Gateway owns/owned some/all the rights from the Commodore bankruptcy in 94, after acquiring them from Escom...

Why oh why couldn't they have done that with an Amiga...

http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/gateway.html

What Amiga Inc today owns no one knows....

Looks like they're going for the budget crowd who's like an imac but can't afford it, and would like a machine with a lower spec and a poorer design for less money.

Hold on.. it's more expensive!

So... they're going for the crowd that want a lower spec, lower class imac, and are happy to pay more for the privilege. Good luck finding them.

What, are they hoping that third times a charm?

First pseudo-iMac was back in 2000. PII @ 200 with a 13" CRT.

Second was the Profile sets, like this http://cgi.ebay.com/GATEWAY-ALL-IN-ONE-PROFILE-3-DESKTOP-HOME-COMPUTER_W0QQitemZ110173707623QQihZ001QQcategoryZ140071QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

Give it up, Gateway. The cows aren't coming home.

Should sell like hot cakes....

er ... it has a higher spec than an imac? in my opinion, it's also considerably more aesthetically pleasing than either apple or sony's offering ...

Bloody fanboys

Or maybe, they don't want an annoying OS whilst trying to keep their desk looking tidy and stylish? The specs are perfect for pretty much anything I can think of, even HD playback...

The wireless keyboard and decent mouse are worth it alone. I can plop the keyboard in my lap and lean back instead of being hunched over some crap laptop keyboard.

So where'd they hide the stealth camera?

But they did it with one of Amiga's rivals, Acorn.

The Gateway iMac clone reminds me of this:

http://www.advantage6.com/products/A9home.html

However what you see there isn't just the power brick, it's the complete PC box.

Maybe under-powered by PC standards, but it runs RISC OS which doesn't need that much horsepower and was released not too long ago.

There's a real hard drive in there. The hard drive is the part of a laptop that sucks. Everything else is not too far off from desktop speed.

I've seen dumpsters with more thoughtful designs than some PCs. Some people are into style and don't want a science project on their desk. They are willing to pay a little more, bully for them.

God, let the Amiga die already. Bill McEwen is an airhead and nothing will ever happen on that front.

Let's compare with the current iMac. US prices, since there's no UK price announced for the Gateway yet.

Low End iMac: $1200, 2.0Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, ATI Radeon HD 2400/138MB, 1GB, 250GB, 20" LCD

Low End Gateway: $1300, 1.5GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, Intel X3100, 2GB, 320GB, 19" LCD

High End iMac: $1800, 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, ATI Radeon HD Pro/256MB, 1GB, 320GB, 24" LCD

High End Gateway: $1800, 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600XT/256, 3GB, 500GB, 19" LCD

I'd take the iMac over the Gateway anyday. 33% to 20% more speed, better graphics system. Much better LCD at high end. Only drawback is less standard memory, and a smaller hard drive. Getting the same size hard disk from Apple would cost $50 at the low end and $100 at the high end.

Gateway, huh? <rotflmfao>

And it ships with Vista. That's why it needs sooooooooooooo much hdd space and ram.

I can see HUGE issues with the port replicator. I wonder how much the port replicator cable will cost if it gets damaged? (and you KNOW it will)

Also, what happens if the PSU has an attack of the zaps? Bye bye peripherals!

It's a very nice try but, there can only be ONE leader. And it AIN'T Gateway. Er, sorry, Acer.

Mac's do what they do, well.

PC's do everthing else better!

get over it you Mac loving hippies.

And yes the gateway "One" would tidy up all my staffs desks and make all the offices look much better. but then again cupboards are cheaper!

What century do you live in?

PC's do everything else better!!!!

...except run OSX :(

Macs do what they do, and run PC OSs!!!

Their is this odd new thing called virtualization. See what you can do with it is take a Mac and run, oh, lets see....

1. Mac OS

2. Any Microsoft OS (DOS to Vista)

3. Any x86 FS/OSS OS (the list is endless)

4. Solaris x86

and here's the strange part about it, with enough processing power and RAM, you can run all of them at the same time. But still, PC's rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mac Lovin' Hippie

I give them full credit for doing things differently at the physical layout of a PC. But they should have aggresively priced these babies at 30% less than their iMac counter parts to stimulate purchasing.

Also - if you're going to take a risk then really go for it - they should offer a Linux flavor - a dual boot option - etc.

Funnily enough mac's 'do' windows, so how can the pc do anything better if they can all do the same?

Now that mac is based on intel tech, we can make direct comparisons to the speed of a system unlike the PPC days.

So as the excuses are taken away, why does anyone want to believe the generic pc beige box is better than a leading brand? you may as well start discussing Sony / HP / tosh / Apple and others in the same breath. they're all now doing the same thing, with similar prices and performance. The only exception with Apple is that they ship their own OS. but you have the option to add another like Windows or linux or whatever your kink happens to be.

Apple lets you download and burn a CD with all the windows drivers done in one installer, instead of downloading each bit piecemeal. And there's no shovelware.

http://stevenf.com/2007/09/macs_really_do_run_windows_better.php

If they want to make an aesthetically pleasing computer, they can start by getting rid of the bloody "chin". And that goes for the iMac too.

..or does anyone else think that thing is really ugly? About as ugly as the iMac. That huge bit at the bottom of the monitor that holds the actual computer really doesn't do it for me, it's kind of distracting. I'd much rather have a small box on the desk made of similar components.

I'd keep quiet about that, if I were you, given the latest BOFH...

I rather like it. The iMac would seem to be mostly better specced, but aesthetically, this is the best effort from a Wintel manufacturer yet. I can see plenty of people preferring its looks to that of the iMac.

Most obvious benefit over the iMac is that a second hard drive can be added. I'm assuming this means that the hard drives can be swapped without too much bother. That's something that certainly can't be said of the iMac. Replacing the hard drive is a job for Apple. This, frankly, is shit industrial design on Apple's part, giving the form-over-function bleaters far too much ammunition. Also with the extra space that must exist in the 24" iMac, surely there's room for an additional drive ? They should make it as easy to replace drives as it is in MacBooks, MacPros, and the 1st G5 iMacs.

I don't see the Gateway as too much of a rip off either. It's just the obvious design for an all-in-one with a flat screen. The Fujitsu Esprimo Q, now THAT'S what I call a rip off (of the Mac mini, rounded corners and aluminium and all)

@ Anonymous vultue - the works have to go *somewhere*. Would you rather have a big forehead than a chin? It would look like Herman Munster instead of Desperate Dan :?) Or, maybe it should all go on the right hand side like a '70s telly.

An Mac is a computer, same as a PC. Transpose the guts of each into each others' cases, make the OSs look similar (Vista & OSX shocker!) and you end up with largely indistinguishable pieces of similar equipment. Apple vs. PC? Irrelevant; get over it you people.

You use a knife to cut and a fork to prod, rarely the other way around, same as PC vs Mac:

- a Mac for publishing/video/music apps (by secretary and media types who get confused by non-cartoony icons)

- a PC for office/proper IT admin/productivity, along with those more technical tasks which basically you can't do on a Mac because no one makes the bits or gives you the flexibility to design your bespoke product (I have a PC in my car. Try that with a Mac)

(except Americans who only seem to use a fork to eat? Different topic.)

Um - and who said virtualisation? Which apparently PCs can't do? Not heard of VMWare Workstation? Which can run Windows (all versions) DOS Linux you name it, anything that will run on x8x architecture? And all at once, if you have enough RAM and CPU power..which kinda deflates your whole virtualisation-on-a-Mac? Don't you hate people who speak with a question inflection with every sentence?

a PC for office/proper IT admin/productivity,

You mean one that has built in ssh/terminal....? or do you not mean proper it admin and mean the point and click windows admin monkeys?

along with those more technical tasks which basically you can't do on a Mac because no one makes the bits or gives you the flexibility to design your bespoke product (I have a PC in my car. Try that with a Mac)

http://www.macvroom.com/

You mean like the thousands of people here have?

A mac does almost everything a windows pc can do.

What doesn't it do very well?

Viruses...malware...adware...everything else...it does.

Get over it.

Yup I run an Apple, yup I run linux...oh hey I run windows as well...but not by choice.

Yeah, good call on the virtualisation. You're 100% correct. In fact, any decent PC running windows or linux could run OS X in a VM.

It's just that no one fucking wants to.

Machine looks OK, what about the OS ? Mac is Mac because it has OSX in it?

My point was that it doesn't matter whether it's a mac or a PC, they do much the same and I just don't understand why people get so twisted up about it as to hurl insult, sweary words and other vitriol. Jeez. Get a life outside, look, where the sunshine is..

I note that no-one liked to admit or agree with the point of Vista looking like OSX?

And as a final point before I got to the pub, yes PCs attract viruses, malware and adware, because PCs are where they find the punters..

And yep, you're right...no-one f*****g wants to run OSX in Windows, because no-one ruddy NEEDS to.. XP/Vista does all they need to without having to resort to OSX, whereas OSX..Hmmm... Hope you get my point..

don't get me wrong I have a mac several in fact but my PC cost half the price and is much faster (in Practice) than the higher spec'ed Mac I don't know why this is, but its true!

Just a normal hippie.

(not a mac loving one!)

Uhhh... <sarcasam\>

Mac Lovin' Hippie

lol.......Whimp!

Let's see. The pro-Mac crowd, in good business mode, brings out numbers and published facts to show that the iMac is theoretically the technically superior to the Gateway offering. We won't go into the actual TCO of one O/S vs the other, although I know the calculations my business has made aren't favourable to a certain convicted monopolist.

The anti-Mac (pro-what exactly?) folks ignore the data and just trash talk. They don't actually provide any real information or meaningful debate or arguments as to why the Gateway machine might be superior or not. They instead resort to ad-hominem attacks on those who disagree with them.

Based on that, I think I can determine who the "fanboys" really are, vs the folks who can actually do real business-relevent calculations. This thread is unfortunately a microcosm of many conversations I've had with various companies, which explains so much about how Microsoft and their MCP/MCSE/(ad nauseum) flunkies continue to suck so much money out of so many companies.