inches of screen notice an improvement?

 

[tornado99]

The problem in general with evaluating computer displays is very few people a) have a colorimeter b) know how to use one properly. Even the option to measure contrast ratio is a little hidden in DisplayCal so professional reviewers sometimes miss that and only report brightness.

Therefore we're reliant on people saying "oh it looks amazing, so much better than the old one" without any hard data.

I have a colorimeter and so know the real performance of any display I own.

 

[aaronage]

Why is it considerably worse? I'm not using the full power of even a 2017 CPU. Will you be saying that the M4 iMac is terrible if we have this conversation in 10 years time?

Would I recommend anyone buy and use an M4 machine in 10 years time? No, unless it’s for nostalgia, collecting or something like that

For every use case outlined in the original post, an M series Mac is noticeably faster. A 2019 Coffee Lake iMac has roughly 2.5-3X worse single thread performance than M4 (sometimes much worse) and that has a huge impact on everything you do. The performance gain is felt in every interaction with the machine, it's not just a matter of "this long running build takes x minutes instead of x hours".

Is a Coffee Lake machine totally unusable? No
Should you burden yourself with a rapidly aging 9 year old architecture*? I wouldn't personally 😬

It’s like choosing a Pentium 4 in the age of Core 2, or an AMD FX (Bulldozer) in the age of Ryzen. They can do the tasks you mentioned but the speed difference is definitely noticeable. The quality-of-life downsides (e.g. heat, fan noise, increased power consumption) are significant, too.

(*Coffee Lake is just a refresh of Skylake (launched 2015) with more cores)

 

[tornado99]

Would I recommend anyone buy and use an M4 machine in 10 years time? No, unless it’s for nostalgia, collecting or something like that

Why? Human brains aren't going to be faster in 2035, so why would you need an "M8 processor" for things like word processing, reading pdfs, reading webpages. Things like AI are computationally heavy but they'll probably run in the cloud as they do now.

Are you saying that you complete your work 2.5-3X faster? Benchmarks do not translate to faster humans.

As I said earlier the invention of GPU-accelerated tasks, and SSD, revolutionised the desktop. Beyond that, it very much depends what kind of work you do. But I would be willing to bet most people are not even close to hitting the limits of Coffee Lake.