<strong>...all depends on the price and specification.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who says?
I disagree with the notion that the only way to appreciate something, or to find its usefulness, is to rely purely on the metrics of technicial specifications and price points.
Not all things can be measured purely in numbers.
That isn't to say that the Profile 4 is ugly. As you said, it's inoffensive. I'm just wondering how one would actually benefit from one of these in regards to having, say, an iMac. If it has certain features which may seem better - such as a processor with a higher clock speed for example - how would one actually benefit from that? Will it help them do anything easier or better? I don't mean just opening apps a few seconds faster or anything like that, which if you really think about it isn't really all that important. How would it help one actually perform tasks easier or better.
Would the Profile 4 really help the average person do things such as organize music and pictures easier than an iMac even if it has a cpu with a faster clock on it and costs a couple of hundred dollars less? Would it help them edit their movies and put them on a DVD in an easier and more elegant fashion?
Sure, I picked a few things that the iMac excels at, because it's easy to recognize just what it is the iMac excels at. I can't help but wonder what it is the Profile 4 is meant to excel at. In other words, how is it really meant to enrich a person's life through technology? And if it isn't meant to do that, why get it?
Price matters most, because basically technology is disposable. An iMac won't make your life better and neither will that Profile. What you can do with it is (to me) a part of its specification. So if it can let you make DVD's, or communicate, or work, or play in similar fashion, it's a job well done. Software is a part of the overall specification, at least to my mind. We still know nothing about it's price or specification, so, like I said, it all depends.
You have to wiegh the rest, a machine that lets you work a little better, but costs a lot more, might not be worth it, or it might just be worth it.
Once again, a PC company has tried to innovate and has instead created an ugly monstrosoty (sp?)
Whats with the cords connecting to the top of the monitor? With a bunch of cords connected to it, it would look like something from that hacky submarine in the Matrix. A computer with a mullet.. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Oh Lordie..
Well from the pictures, it looks like it has a bigger footprint than the iMac does, and if that's a standard sized optical drive on the bottom, it'll be deeper than it looks, too.
<strong>Man, that thing is ugly!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why don't you try to substantiate what part of its design you think is unattractive and add something to the discussion. Rather than the standard mac user cop out of "it looks ugly" when a product in the same type of category as a Mac is released.
I think it looks rather professional myself. The colors complement eachother and represent the new trend in PC colors of black and silver. The base appears to be minimalistic which I like. The layout of the ports is relatively well though out.
Why don't you try to substantiate what part of its design you think is unattractive and add something to the discussion. Rather than the standard mac user cop out of "it looks ugly" when a product in the same type of category as a Mac is released.
I think it looks rather professional myself. The colors complement eachother and represent the new trend in PC colors of black and silver. The base appears to be minimalistic which I like. The layout of the ports is relatively well though out.
I'd like to see one in person.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not a cop out. It's EmAn with his normal, 'concise' posting style. I'll say what I don't like about it.
1) The rounded speakers don't fit.
2) The base has no functional design. It takes up a large footprint while not being very functional
3) The flexible monitor positioning, the key feature of the iMac is missing from the Profile 4.
4) it looks like the computer uses a laptop optical drive.
5) Legacy ports.
6) The design is more of the same...a combination of the Profile 2 and 3 and the IBM Netvista X40.
7) Access to ports. With the iMac you can swivel the screen out of the way and all the ports are on one plane. With the Gateway, you have 3 layers of ports smacked onto the back of the monitor.
Why don't you try to substantiate what part of its design you think is unattractive and add something to the discussion. Rather than the standard mac user cop out of "it looks ugly" when a product in the same type of category as a Mac is released.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well what Eugene said is right but that's besides the point...
I just think the overall design of it is ugly. I don't like how the speakers, floppy, and optical drive looks under the screen. I don't like the bottom base or whatever it is. Just overall I don't like the design. Is that better or do I have to go into more detail?
There's nothing really bad about it except (egads!) the lack of a firewire port!!! That would be, shall we say, pretty stupid.
But the PC side still lacks a true iMovie parallel. iTunes and iPhoto can both be substituted convincingly on the PC. Burning? Roxio can handle that. Office handles your scheduling, presentation, mail, and communication needs well enough too. That about covers the reach of the iApps. Jaguar certainly looks superior in terms of iCal, and Rendezvous. iChat is nice, but is it really that much better than any number of chat utilities? Sherlock looks good and nothing on the PC side looks to equal it.
Now there is the problem (for those who go the legit route) that many PC's come with a thinner software compliment lately. You get Word, and the stuff that comes with Windows, but nothing really good on the digital video/photo front.
We'll see...
One undeniable strength of PC vendors is their ability to provide flexible configurations. Unlik Mac, you CAN often buy just the features you want. So we'll see what they offer.
Someone who wants a nice Office/internet machine with an easy to look at LCD may be better off with the Gateway than with an iMac, but that all depends on the prices. For similar money, the iMac is better cause it lets you do more. However, if you don't need to do more, or don't want to do more untill later, saving anywhere from 25-50% doesn't hurt either.
It's not a cop out. It's EmAn with his normal, 'concise' posting style. I'll say what I don't like about it.
<hr></blockquote>
Often it does seem like a cop out since they attempt to dismiss a product based on their apple biased design preferences. They attempt to belittle any product that doesn't look like one of Apple's.
[quote]
1) The rounded speakers don't fit.
<hr></blockquote>
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.
[quote]
2) The base has no functional design. It takes up a large footprint while not being very functional
<hr></blockquote>
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.
[quote]
3) The flexible monitor positioning, the key feature of the iMac is missing from the Profile 4.
<hr></blockquote>
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.
[quote]
4) it looks like the computer uses a laptop optical drive.<hr></blockquote>
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.
[quote]5) Legacy ports. <hr></blockquote>
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.
[quote]
6) The design is more of the same...a combination of the Profile 2 and 3 and the IBM Netvista X40.
<hr></blockquote>
Just like the 5-6? revisions of the CRT iMacs were basically more of the same?
[quote]
7) Access to ports. With the iMac you can swivel the screen out of the way and all the ports are on one plane. With the Gateway, you have 3 layers of ports smacked onto the back of the monitor.<hr></blockquote>
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.
I was going to post this a few days ago but I saw I was beaten to it. Besides, I didn?t have a link to pictures or info. However, I do know what the specs are for the new machines, at least up to a point. I was able to convince a gateway employee to tell me about the new machines and he brought up the info on a web site that he had access to. In addition to the specifications, he also showed me the images you now have. So without further preamble, here are the specs as I remember them:
17? LCD, P4 2-2.4 Ghz, 60-120 GB hd, 32MB vc, USB2.0, (I believe) 5.1 surround and much more starting at $1599 up to $1999 for the special edition. For les money, there will be 15? models in the budget range. They will have Celeron processors clocked at 1.8 Ghz. The will be out by the 26 of August. This is reliable info. I saw the info for myself.
I didn?t mention the optical drive because I don?t remember if the SE came with DVD burning or not. Otherwise, expect combos.
Comments
It looks inoffensive enough, all depends on the price and specification.
<strong>...all depends on the price and specification.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who says?
I disagree with the notion that the only way to appreciate something, or to find its usefulness, is to rely purely on the metrics of technicial specifications and price points.
Not all things can be measured purely in numbers.
That isn't to say that the Profile 4 is ugly. As you said, it's inoffensive. I'm just wondering how one would actually benefit from one of these in regards to having, say, an iMac. If it has certain features which may seem better - such as a processor with a higher clock speed for example - how would one actually benefit from that? Will it help them do anything easier or better? I don't mean just opening apps a few seconds faster or anything like that, which if you really think about it isn't really all that important. How would it help one actually perform tasks easier or better.
Would the Profile 4 really help the average person do things such as organize music and pictures easier than an iMac even if it has a cpu with a faster clock on it and costs a couple of hundred dollars less? Would it help them edit their movies and put them on a DVD in an easier and more elegant fashion?
Sure, I picked a few things that the iMac excels at, because it's easy to recognize just what it is the iMac excels at. I can't help but wonder what it is the Profile 4 is meant to excel at. In other words, how is it really meant to enrich a person's life through technology? And if it isn't meant to do that, why get it?
[ 08-11-2002: Message edited by: seb ]</p>
Doesn't look like an iMac killer to me. If the iMac is to die, I'm pretty sure it won't die by Gateway's hands.
It's a shame more people don't think that way...
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
You have to wiegh the rest, a machine that lets you work a little better, but costs a lot more, might not be worth it, or it might just be worth it.
opps. sorry, you lose gateway. yet again.
Whats with the cords connecting to the top of the monitor? With a bunch of cords connected to it, it would look like something from that hacky submarine in the Matrix. A computer with a mullet.. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Oh Lordie..
But it takes up almost NO depth. That's not a bad thing at all. Certainly better than iMac on that score.
iMac: It's bigger than you think. (But still very damn small.)
Jet
<strong>Man, that thing is ugly!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why don't you try to substantiate what part of its design you think is unattractive and add something to the discussion. Rather than the standard mac user cop out of "it looks ugly" when a product in the same type of category as a Mac is released.
I think it looks rather professional myself. The colors complement eachother and represent the new trend in PC colors of black and silver. The base appears to be minimalistic which I like. The layout of the ports is relatively well though out.
I'd like to see one in person.
<strong>
Why don't you try to substantiate what part of its design you think is unattractive and add something to the discussion. Rather than the standard mac user cop out of "it looks ugly" when a product in the same type of category as a Mac is released.
I think it looks rather professional myself. The colors complement eachother and represent the new trend in PC colors of black and silver. The base appears to be minimalistic which I like. The layout of the ports is relatively well though out.
I'd like to see one in person.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not a cop out. It's EmAn with his normal, 'concise' posting style. I'll say what I don't like about it.
1) The rounded speakers don't fit.
2) The base has no functional design. It takes up a large footprint while not being very functional
3) The flexible monitor positioning, the key feature of the iMac is missing from the Profile 4.
4) it looks like the computer uses a laptop optical drive.
5) Legacy ports.
6) The design is more of the same...a combination of the Profile 2 and 3 and the IBM Netvista X40.
7) Access to ports. With the iMac you can swivel the screen out of the way and all the ports are on one plane. With the Gateway, you have 3 layers of ports smacked onto the back of the monitor.
<strong>
Why don't you try to substantiate what part of its design you think is unattractive and add something to the discussion. Rather than the standard mac user cop out of "it looks ugly" when a product in the same type of category as a Mac is released.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well what Eugene said is right but that's besides the point...
I just think the overall design of it is ugly. I don't like how the speakers, floppy, and optical drive looks under the screen. I don't like the bottom base or whatever it is. Just overall I don't like the design. Is that better or do I have to go into more detail?
But the PC side still lacks a true iMovie parallel. iTunes and iPhoto can both be substituted convincingly on the PC. Burning? Roxio can handle that. Office handles your scheduling, presentation, mail, and communication needs well enough too. That about covers the reach of the iApps. Jaguar certainly looks superior in terms of iCal, and Rendezvous. iChat is nice, but is it really that much better than any number of chat utilities? Sherlock looks good and nothing on the PC side looks to equal it.
Now there is the problem (for those who go the legit route) that many PC's come with a thinner software compliment lately. You get Word, and the stuff that comes with Windows, but nothing really good on the digital video/photo front.
We'll see...
One undeniable strength of PC vendors is their ability to provide flexible configurations. Unlik Mac, you CAN often buy just the features you want. So we'll see what they offer.
Someone who wants a nice Office/internet machine with an easy to look at LCD may be better off with the Gateway than with an iMac, but that all depends on the prices. For similar money, the iMac is better cause it lets you do more. However, if you don't need to do more, or don't want to do more untill later, saving anywhere from 25-50% doesn't hurt either.
It's not a cop out. It's EmAn with his normal, 'concise' posting style. I'll say what I don't like about it.
<hr></blockquote>
Often it does seem like a cop out since they attempt to dismiss a product based on their apple biased design preferences. They attempt to belittle any product that doesn't look like one of Apple's.
[quote]
1) The rounded speakers don't fit.
<hr></blockquote>
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.
[quote]
2) The base has no functional design. It takes up a large footprint while not being very functional
<hr></blockquote>
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.
[quote]
3) The flexible monitor positioning, the key feature of the iMac is missing from the Profile 4.
<hr></blockquote>
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.
[quote]
4) it looks like the computer uses a laptop optical drive.<hr></blockquote>
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.
[quote]5) Legacy ports.
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.
[quote]
6) The design is more of the same...a combination of the Profile 2 and 3 and the IBM Netvista X40.
<hr></blockquote>
Just like the 5-6? revisions of the CRT iMacs were basically more of the same?
[quote]
7) Access to ports. With the iMac you can swivel the screen out of the way and all the ports are on one plane. With the Gateway, you have 3 layers of ports smacked onto the back of the monitor.<hr></blockquote>
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.
17? LCD, P4 2-2.4 Ghz, 60-120 GB hd, 32MB vc, USB2.0, (I believe) 5.1 surround and much more starting at $1599 up to $1999 for the special edition. For les money, there will be 15? models in the budget range. They will have Celeron processors clocked at 1.8 Ghz. The will be out by the 26 of August. This is reliable info. I saw the info for myself.
I didn?t mention the optical drive because I don?t remember if the SE came with DVD burning or not. Otherwise, expect combos.