My two cents; Out of the above, the only one I liked, or that made any sense, was the one Dave at Framemakers presented. (see post # 6) I think it is primarily due to his choice of the stand that ties the whole thing together. The others look like serious examples of over framing. They look forced onto something that never wanted it in the first place, a piece of electronic equipment.
There they sit, suspended in the air above a counter top or desk for no reason whatsoever. Big honking frames that completely overpower, and have no relationship whatsoever to what they have framed.
Like all things that require a picture frame, there has to be at least some sort of ascetic relationship to the "art", or for decoration purposes, the environment they are displayed in.
Dave was able to accomplish the later with his well thought out stand. He was able to pull it off very successfully.
There remain few logical reasons to frame such a thing as a monitor, most come with a frame of some sort that sets them off without distracting, or looking forced.
The challenge to the picture framer when framing anything, is to make the frame appear to belong to what it is framing, not just stuck around it. A frame not only has to belong to what it is framing, it also must belong to the environment where it will be displayed.
Above and more important to all of what I said in the above, a picture frame must successfully establish a border so the viewers eyes will be drawn to the object that has been framed. The art, not the frame.
Some things do not require a frame, and unless they are done properly, a frame will always look out of place, and usually downright silly around them.
I think Dave's example is one of the few I have ever seen when framing such things as electronic equipment, that actually accomplishes all criteria for good picture framing.
What made it work was not the frame, but the stand. With the stand, it makes sense.
-John