Imac wannabe

[elcuco]

Imac's wannabe!!! Check it out

[irmongoose]

one word: UUUUUUUUUUUUGGLY!!!!




irmongoose

[MacAztec]

That thing has the ports of the early 90s!!!

It looks like an LCD with a cheapo boom box under it

[spinner]

If you think it is ugly in the picture, you should see it in person. I work at Gateway (please don't flame me :( ) and they had one of the prototypes at a training session about a month ago showing it off with the rest of the "cool" :rolleyes: line up. It feels incredibly cheap (imagine that) and you can only adjust the screen/cpu approx. 10 degrees either way from center.

The product rep said that, "...we feel that Gateway has a real chance in the all in one market, considering our only real competition is an upside down flower pot with a screen attached. You can expect to see us marketing this a lot more than we did in the past." He also went on to talk about how they had planned on having wireless keyboard and mouse options in the near future. Hopefully, Apple will beat them to the wireless gig with the next rev of the iMac 2.

The truly sad part of this story is that the peecee people in the room (everyone but me) were impressed by its hideous looks.

[sparkleytone]

haha im so sorry you work for the titanic of the computer dealers. how much do you have to hide your disgust for gateway products?

[G4scott]

I like how the only designs the pee-cee companies can make up are the ones that Apple throws away... Remember the Keynote, when Jobs said that a computer on the back of a flat panel display is a dumb idea? Besides, that 17" display isn't even wide screen...

[dimeadozen]

You guys must be faking. The basis behind being a Mac Addict is thinking different. Who cares that Gateway makes winblows PCs. It's of no point. The device may be ugly, so hey, maybe they need some help. The first iMac was quite ugly, and does anyone remember the tooth? (All-in-One) G3. Point is, PC makers always follow the rule of price first. No matter what Steve says about the board not looking right parallel. Bunch of bull. It amounts to an easier way to customize the unit with memory and different video cards. The new iMacs aren't special, they're common sense, a cicle has more area, and a dome give even more with the illusion that it's not taking up that much space. Bottom line, if this Gateway is going to sell, all it needs is a PC version of Jaguar. We need the price and function of a PC with the style and OS of a Mac.

[aafuss1]

In England, a company, AJP sells a iMac wannabe too-this time called neo pc 4.

[bidge]

I'm sorry but Black is soooo.. ugly. How could this fit in with anything at all.

I've also seen some other rip off's but this is as bad as it gets.

[ibookin']

Really ugly.

I wonder why it appears to have 2 NICs, though...
Maybe being pitched as a router, too?

Marketing slogan: "Now when your craptacular Gateway PC crashes it takes everyone's internet access along with it"

[IndyGopher]

Originally posted by G4scott
[...] Besides, that 17" display isn't even wide screen...

You mean it's a (GASP) *REAL* 17" monitor, instead of a stretched out 15"? While the rest of it may be ugly as home-grown sin, at least they put a REAL 17" monitor on the 17" one.. the ONLY thing a widescreen is good for (as compared to a "normal" screen of the same measurement) is for watching movies. The idea that the extra width gives you more room for toolbars, or pallettes or anything else is just wrong. You have the same width on both, all you do is LOSE vertical space on the wide ones.

[IndyGopher]

Originally posted by bidge
I'm sorry but Black is soooo.. ugly. How could this fit in with anything at all.

I've also seen some other rip off's but this is as bad as it gets.
Ugly or not, paint a PC black and it will sell in half the time. For that matter, paint it ANY color, and it will sell faster. It's not an opinion, and it's not up for argument.. it's simply the way it is. Ask any retailer.

[iwantanewmac]

Originally posted by dimeadozen
You guys must be faking. The basis behind being a Mac Addict is thinking different. Who cares that Gateway makes winblows PCs. It's of no point. The device may be ugly, so hey, maybe they need some help. The first iMac was quite ugly, and does anyone remember the tooth? (All-in-One) G3. Pointed the price and function of a PC with the style and OS of a Mac.

Maybe you think the first Imac was "quite ugly".
I think it's a great well designed good looking computer. And it still is.......

[Postal]

Originally posted by ibookin'@mwny
Really ugly.

I wonder why it appears to have 2 NICs, though...
Maybe being pitched as a router, too?

Marketing slogan: "Now when your craptacular Gateway PC crashes it takes everyone's internet access along with it"

That's actually the connections for both a NIC and a 56K modem, not two NICs... Gateway may be targeting the style-conscious (so to speak - I'd prefer the iMac), but not all of them get broadband just yet!

[adelaney]

Originally posted by IndyGopher


You mean it's a (GASP) *REAL* 17" monitor, instead of a stretched out 15"? While the rest of it may be ugly as home-grown sin, at least they put a REAL 17" monitor on the 17" one.. the ONLY thing a widescreen is good for (as compared to a "normal" screen of the same measurement) is for watching movies. The idea that the extra width gives you more room for toolbars, or pallettes or anything else is just wrong. You have the same width on both, all you do is LOSE vertical space on the wide ones.

No, you're wrong. They don't have the same width, screens are measured diagonally so if you measure the 17 inches along a flatter line it will be wider though, obviously, not as tall as a standard monitor. Furthermore, the whole reason that "widescreen" was invented in the first place ( a long time ago for use in theatres) is that "(GASP)" we see in widescreen. Most of us have two eyes set next to each other and our vision from left to right is far wider than our vision up and down. Do a little test with your hands and see how much farther apart they can be left and right and still be seen as opposed to above and below. This is why widescreen is better in the first place because the squarish size of a television or standard size monitor doesn't do you any good. When you focus on the main thing going on (in the center of the screen) you see that, and your wall on either side, what is at the top or bottom of the screen you have to specifically look at to really see, what is at the side of the screen you get a much better sense of without directly looking at it. So it's much smarter to expand right to left into a rectangle than continuing both directions in a square. You get more use out of the added screen area. Yes, obviously a 17" squarish object (measured diagonally) has some more screen area than a 17" rectangle measured the same way, though not by as much as you'd think. But in terms of what provides the most use, if you're adding screen area add it to the sides before the top particularly nowadays that everyone is waking up to the reality that toolbars were the stupidest idea on the planet and palettes are replacing them, even in Word that long time bastion of ever increasing toolbars. Basically, you just get more bang for your buck. So you get a 15" widescreen on a TiBook. Not tall enough for you? 17" widescreen on an iMac. Still not tall enough for you? Go for a Cinema. But DO NOT get a standard size if you can help it. Keep adding more to the sides than you add to the top, it's more worthwhile. One could argue that for business use you're typically looking at a representation of a letter size piece of paper so you want more up and down than side to side. This is true, but for games, for graphic editing, for page layout, for any kind of activity where you want to see the most of one whole thing at a time...to get a sense of it all at once, widescreen is better. And, lets be honest here, macs are more perfectly suited to a niche market of high end professionals who demand the best. (Like a high end car) If all you're doing is typing letters on your computer you should have kept that greenscreen.

[spinner]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
haha im so sorry you work for the titanic of the computer dealers. how much do you have to hide your disgust for gateway products?

It has proven to be very difficult at times. When someone calls in whining about how crappy their machine is, it is awfully tempting to say, "I guess you should have bought Mac." :D

[King Cobra]

Originally posted by spinner


It has proven to be very difficult at times. When someone calls in whining about how crappy their machine is, it is awfully tempting to say, "I guess you should have bought Mac." :D

Why is everyone quoting everyone? :p

There was another mock-up before, with al these Radio extras and stuff. Who needs all that?

Once again, we witness the embarassment of the peecee world at it's best.

(Then, again, being perfect at being stupid doesn't count.) :rolleyes: :D

[G4scott]

Wow... Thanks adelaney for backing up my post, kinda... Looking at a wider screen is much more relaxing to me. Besides, things to me look bigger when they're wider, like web pages, than when their tall...

[mymemory]

Ok, people, all you are missing a little something:

What is doing a SPDF port in that computer?

As far as I know, SPDF connectors are used to transfer digital audio from one DAT to another or from one DAT to a Protools hardware or any other PROFESIONAL AUDIO DEVICE only, it is not a consumer protocol. It is like adding a midi port, so, What is that port doing there if nothing at some ones office or home use it?

May be is to fool the people sellingthem "something to connect digital audio devices" and the ignorant costumer would say "Ohhhh!!! Cool!!!!" and for what?

It doesn't even say if is an out put or imput connector. How am I going to use it if I can not capture something with it and viceversa?

[Over Achiever]

I'm sure some have already seen this imac look-a-like.

The specs are found here:

http://www.northgate.com/products/notebook_desktops/integra/

A summary: 2.2 GHz, 15" TFT, 120 GB HD, 512 MB DDR266 or PC2100, combo drive, 4 USB 2.0, 1 Firewire, wireless keyboard/mouse, tv-tuner w/ remote w/ FM stereo, etc.

Funny thing is it costs from $1000 to $1500

Here a pic of this ugly pee-cee :eek:

[firewire2001]

Originally posted by iwantanewmac


Maybe you think the first Imac was "quite ugly".
I think it's a great well designed good looking computer. And it still is.......


man.. i have to toally disagree with you, too.. think about all the companies nowadays that have nothing to do with computers at all trhat use the translucent color thing after apple created the imac -- the imac really set a new trend in the us for quite a while, which is still popular.

[coolshot125]

now that one's a winner too!

wtf is internet-ready all about? like it's such a rarity to see computer's now-a-days that are "ready for the internet"! and personally, i'd much rather listen to the radio through iTunes than have a crappy radio-tuner built in. i listen to some pretty high bit-rate channels on iTunes just usin' a 56k modem, and that thing works like a dream!

[Postal]

Actually, Apple describes the classic iMac in their store as "Internet-ready." That's probably for different reasons though - mainly to let people who are shopping know that they're not going to get snubbed just because they bought the wrong Mac (not that there IS a wrong Mac, unless it's very old).

[iwantanewmac]

Originally posted by firewire2001



man.. i have to toally disagree with you, too.. think about all the companies nowadays that have nothing to do with computers at all trhat use the translucent color thing after apple created the imac -- the imac really set a new trend in the us for quite a while, which is still popular.


???????????????????????
What are you on?

[Haberdasher]

Iwannanewmac...firewire2001 is right.

I remember right after the first iMac was released...tons of products went translucent (even George Forman's Lean Mean Fat Reducing Grilling Machine, and it didn't get rid of the fat any better :D )

Regardless of whether it was ugly or not, it was a well designed machine that put Apple back on the board and set the trend for sleek, well designed consumer machines that everyone in the PC buisness *cough* DELL *cough* is trying to imitate.

[G4scott]

Originally posted by mymemory
Ok, people, all you are missing a little something:

What is doing a SPDF port in that computer?

As far as I know, SPDF connectors are used to transfer digital audio from one DAT to another or from one DAT to a Protools hardware or any other PROFESIONAL AUDIO DEVICE only, it is not a consumer protocol. It is like adding a midi port, so, What is that port doing there if nothing at some ones office or home use it?

May be is to fool the people sellingthem "something to connect digital audio devices" and the ignorant costumer would say "Ohhhh!!! Cool!!!!" and for what?

It doesn't even say if is an out put or imput connector. How am I going to use it if I can not capture something with it and viceversa?

I have a SPDF port on my Cambridge SoundWorks digital 2.1 speakers... They only costed $80, and I wouldn't consider them as pro material... I almost kinda wish my Mac had a SPD-IF port so that I could hook up my iBook to my speakers with digital sound... Does anyone know a cheap way to do this with USB?

[vniow]

Try this (http://midiman.com/) link. It's 80$, but it's supposed to be one of the best. There are ones cheaper, but Midiman is a reputable soundcard maker.

[aafuss1]

My current sound card cost less than $50-$40.00.

[iwantanewmac]

Originally posted by Haberdasher
Iwannanewmac...firewire2001 is right.

I remember right after the first iMac was released...tons of products went translucent (even George Forman's Lean Mean Fat Reducing Grilling Machine, and it didn't get rid of the fat any better :D )

Regardless of whether it was ugly or not, it was a well designed machine that put Apple back on the board and set the trend for sleek, well designed consumer machines that everyone in the PC buisness *cough* DELL *cough* is trying to imitate.

WTF! are you guys blind?
I said it was a great computer. It still is.
What are you babbling about?
BTW apple didnt "invent" those translucent colours.
There was a lot of that stuff floating around allready.

[adelaney]

No worries G4scott. Hey by the way, I got off my ass and actually did some math. A 15" TiBook widescreen has a viewable area of 105.05 square inches. A 15" standard has a viewable area of 108 square inches even. Assuming the same ratio of height to width exists for the iMac that exists for the TiBook than a 17" Apple widescreen has a viewable area of 134.94 square inches. A 17" standard has a viewable area of 138.72 square inches. So the difference in area is pretty well negligible. That's less than 4 square inches out of 139. So it is definitely better to have a widescreen iMac than a 17" standard iMac wannabe screen since it's better to have square inches on the side than on the top. Go apple, hopefully they'll get rid of the standard screens in the monitors, iBook, and eMac.

[imamacguy17]

We just built a new science building and we have machines that are very
similar and they suck ass. dude dont get a dell. Dude dont get a PC.

[Mr Jobs]

Originally posted by irmongoose
one word: UUUUUUUUUUUUGGLY!!!!




irmongoose

come on it is nowhere near as good looking as the iMac but it is most defiantly not ugly. lets not get over our heads here give credit where credit is due, had Apple designed this you would have spoken otherwise I’m sure.

I sure Gateway have taken ideas from the imac but there is only so many ways in which one can design an all-in-one computer so copied may be a bit too harsh

p.s I admit I do also have a vaio (one needs it for work) but I am an out an out mac user so don’t try flame me.

[adelaney]

No, it's ugly. Wouldn't matter who made it. Remember when those fake G4 tower pictures came out I think a year or so ago and everyone was talking about how ugly they were? Normally I would agree with you, we do tend to give Apple more credit than is do and PCs less. But when it comes to ugliness, you can tell. Both these models are ugly, the fake G4s were ugly and obviously fake because Apple wouldn't make something that ugly. If they had, and many people thought they had, they would have been called ugly. These are ugly embarrassments. If, tomorrow, Apple comes out with something ugly I will say it is ugly. In fact I am now going to call those two models that are pictured in this thread as iMucks. I don't know if that's original, but they really are pretty ugly and let's be honest about their ugliness.

[Mr Jobs]

Originally posted by adelaney
No, it's ugly. Wouldn't matter who made it. Remember when those fake G4 tower pictures came out I think a year or so ago and everyone was talking about how ugly they were? Normally I would agree with you, we do tend to give Apple more credit than is do and PCs less. But when it comes to ugliness, you can tell. Both these models are ugly, the fake G4s were ugly and obviously fake because Apple wouldn't make something that ugly. If they had, and many people thought they had, they would have been called ugly. These are ugly embarrassments. If, tomorrow, Apple comes out with something ugly I will say it is ugly. In fact I am now going to call those two models that are pictured in this thread as iMucks. I don't know if that's original, but they really are pretty ugly and let's be honest about their ugliness.

Hahahah well I must say I stand corrected instead I guess it’s, ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’:D