14 year old iMac (Mid 2011) slowing down.

14 years was a great run, but I would recommend a new/newer system.

1. At this point macOS 10.12-10.13 is end life. FireFox is one of the last web browser to provide support, but that extended service release support will be ending this March. Going forward internet compatibility will drop sharply.
2. While an external SSD is normally a good suggestion, the Mid 2011 iMac is limited to Firewire 800 (slow), USB 2.0 (slower), or Thunderbolt-1 (expensive and discontinued).

Time to recycle it, for less than you paid in 2011 you can buy a new MM (16GB RAM and 1TB SSD) and a display that will shock you with how much faster and more able it is than your 2011 was in its best days. A Mac mini will run you about $999 and a high quality display about $300 so for about $1300 you are in business. To migrate from your old Mac to the new one, please follow the directions in Setup Assistant and Migration Assistant . You can re-use the old keyboard and mouse from the old Mac if you would like or buy new peripherals. You may also need some USB adapters ( you will find a link in the Setup Assistant link above) to connect old peripherals to the new Mac.

The USB ports on that Mac only run at USB 2.0 speeds.

You could put together a FireWire 800 SSD, using

• a Other World Computing – OWC Mercury Elite Pro (USB + eSATA + FireWire 800 version) enclosure
• a 2.5" SATA notebook SSD
• a mounting bracket (for installing a 2.5" drive in a 3.5" enclosure)

I believe this is the only FireWire 800 option left on the market. I don't think that anyone other than OWC has sold FireWire enclosures for years, and OWC dropped their bus-powered notebook enclosure a while ago.

Unfortunately, even FireWire 800 will bottleneck a SSD, so you won't get the blazing-fast speed people normally associate with SSDs.

I just moved off a 2015 iMac to M4 Mac Mini, from OS 11 to OS 15 - it was good to get current on OS and 3rd party app support, and so far the Mac Mini has been great and this setup provides much more flexibility for less cost. Look forward to recycling the iMac it was a good innings and a nice piece of glass but had it's day.

I am running dual screen Dell 4K S2721QS monitors. Originally 4 years ago I had bought the 2419HX 1920x1080 monitors for work and could notice the grain so I went with the higher resolution for detailed work on Visio or photo work in Adobe, but even on emails I would notice the grain. If you can afford the higher resolution I think after a long time on iMac you will notice a lower resolution and feel disappointed. Should still work out way cheaper than a new iMac and last for a long time.

Watch out for the change in USB ports and cables, you'll need some new ones for USB-C or adapters.

To support rkaufmann87's recommendation I just bought a Mac Mini M4 w/16 GB of RAM and a 1 TB SSD. I pared it with a 32" 4K LG monitor w/speakers. The total was $1417, $650 less than a comparably configured 24" iMac. It's blazingly fast. A 27" 4K monitor would save you even more.

Just some food for thought.

TwickersJohn wrote:

Once again, many thanks for the very useful advice. The Mac mini seems a very cost effective solution, even considering that I'm in the UK so your price in $ is my price in £ for a 16GB/1TB M4. I can get a 1920x1080p monitor for about £100. However I can't seem to find a resolution that matches the Apple Retina display unless I go to a 27" for about £250.

I am not a gamer so would the extra resolution be worth it?

My 4K LG 32" monitor is running at 1920 x 1080 (which is the default resolution) as anything higher in resolution makes the menu bar, menus and sidebars too small to read easily. The 32" LG will go up to 3840 x 2160 which I just tried and it's ridiculous. I couldn't make out the menu bar's icons or text.

It all depends on what your viewing requirements are.

TwickersJohn wrote:

However I can't seem to find a resolution that matches the Apple Retina display unless I go to a 27" for about £250.

For something with similar pixel density and sharpness to the iMac's 24" 4.5K Retina display, you'd be looking at either a 24" 4K (3840x2160 pixel) display or a 27" 5K (5120x2880) pixel display.

The choices in those are fairly limited.

• There's a 24" 4K LG display that connects via HDMI or DIsplayPort, and goes for $300, but LG appears to be selling it as a gaming monitor – and they don't specify sRGB coverage. I suspect that means that basic color accuracy is not very good. LG's earlier 24" 4K displays that connected via Thunderbolt and were meant for Mac users probably had better color accuracy, but they cost a lot more and are now all discontinued.
• For 27" 5K displays, the choices used to be the Apple Studio Display ($1599+) and a LG UltraFine 5K display. There are now other 27" 5K displays from Samsung, Asus, BenQ, and ViewSonic that are out, or coming soon.

A lot of people have settled for good 27" 4K displays. These are not as sharp as a 27" 5K Retina iMac display or 27" 5K Apple Studio Display, but many vendors make them and some are very affordable ($300 – $350 for a 27" 4K display with an IPS panel and 100% or near-100% coverage of sRGB).

Old Toad wrote:

My 4K LG 32" monitor is running at 1920 x 1080 (which is the default resolution) as anything higher in resolution makes the menu bar, menus and sidebars too small to read easily. The 32" LG will go up to 3840 x 2160 which I just tried and it's ridiculous. I couldn't make out the menu bar's icons or text.

I believe that

• Retina "like 3008x1692" on a 32" monitor, or
• Retina "like 2560x1440" on a 27" monitor

would result in text and object sizes like those on a 27" 2560x1440 monitor.

However, the pixels on a 27" 2560x1440 monitor are more closely spaced than those on a 24" 1920x1080 one, and so text on a "standard" 27" monitor is smaller than text on a "standard" 24" monitor in the first place.

It all depends on what your viewing requirements are.

You're welcome, if you need assistance configuring the replacement Mac please let us know.