It's funny, but that photo makes it look a lot better than any of the other, non-art directed, photos I've seen (where the keyboard, mouse and computer don't look like they were designed by the same team) - what I'd say is that photo make it look better than it does.

Whereas photos of the new iMac put me off - the materials simply don't photograph as well as the old white models.

IMO - it's the kind of machine a lot of people will think is equivalent to an iMac, just like no one understood the difference between the Mac OS / Gemm / AmigaOS and Windows, or will say any phone with touch sensitive screen is like an iPhone.

Or is the look supposed to remind the user of the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey???

If someone gave this to me as a gift, I'd install Tiger on it so as to have a "customized" iMac!!

You can add, or swap out, a second hard drive

The power brick is also a hub to help keep the desk clear of USB, Ethernet, and other cables.

On the other hand:

BlueTooth is added via a dongle

No built in web cam. You plug it in on the top via mini USB port. Now I could see that somewhat as a plus in that they could have a camera that swivels and rotates.

If nothing else the site will turn off potential buyers. It takes too long to load, is not very intuative, and the revolving chicklets don't even have captions to tell you what clicking on them will bring up. The art department went wild and came up with a really cool page that tells you next to nothing. Sure if you dig you can find out something about this system, but good salesmanship includes NOT making your potential customers work to get what they want.

Sorry but if a computer company can't even design their web page right, there's no way I'd trust them to get a whole computer system designed right.

Quote

Back in 1998 when Apple was trying to hold things together, they came out with a revolutionary computer, the Bondi blue iMac. It didn't have a great OS...

I disagree. Both 8.1 and 8.6 were really solid, and OS X didn't reach that level of usability for years.

But anyway, back on topic, I agree that this thing is obviously not an "iMac killer". A good solid machine, maybe, but so what? People act like the only reason Apple products survive is because they have some little magical gimmick (in this case, a thin, flat, all-in-one design). It shows a very shallow understanding of the industry.

Realistically, there's nothing any PC company could make that would "kill" the iMac, because they don't really compete directly. (Obviously this doesn't run OS X, and not many people interested in running Vista would buy an iMac.) It competes on style a bit more than other PCs, but I don't think that even matters. Anyone who makes decisions based heavily on style will also be swayed by brand image, and it takes more than one machine to create that.

It's not like other companies haven't tried to clone Apple products before. Remember eMachines' eOne or Future Power's ePower? No? Figures.

Does no one else remember Gateway's last AIO "iMac killer," the ass-ugly Profile 4? Precious bits were spilled bewailing how it was going to cut Apple off at the knees by bringing "Apple style" to the Windows world. The Profile vanished without trace, of course. The One doesn't appear to be as ugly, but it's fate will be no prettier.

Quote

Mikuro wrote:

Quote

Back in 1998 when Apple was trying to hold things together, they came out with a revolutionary computer, the Bondi blue iMac. It didn't have a great OS...

I disagree. Both 8.1 and 8.6 were really solid, and OS X didn't reach that level of usability for years.

Yeah, I get the impression that many of the people reporting/commenting on things like NT4 vs Classic Mac OS are quoting from press releases and other mainstream press on the issue at the time. In theory yes, NT4 is way more stable than OS 8/9 (although since it was a workstation OS its kind of a tenuous comparison IMO, but anyway) because of its superior multitasking and such, but in practice OS 8/9 were just as stable. We had a 9600 server at my college IT in the fall of 97 when I started there, and the number of crashes on it from September 97-Nov 97 was under 10, and all were because it started running WebStar, as soon as I put ASIP on I had a total of 3 more serious crashes between December and May 98. The NT servers crashed at least a dozen times over that timeframe as well, mostly because of new software and incompatibilities between its version of IIS and older ones. Thats when you could find any software, since most devs were still focused on doing apps for 95/98 at that point.

But yeah, I agree with your post generally, people seem to forget the past, and the axiom that in forgetting it they are doomed to repeat it. I know Gateway doesn't want any reruns of its last 10 years

Quote

geoduck wrote:
If nothing else the site will turn off potential buyers. It takes too long to load, is not very intuative, and the revolving chicklets don't even have captions to tell you what clicking on them will bring up. The art department went wild and came up with a really cool page that tells you next to nothing. Sure if you dig you can find out something about this system, but good salesmanship includes NOT making your potential customers work to get what they want.

Sorry but if a computer company can't even design their web page right, there's no way I'd trust them to get a whole computer system designed right.

My nom de blog, and alter ego, may be Sir Harry Flashman, but if there is one thing I dislike it is Flash based web sites. When I went to that site earlier I left them feedback about the horrid design. I wish that when Adobe bought Flash they would have left it to wither on the vine.

Among the all-in-one Windows PCs, this is definitely the best looking of the bunch. As a pure design exercise, it seems very well done. I like the piano black look, the full wireless keyboard, and the removable panel on the back that allows ready access to internal components (something that the iMac hasn't allowed since the first G5 model).

The specs also seem tailored to match the iMac point for point. However, from my tally, it seems that the Gateway One carries a HIGHER price than an equivalent iMac -- e.g., the $1,300 base One uses integrated graphics, while $1,200 iMac uses a dedicated 128 MB graphics adaptor and a faster processor (2.0 GHz vs. 1.5 GHz) albeit with less RAM (1 GB v. 2 GB). Things are somewhat close, but with Vista preinstalled, it's like buying the exact same powerboat as your neighbor and then trying to race him with the anchor permanently deployed.

I don't see this as an iMac killer because the prices are too close to the iMac's and it's not an iMac. If this was priced under $1,000, then I can see it finding an audience given that Apple (for the moment at least) has abandoned that price point by discontinuing the 17" iMacs. But, as it is, if you're going to spend $1,300 on an all-in-one PC, might as well go with a proven winner with a solid OS and best-in-class starter software.

Also, Gateway might actually sell a few of these things IF people are patient enough to sit through their abomination of a website. This site is a textbook example of why I HATE Flash-enabled websites. That site took at least two minutes to load up (ironic choice to use Vista's rotating blue donut while the site takes its time loading up), and it's a pain to navigate.

It comes up short on content (as someone else pointed out, how the hell is someone supposed to know what all of those icons link to if they're not labeled or at least completely visible?), AND it's not much to look at either. I mean, if the site is going to waste 3/4 of the screen space running animated views, then don't cheap out and REPEAT the same Flash animations over and over with each link! Just give me a well laid out web page that loads up quickly, and logically takes me to the information I'm looking for. If Gateway wants to copy the iMac, why not go all the way and pilfer Apple's well done iMac page too?

$1499 is too expensive for a Windows machine with a 1.5 GHz processor.
We Mac weenies don't think it is too expensive because we think $1499 for an iMac is OK.
But, the PC-Windows world has been conditioned to think that $399 is the right price for a desktop. So, it is a long uphill climb to $1499.

It is aesthetically pleasing, in my opinion. I just think it won't sell. The average consumer needs to fondle the product before buying. Especially when they are being asked to pay for design.

I went to the Gateway to customize one and discovered that you can not upgrade from Vista to XP. Bummer.

iMac killer my butt though, I believe that Sony tried this a few months ago and did a much better job.

The Gateway One does have a spartan, monolithic appeal to it, but I think a guy would get tired of seeing their reflection in shiny black plastic, which is almost half of the front (and slightly tacky, IMO).

The appeal starts to wear off when you realize that its unobtrusive form is kept partly with that external hub... something you might expect from a computer that fits in your palm, not on your desk. For that matter, who the heck needs 7 USB hubs?? I've never occupied more than maybe three at any given time -- I'm sure most people would gladly trade off those wasted ports for better hardware specs. Between the unnecessary expansion slots, high price tag (especially compared to iMacs) and the fact that you have to take Vista with it, I think you REALLY have to be a Windows loyalist to take the One Plunge.

Quote

geoduck wrote:
if a computer company can't even design their web page right, there's no way I'd trust them to get a whole computer system designed right.

Tru dat. That Flash site is ridiculous to navigate, and a buhweemoth to load. Maybe it's a precursor... to tell you how responsive your Gateway One will be with Vista loaded, given the specs.

Quote

xmattingly wrote:
The Gateway One does have a spartan, monolithic appeal to it, but I think a guy would get tired of seeing their reflection in shiny black plastic, which is almost half of the front (and slightly tacky, IMO).

The appeal starts to wear off when you realize that its unobtrusive form is kept partly with that external hub... something you might expect from a computer that fits in your palm, not on your desk. For that matter, who the heck needs 7 USB hubs?? I've never occupied more than maybe three at any given time

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I have a lot of USB devices connected to my Mac.

Port 1 to keyboard
Port 2 to USB hub and another hub daisy chained from that

1. Laser printer
2. Inkjet printer
3. Label printer
4. Media card reader
5. Griffin iMic
6. Parliant Telephony Adapter
7. Elgato EyeTV Hybrid

Things I need to plug in now and then

1. Flatbed scanner
2. Film scanner

Coming soon

1. iPhone dock

Like the Dinosaurs, to have their bones dug up millions of years later to the comments of: "Oh, how fearsome they must have been, I wonder what killed them all off?"

Quote

JulesLt wrote:
It's funny, but that photo makes it look a lot better than any of the other, non-art directed, photos I've seen (where the keyboard, mouse and computer don't look like they were designed by the same team) - what I'd say is that photo make it look better than it does.

Whereas photos of the new iMac put me off - the materials simply don't photograph as well as the old white models.

IMO - it's the kind of machine a lot of people will think is equivalent to an iMac, just like no one understood the difference between the Mac OS / Gemm / AmigaOS and Windows, or will say any phone with touch sensitive screen is like an iPhone.

The new iMac may not photograph as well but when you see them in person it's a different story. The mouse photographed in the picture next to the Gateway looks like a black whale next to the thin keyboard, what was Gateway thinking? It may look nice but Windows is Windows, still has lots of viruses and spyware, and still has lots of features missing in the home version versus the Ultimate version which costs more. Unlike OSX which only comes in the Ultimate version and cost half the price.

with these specs, that'd be one thing. Reformat and install Linux, and you have a cheap living room-worthy desktop.

.. it is underpowered, overpriced and lame.

For $1300, you get a 1400x900 screen, 1.5GHz processor, and Vista. For $100 less, the iMac gives you a far bigger screen (1680 x 1050), a far faster processor (2 GHz) and a real OS (MacOS X). But for some reasons, nobody is posting "I can build a far better machine for a third of the price". Most likely because people who don't buy an iMac need some justification, but people not buying this machine don't.

I can't see anyone buying this. For a PC, it is plain and simple overpriced. People may pay a bit more for a Macintosh because it is a nicer machine, looks better, works better, and is made by a company with the best reputation for quality in the world. Why would anyone pay more and get what? A Gateway PC? If you buy one, you have both PC users and Mac users laughing about you!

What cracks me up is that macaholics reflexively denouce any product that's not a mac, but never use them.

How many people who commented went to Best Buy and looked at this computer? Or touched it? Or used it?

Plus, if you match the memory on the machine to the imac, it's less expensive. The imacs only come with 1 gig.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
What cracks me up is that macaholics reflexively denouce any product that's not a mac, but never use them.

How many people who commented went to Best Buy and looked at this computer? Or touched it? Or used it?

Plus, if you match the memory on the machine to the imac, it's less expensive. The imacs only come with 1 gig.

Who needs to USE the One? It's a PC running Vista. How much different would it be from any other PC running Vista except for the display and sound? (Those really concerned about the sound from their computers are going to get external speakers, whether they use a Mac or a Windows PC.)

Let's make a direct comparison:

The base One (the one sold at Best Buy)- $1,299.99
CPU: 1.5 gHz
Display: 19", 1440x900
Video: Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3100 (i.e., integrated, like the Mac Mini--it shares RAM with the CPU)
HD: 320 GB
RAM: 2 GB
Bluetooth: ?? No mention, but the keyboard and mouse are wireless
USB 2: 7 (3 chassis, 4 on power module)
FireWire: 1


Base iMac - $1,199.00
CPU: 2.0 gHz
Display: 20", 1680x1050
Video: Radeon HD 2400 XT, 128 MB
HD: 250 GB
RAM: 1 GB (4 GB Max)
Bluetooth: built-in
USB 2: 3 on chassis; 2 on keyboard, net 4
FireWire: 1 400, 1 800

The optical drives are similar and both have a built-in video camera.

You can get a 320 GB HD in the base iMac for $49. You can get another 1 GB RAM for $35.99 + shipping (as low as $4.50) from OWC. (Why pay more for Apple to put it in? Installing the RAM is easy.) That brings the iMac to $1,289, $11 cheaper than the base One, and the iMac:

- Is faster
- Has dedicated video (also makes it faster and frees up RAM)
- Has a larger display
- Comes with iLife '08 (no telling what, if any, software comes with the One, given their terrible website)

To get more comparable, look at the top One and the more expensive 20" iMac:

Top One - $1,799.99
CPU: 2.0 gHz
Display: 19", 1440x900
Video: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600XT, 256 MB
HD: 500 GB
RAM: 3 GB (max)
Bluetooth: ??
Extra: media card reader


Top 20" iMac - $1,499
CPU: 2.4 gHz
Display: 20", 1680x1050
Video: ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO, 256MB
HD: 320 GB
RAM: 1 GB (4 GB max)
Bluetooth: built-in

For the iMac, add $100 for a 500 GB HD, get a 2 GB RAM module from OWC for $99 + $5 shipping, and the i-Rocks USB 2.0 Crystal card reader and USB hub (3 ports; net will be 6) for $25, a total of $239 extra, bringing the iMac to $1,738. Even if you add the wireless keyboard ($30) and mouse ($20) to the iMac, it's $1,788, $12 cheaper than the One--and the iMac is faster, plus the software and OS differences.

The One apparently can have another HD, but one could also get an external FW 400 or 800 HD, so that should be comparable.

Then, there's the little problem/issue of reliability. According to Consumer Reports, Apple desktops had the lowest repair/problem rate (11% in their survey) of any desktops; Gateway was the worst (19%) of the major brands.

So, you can pay more to get a slower computer with a smaller display and probably lower reliability (not to mention the problems with Vista), if you really, really want to. I don't.

Fear, Uncertainty, and Steve Jobs's Doobies.

Two things. First, to be fair, many Mac fans are Apple's harshest critics. They often knock new Apple products when they are first announced without even seeing them. Do a Google search, the new iMac is an example.

Second, unlike most Windows users when it comes to Macs, many Mac users actually have work with Windows on a fairly regularly basis. For instance, my office uses Windows. So I think I am better qualified to knock Windows then most Windows users are to knock Macs. I after-all am forced to use Windows practically everyday, but still prefer Macs.

For what it is worth, the new Gateway Computer seems alright as far as Windows computers go. Based on the pictures, if I were forced to buy a PC, I would give it a look. Nonetheless, it is clearly an iMac knock off, and that is its appeal and Gateways' aim.

I do not know about today, but at one time Gateway made decent Windows PCs. At least when compared to Dell or HP. The Gateway Stores were also innovative. The stores, however, didn't work as well for the PC market as the Apple stores. In part, the concept was poorly executed (e.g. located in poor locations, no in store inventory).

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
What cracks me up is that macaholics reflexively denouce any product that's not a mac, but never use them.

How many people who commented went to Best Buy and looked at this computer? Or touched it? Or used it?

Plus, if you match the memory on the machine to the imac, it's less expensive. The imacs only come with 1 gig.

Two things. First, to be fair, many Mac fans are Apple's harshest critics. They often knock new Apple products when they are first announced without even seeing them. Do a Google search, the new iMac is an example.

Second, unlike most Windows users when it comes to Macs, many Mac users actually have work with Windows on a fairly regularly basis. For instance, my office uses Windows. So I think I am better qualified to knock Windows then most Windows users are to knock Macs. I after-all am forced to use Windows practically everyday, but still prefer Macs.

For what it is worth, the new Gateway Computer seems alright as far as Windows computers go. Based on the pictures, if I were forced to buy a PC, I would give it a look. Nonetheless, it is clearly an iMac knock off, and that is its appeal and Gateways' aim.

I do not know about today, but at one time Gateway made decent Windows PCs. At least when compared to Dell or HP. The Gateway Stores were also innovative. The stores, however, didn't work as well for the PC market as the Apple stores. In part, the concept was poorly executed (e.g. located in poor locations, no in store inventory).

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
What cracks me up is that macaholics reflexively denouce any product that's not a mac, but never use them.

How many people who commented went to Best Buy and looked at this computer? Or touched it? Or used it?

Plus, if you match the memory on the machine to the imac, it's less expensive. The imacs only come with 1 gig.

iMac prices will remain steady, but Gateway prices tend to fall, sharply and quickly. I haven't seen it in person yet, but I can't wait. It might be a good bargain in a few months when the price drops and Best Buy offers a rebate. With reports all over the Apple discussion boards of the new iMacs crashing right out of the box, this Gateway seems to be hitting stores just in time, and may just steal some sales away from Apple.