The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

1 January 2005

An insanely great deal

Could Apple talk me into an iMac if they dropped the price to $500 or so?

I think they could. It wouldn't necessarily supplant the succession of Wintel boxes that have been cluttering up my desktop, but it would give me an opportunity to play with some Mac-specific stuff for once, and it would give me some experience on yet another platform, which is always useful in case of, let us say, life-changing incidents.

Besides, a low-end Macintosh is hardly shameful; I've never owned a high-powered machine of any description, unless you were overly impressed by the Commodore 128 in 1986. (Then again, I did shoehorn 1.6 MB of RAM and 60 MB worth of hard drive into a lowly 10-MHz XT clone once upon a time.)

Posted at 4:14 PM to PEBKAC


We bought my [85 year old] father-in-law a $799 eMac for Christmas, and I was very impressed at its performance and ease-of-setup. The fact that he's doing email, surfing the net (even found my blog via Google...which is going to cramp my style a bit, I'm afraid) and typing letters (along with a neverending stream of Cribbage games) is simply amazing to me. I don't want to fire yet another tired shot in the Windows-vs-Mac war, but I just don't think he'd have accomplished those things on a Wintel machine.

Of course, that has nothing to do with your post, so perhaps I did just fire another tired shot. Sorry.

Posted by: Eric at 4:53 PM on 1 January 2005

I'd love to see Apple produce such a machine - but I don't think it's in their (or Steve's) DNA to produce anything that really competes on price.

Having said that, the eMac is pretty cheap. I'll bet they could afford to price it that aggressively if they thought they could dramatically increase their volume.

Posted by: Dan at 6:52 PM on 1 January 2005

I had a Vic-20 and then a Commodore 64-- the good ole days!

Posted by: Donna at 11:38 PM on 1 January 2005

I think that I could be persuaded with such a deal...it seems that it would be an excellent 2nd computer for the kids, eh?

Posted by: David at 12:38 AM on 2 January 2005