Basically, guys, it looks to be - in a nutshell - like nearly EVERY "here's what I think Apple's flat iMac will look like..." mockup done by everyone - INCLUDING ME - in the known universe.
I think I doodled a couple of things VERY simliar to that, as did lots of people here, MacNN, the Apple Collection, etc.
Good to know I could probably get a job at Gateway.
Like most, I was blown away by Apple's solution. It never once occured to me that a computer could still be an "all-in-one", yet the screen NOT be part of the guts. And from what I saw around the web in the space of a year or two, neither did anyone else.
THAT'S why Apple rocks.
Gateway's new model is probably Apple's third or fourth generation prototype that Steve shot down two years ago.
It's the same sort of thinking that a lot of low-rung PC companies (and generic PC tower manufacturers) jumped on 2-3 years ago: take an otherwise crappy-looking beige, clunky tower and slap some green or pink colored see-through plastic onto the front and on the speakers.
It was a desperate stab at hipness by jumping on the iFruit gravy train. And it looked silly because it was JUST about color (they never got the underlying thinking behind Apple's iApproach).
I suppose they could have gone with square, but I think they would have looked more attractive if they'd used a contrasting color rather than black and made it flush with the face.<hr></blockquote>
Definitely not what I had in mind. The whole damn thing is a schizo mess. The monitor wants sharp edges, but the speakers are round and the stand is bulbous. The single color of IBM Netvista seems to fit better with the all-in-one motif. With the silver screen portion and the black back, it looks more like the screen andback were slapped together.
[quote]It seems to have been designed to give the appearance of a LCD monitor with the functionality of a PC. As such the base is pretty fitting for a LCD monitor.<hr></blockquote>
Most flat panel monitors have stubbier bases. I don't see the point of the loop at all. Why not just make it a U-shaped base so the user can at least mentally reclaim a bit of space.
[quote]Certainly not as flexible as the iMac, but given my experience with my own LCD monitor you really only need to tilt and swivel your monitor so much.<hr></blockquote>
Tell that to iMac owners. Once you've got it, you use it. I wonder if pscates likes to reposition is screen?
[quote]Hard to tell from the photo, what would be the downside of this? Limited expansion options? Certainly a trait it would share with the iMac.<hr></blockquote>
Limited available BTO options to be sure. What's the fastest DVD-RW drive for laptops? What about CD-RW burners and Combo drives?
[quote]I like legacy ports, I wouldn't purchase a computer that didn't have at least one serial port and PS/2 for my keyboard and mouse.<hr></blockquote>
If I was some sort of lab junkie with all sorts of data aquisition tools or needed to hook up a serial terminal or something like that, then I would see why legacy ports are nice. What kind of legacy devices are you using right now?
[quote]Just like the 5-6? revisions of the CRT iMacs were basically more of the same?<hr></blockquote>
The Profile 2 and Profile 3 were major overhauls that ended up looking the same. The Profile 4 is the same. Aesthetically, the iMac remaine d mostly the same from the tray-loader to the slot-loader. The only real overhaul after that was the LCD iMac. Gateway should have taken Apple's hint and gone with at least a similar design. If the LCD is going to need a base anyway, why not stick most of the components in there? Why stick it on the back of the LCD? Why make it so the drives have to tilt along with screen? Why push the center of gravity higher?
[quote]I'll give you this one, unless they have some innovative way of bundling and channeling the wires down behind the monitor neatly putting the ports so high didn't make sense. I suppose it was a design tradeoff.<hr></blockquote>
I'll give you a hint. It's because the base is a functionless, hollowed out stanchion where they could have put something useful, like internals...and lowered the center of gravity...making the need for such a large base unnecessary.
The orientation of the ports is also illogical. Why put the power connector so high? It's not like they're using a standard ATX power supply with PCI slots underneath. See the part underneat the I/O panel that just out. I would have put all the small connectors facing up on that...you get better visual contact with the ports that way. I'd leave only the DB connectors on the back since their cables are usually quite thick and obstinate.
Comments
I think I doodled a couple of things VERY simliar to that, as did lots of people here, MacNN, the Apple Collection, etc.
Good to know I could probably get a job at Gateway.
Like most, I was blown away by Apple's solution. It never once occured to me that a computer could still be an "all-in-one", yet the screen NOT be part of the guts. And from what I saw around the web in the space of a year or two, neither did anyone else.
THAT'S why Apple rocks.
Gateway's new model is probably Apple's third or fourth generation prototype that Steve shot down two years ago.
It's the same sort of thinking that a lot of low-rung PC companies (and generic PC tower manufacturers) jumped on 2-3 years ago: take an otherwise crappy-looking beige, clunky tower and slap some green or pink colored see-through plastic onto the front and on the speakers.
It was a desperate stab at hipness by jumping on the iFruit gravy train. And it looked silly because it was JUST about color (they never got the underlying thinking behind Apple's iApproach).
[ 08-11-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
<hr></blockquote>
It's more of a question of the speed compromises that laptop optical drives have.
I suppose they could have gone with square, but I think they would have looked more attractive if they'd used a contrasting color rather than black and made it flush with the face.<hr></blockquote>
Definitely not what I had in mind. The whole damn thing is a schizo mess. The monitor wants sharp edges, but the speakers are round and the stand is bulbous. The single color of IBM Netvista seems to fit better with the all-in-one motif. With the silver screen portion and the black back, it looks more like the screen andback were slapped together.
[quote]It seems to have been designed to give the appearance of a LCD monitor with the functionality of a PC. As such the base is pretty fitting for a LCD monitor.<hr></blockquote>
Most flat panel monitors have stubbier bases. I don't see the point of the loop at all. Why not just make it a U-shaped base so the user can at least mentally reclaim a bit of space.
[quote]Certainly not as flexible as the iMac, but given my experience with my own LCD monitor you really only need to tilt and swivel your monitor so much.<hr></blockquote>
Tell that to iMac owners. Once you've got it, you use it. I wonder if pscates likes to reposition is screen?
[quote]Hard to tell from the photo, what would be the downside of this? Limited expansion options? Certainly a trait it would share with the iMac.<hr></blockquote>
Limited available BTO options to be sure. What's the fastest DVD-RW drive for laptops? What about CD-RW burners and Combo drives?
[quote]I like legacy ports, I wouldn't purchase a computer that didn't have at least one serial port and PS/2 for my keyboard and mouse.<hr></blockquote>
If I was some sort of lab junkie with all sorts of data aquisition tools or needed to hook up a serial terminal or something like that, then I would see why legacy ports are nice. What kind of legacy devices are you using right now?
[quote]Just like the 5-6? revisions of the CRT iMacs were basically more of the same?<hr></blockquote>
The Profile 2 and Profile 3 were major overhauls that ended up looking the same. The Profile 4 is the same. Aesthetically, the iMac remaine d mostly the same from the tray-loader to the slot-loader. The only real overhaul after that was the LCD iMac. Gateway should have taken Apple's hint and gone with at least a similar design. If the LCD is going to need a base anyway, why not stick most of the components in there? Why stick it on the back of the LCD? Why make it so the drives have to tilt along with screen? Why push the center of gravity higher?
[quote]I'll give you this one, unless they have some innovative way of bundling and channeling the wires down behind the monitor neatly putting the ports so high didn't make sense. I suppose it was a design tradeoff.<hr></blockquote>
I'll give you a hint. It's because the base is a functionless, hollowed out stanchion where they could have put something useful, like internals...and lowered the center of gravity...making the need for such a large base unnecessary.
The orientation of the ports is also illogical. Why put the power connector so high? It's not like they're using a standard ATX power supply with PCI slots underneath. See the part underneat the I/O panel that just out. I would have put all the small connectors facing up on that...you get better visual contact with the ports that way. I'd leave only the DB connectors on the back since their cables are usually quite thick and obstinate.