Re: Mac are not more expensive?
- From: Steve de Mena <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:16:32 -0800
David Fritzinger wrote:
In article <4738db2d$0$20589$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Steve de Mena <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jay wrote:On Nov 11, 3:45 pm, Tommy <tom_e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I think he meant $1,799 for the iMac with 2.4Ghz.Task - run Office, Web browser, photo editing and organization, etc.I'm confused. Are you speccing a Mac Pro with a separate Cinema
Options ( the ! is the separator of the 2 brands, Apple and Gateway):
Intel® 2x2.4 GHZ ! AMD 2x1.9 GHz
17" Widescreen TFT-LCD (1680 x 1050) ! 17" WXGA+ with BrightView (1440
x 900)
Price $2,799.99 ! $1,099.99
Display?
Because for Office, web browsing, and photo editing you could get a
20" iMac for $1200.
Actually, for the 20"/2.4 GHz iMac, the price is $1499 (USD). If you want the 24" model, with the same processor, the price is $1799 (USD).
That's right. I was looking at the wrong one.
Steve
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mac are not more expensive?
- From: Alan Baker
- Re: Mac are not more expensive?
- References:
- Mac are not more expensive?
- From: Tommy
- Re: Mac are not more expensive?
- From: Jay
- Re: Mac are not more expensive?
- From: Steve de Mena
- Re: Mac are not more expensive?
- From: David Fritzinger
- Mac are not more expensive?
- Prev by Date: Re: George Graves--A Question
- Next by Date: Re: Will the real Dave Fritzinger please stand up?
- Previous by thread: Re: Mac are not more expensive?
- Next by thread: Re: Mac are not more expensive?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|