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

[aaronage]

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.

Why not take it to the extreme end of the argument. Why not go back a Core 2 iMac - you can code, read docs, analyse data etc. on those machines right? Install Linux and you even have modern software. It's slow but you're only human 🙂

Coffee Lake machines are noticeably slower and add friction to everything you do. You don't have to be pegging the CPU to benefit from the performance and quality-of-life difference.

I had a Coffee Lake Refresh 16" MacBook Pro, every single interaction with the machine was slow and cumbersome compared to the M1 machines that replaced it. Electron apps ran like crap, video calls would bog the whole machine down, background tasks like indexing would sap performance, even just web browsing was enough to get the fans spinning. I had to carefully manage my multi-tasking load to prevent the machine from slowing down and heating up 😅

I could swap out my M3 Pro for a Coffee Lake and do all the same things, but it'd add friction at every click and keystroke. I would definitely be less productive and the problems would only worsen over time 😬

Choosing a much older, slower machine with far fewer years of usable life left for a brighter screen is not something I would recommend, but you seem happy so more power to you 👍

 

[ignatius345]

Why not take it to the extreme end of the argument. Why not go back a Core 2 iMac - you can code, read docs, analyse data etc. on those machines right?

The only way the "a really old computer should be usable now for the same tasks" argument makes sense is if you also freeze the OS and all software you run on it, and turn it into some weird little time capsule. People can and do work this way, but it's really not practical for most.

 

[ADGrant]

I had a Coffee Lake Refresh 16" MacBook Pro, every single interaction with the machine was slow and cumbersome compared to the M1 machines that replaced it. Electron apps ran like crap, video calls would bog the whole machine down, background tasks like indexing would sap performance, even just web browsing was enough to get the fans spinning. I had to carefully manage my multi-tasking load to prevent the machine from slowing down and heating up 😅

Don't Electron apps always run like crap?

Choosing a much older, slower machine with far fewer years of usable life left for a brighter screen is not something I would recommend, but you seem happy so more power to you 👍

Well you are comparing an Intel MacBook with an Apple Silicon MacBook. Intel Macs were not quite as hobbled on the desktop and some of the last Intel desktop Macs have better GPUs than the early Apple Silicon Macs.

That said, I would not buy either the 21" Intel iMac or the 24" Apple Silicon iMac. The screens are too small for my taste and the smaller Intel iMacs seem a little under powered. I really don't like the colorful designs of the M4 iMac either (or the white border).

When I bought my 27" iMac, Apple had no decent desktop Macs other than the Mac Pro that were not iMacs. They also didn't have a 27" 5k standalone monitor. Now they have the Mac Studio and decent Mac minis, I don't see a reason to buy an iMac anymore. It's much better to buy your computer and screen separately so you can have the exact display you want and the CPU/GPU configuration you want.

 

[tornado99]

Why not take it to the extreme end of the argument. Why not go back a Core 2 iMac - you can code, read docs, analyse data etc. on those machines right? Install Linux and you even have modern software. It's slow but you're only human 🙂

Coffee Lake machines are noticeably slower and add friction to everything you do. You don't have to be pegging the CPU to benefit from the performance and quality-of-life difference.

I had a Coffee Lake Refresh 16" MacBook Pro, every single interaction with the machine was slow and cumbersome compared to the M1 machines that replaced it. Electron apps ran like crap, video calls would bog the whole machine down, background tasks like indexing would sap performance, even just web browsing was enough to get the fans spinning. I had to carefully manage my multi-tasking load to prevent the machine from slowing down and heating up 😅

I could swap out my M3 Pro for a Coffee Lake and do all the same things, but it'd add friction at every click and keystroke. I would definitely be less productive and the problems would only worsen over time 😬

Choosing a much older, slower machine with far fewer years of usable life left for a brighter screen is not something I would recommend, but you seem happy so more power to you 👍

You didn't read my argument. I said that the point at which Apple started selling machines with a good discrete GPU + a multi-core CPU + solid state storage is when they become responsive enough for most people.

Apple must have done a terrible job at coding OS-X if it pegs a CPU with 100 Gflops of computational power. I bet your performance problems were because Electron apps (incl Teams) use a large amount of RAM as it's equivalent to running an entire new browser per app. Microsoft also removed GPU acceleration from Teams on Mac (but not chromium) so that's their fault, a 2017 AMD GPU is perfectly capable of H.264 video encoding/decoding, and AV1 software decoding is extremely performant (4K 60fps not a problem).

As I said in my fist post, web browsing on my "garbage 2017 iMac" with modern chromium is smooth, gpu accelerated, and no fan noise at all.

I think many people, including yourself, don't really have a concept of just how powerful CPUs from the past decade are.

 

[fgengineer]

Most of your complaints seem very personal.

I doubt most people would be bothered by them.

The display technology has not really changed much in the past few years except for gaming uses so I can see how that aspect has not improved much. The iMac displays were there best feature and even today you cannot really find a better monitor of that kind except for the ridiculously expensive Pro Display XDR.

There is the Apple Studio Display but it costs more than an iMac and the actual display is arguably not an improvement over the iMac display of yesteryears.

You bring up a good point in that a lot of workflows are not compute limited so a modern computer is not necessary even though one might try to convince themselves that they are.

 

[tornado99]

You bring up a good point in that a lot of workflows are not compute limited so a modern computer is not necessary even though one might try to convince themselves that they are.

Yes, I was also swept up in the modern consumer urge to constantly upgrade. I've owned every iMac from the G3, G4 onwards. Each new model did actually enable me to work faster - I'd obviously not recommend a G3 in 2025! However, the M1 iMac was the first where I felt no difference in speed (besides infrequent things like installing software, unzipping large files etc.)

 

[Terraaustralis]

For what it is worth I support tornado99.

I am no luddite and recognise M series Macs are a great improvement in design, efficiency and speed. However the biggest apparent speed improvement for any Mac user comes from SSD upgrade of internal drives. With external SSD drives, M series macs receive speeds hardly better than intel Macs. However for desktop publishing and office work, an M series Mac is like using a sledge hammer to crack a walnut.

Few can measure the suitability of a specific computer to the work in hand. So measuring price justification is also impossible. The lowest common denominator is simply affordability. It has taken some time for professionals to recognise the pro’s and cons of the M series Mac so we cannot expect consumers to be able to judge. Consumers simply believe new is better than old.

The topic is worth considering as it highlights the worse features of our commercial industrial society. Mass production is demanded at the fastest rate possible to keep the dollars flowing into the Profit/development process. Consumers know so little about materials and manufacturing processes they buy according to Brand or Label. At best, this ensures quality for price. At worst, some buy inferior products and are deceived by advertising. To the thoughtful consumer, one the greatest benefits of the internet is availability of technical information and product reviews.

Looking at the big picture, I have yet to find an economist who has offered an alternative to the wasteful industrial cycles we use to create wealth. Perhaps I have not looked in the right place?

Every time we have Council pick-up and I see domestic household waste, the plastic toys and bikes; three piece furniture - flat pack cupboards; the bicycles, computers and television sets - many of which are totally functional but discarded for the larger, better resolution models. They finish up as land-fill. I think also of the tons of compressed steel motor vehicles and Boeing aircraft decaying in the American desert. I ask myself how long can humanity continue to bury and forget the junk we create? We are a hugely wasteful society. Reliable estimates tell us 30% of the worlds food production is wasted. Yes, 30%. Surely we can do better?

I use an NVMe and SATA upgraded 2019 iMac. My personal view has long been to use a car, computer, Tv etc., for as long as it works for me. I get great satisfaction from upgrading a machine to lengthen its life or improve its performance. I salute my companions who tread the same path!

 

[Terraaustralis]

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.

Thank you for your observations; most informative. Parallel with your remarks an older thread describes user frustrations with the M1/M3 24" iMacs. Mainly along the lines of 256GB SSD too small and slow internal/external thunderbolt function. I am very happy with my upgraded Intel 2019 5K iMac 6 core i5 and have concluded that in the distant future a Mac mini and a used 5K cinema display or perhaps even a modified iMac 5K screen is the way to go.

I use my iMac for desktop publishing. I want to view a double page spread (A3) at 1:1. 24" is just too skimpy.
While the ARM GPU is, according to Geekbench, double the speed and power of my intel i5 GPU, for DTP buying an ARM Mac is like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut.

 

[Steve121178]

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.

I was coming from an old late 2013 iMac before upgrading to a M3/24GB/1TB iMac. I think you're talking utter nonsense.

The screen in my experience is a lot brighter and more vibrant. Is it worlds apart? No. Is it significantly better? Yes.

Viewing angles are fine. I am one of those weird people that sits directly in front of my computer, so it always seems ok to me, and if I am in those rare scenarios where I looking at it from the side, I have been impressed with the quality.

I was apprehensive about the white borders when I ordered it. But the fact that my Mac sits in front of a white wall behind it, means the bezels simply disappear from view. I don't see them. At all. Very happy with them. Black would have been an eye sore. Apple made the right decision, especially as this is a more consumer focused computer.

The power brick gets chucked on the floor or in my case, gets hidden in the cable management section of my desk. I forgot there was even a brick as I haven't seen it since I set my iMac up. I am not sure why this even bothers you enough to mention it.

Selling an M1 iMac and downgrading to the 2017 iMac is absolutely nuts, but at least you're happy.

 

[tornado99]

I think you're talking utter nonsense.

The screen in my experience is a lot brighter

The 2013 iMacs are much older panels, didn't feature plasma deposited antiglare coating, weren't Retina, and didn't cover the P3 colour gamut. The 2017-2020 intel iMac panels are two generations advanced from that.

Your comment seems very high on emotion, yet you aren't even comparing remotely the same displays that I am.

Selling an M1 iMac and downgrading to the 2017 iMac is absolutely nuts, but at least you're happy.

The Mac Studio has 75% higher multicore Geekbench than the M3 iMac. Why are you using such a slow machine? I don't understand why you don't buy the Mac Studio so you can get all your work done faster.

 

[Regulus67]

Looking at the big picture, I have yet to find an economist who has offered an alternative to the wasteful industrial cycles we use to create wealth. Perhaps I have not looked in the right place?

Our economies are based on one simple premise. The "money" supply has to increase constantly.

This is done by creating new currency out of nothing every time a loan is made. Which has to repaid plus interest.
Inflation target at 2% = 50% loss of value in 35 years. In addition to the interest paid to repay the loan.
(you can make calculations here https://monocalc.com/tool/finance/inflation_impact_calculator).

Would our economies function if everyone slowed down the cycle, and used everything for years on end where it is practical? Sometimes even multi generational. Like our ancestors did.
I'd say that is more or less prohibited today.

The best economist I am aware of is Richard Werner. He wrote Princes of the Yen, and other books. You can find him on youtube and substack.

... I am very happy with my upgraded Intel 2019 5K iMac 6 core i5 and have concluded that in the distant future a Mac mini and a used 5K cinema display or perhaps even a modified iMac 5K screen is the way to go.
...

I rebuilt an iMac 27" late 2015 with a broken logic board, into a DIY 5k display. Very happy with the result. And it works well with my Mac Mini M1 (USB-C to DP1.4 8k cable)

 

[Steve121178]

The Mac Studio has 75% higher multicore Geekbench than the M3 iMac. Why are you using such a slow machine? I don't understand why you don't buy the Mac Studio so you can get all your work done faster.

It's not slow. Does everything I need with ease. Most of my tasks are done within Safari/Chrome & Office apps with a little bit Photoshop now and then. Also run a few Linux based VM's which also run just fine. Just to clarify, my M3 iMac has 24GB of unified memory which was the maximum available at the time. This makes a massive difference between my config and a bog standard 8GB config.

I have a new high spec MBP 14", but the iMac is my primary machine. If I had the need, I would get a Mac Studio, but it's simply overkill for my personal requirements.

 

[tornado99]

I agree with the people who mentioned the Environment, and addictive Consumerism. I think some people lose sight of what they really need. Personally I'm a big fan of sites like Ebay where you can pick up older tech that other people aren't using any more.

Also, my decision wouldn't work for everyone. If your job involves running VMs, regular 4K video editing, running hundreds of photoshop actions per day etc. you will obviously benefit from the fastest hardware available.

I would also add that running an older machine forced me to do the following which actually improved my efficiency:

• Not have 100 tabs / 20 tab groups / in my browser, many of which are months old and I never even look at
• Get rid of resource hogging electron apps like Microsoft Teams and Slack, and use them in my web browser instead. They actually run better this way.
• Switch to a less resource hogging Office Suite - OnlyOffice works great for me and far lighter than MS Office.

Lastly I would give a shoutout to Apple's Engineering Team. The Intel iMacs were manufactured out of very high quality materials and designed to last a long time.

 

[Terraaustralis]

Our economies are based on one simple premise. The "money" supply has to increase constantly.

This is done by creating new currency out of nothing every time a loan is made. Which has to repaid plus interest.
Inflation target at 2% = 50% loss of value in 35 years. In addition to the interest paid to repay the loan.
(you can make calculations here https://monocalc.com/tool/finance/inflation_impact_calculator).

Would our economies function if everyone slowed down the cycle, and used everything for years on end where it is practical? Sometimes even multi generational. Like our ancestors did.
I'd say that is more or less prohibited today.

The best economist I am aware of is Richard Werner. He wrote Princes of the Yen, and other books. You can find him on youtube and substack.

I rebuilt an iMac 27" late 2015 with a broken logic board, into a DIY 5k display. Very happy with the result. And it works well with my Mac Mini M1 (USB-C to DP1.4 8k cable)

Thanks for the observation Regulus. Appreciate your comment but Money Supply is but one of several interlocking factors in economics. It is ebbs and flows according to the health of an economy. This reference explains the principes:

Circular flow of income - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Regarding re-cycling older gear, I read your earlier upgrade challenge with (2020 imac Pro?) with T2 chip. Good success story.

 

[jackson6]

Do the M4 iMac still have the display problems you wrote about for the M1 (low brightness, poor viewing angles)?

 

[tornado99]

Do the M4 iMac still have the display problems you wrote about for the M1 (low brightness, poor viewing angles)?

I found a review measuring 524 cd/m^2. It's the same panel and +/- 25 cd/m^2 from the spec is perfectly acceptable.

Note - Apple are delivering what they promised. It's just that (in my opinion) they managed to exceed their own specs on the earlier intel iMacs.

I can think of 2 other consumer products I own in which the latest model is not the best in some aspects:

• Kindle Voyage (2014?) - the micro-etched glass surface actually gives a higher quality reading experience than the more recent models, but I understand it was expensive for Amazon to produce.
• An astronomical telescope - the model I bought a long time ago was made in the USA with an extremely high quality and precise mechanism, the modern ones are of lower quality inside (although look a bit more pretty on the outside).