On Saturday, March 23, 2002, at 06:20 PM, Matt Jordan wrote:
> I know that the 8MHz 68000 was slow in 1990 but take into account that
> it
> was the *very first* Mac to have an MSRP less than $1000. The
> "powerful"
> computers that preceded it were seven or more times the cost of the
> Classic.
> In 1989 the 16MHz 68030 SE/30 was $7,000. The 40 MHz 68030 IIfx was
> $10,000! And so on. With the proliferation of cheap Wintel PCs Apple
> had
> to hack its product line to compete. If you look back at the Classic
> computer era, there were two other computers released along with the
> Classic
> (the LC and the IIsi). ALL THREE of those computers were Road Apples!
And all three were, as I said, a 'Mac for the Masses' effort. They all
got much better too!
> Give it a bit more credit. I used to own a Classic and I know that you
> may
> feel a bit disappointed in what it cannot do but look at what it *can*
> do.
> The Classic�s 8MHz 68000 CPU is slower than the ones found in new
> graphics
> calculators. That CPU is outdated by all of today�s standards but
> somehow
> is able to drive a great GUI, multitask, and run the MacOS all the way
> to
> 7.5.3. That is impressive! I dare you to find a 286 (or 8086 for that
> matter) what runs Windows 95.
Good point well made, although System 7.5.3 isn't *quite* as good as
Windows 95 on a Classic, apart from the stability. Having said that a
286 or 086 could not even run Windows 3.1 properly so the Classic is
still winning. Also remember there is also the section of the population
that put price a long way before performance, most own PCs now ;).
> If you really want to see a classic Mac go
> fast and astound you find a cheap SE/30. With mine I can watch video,
> surf
> the web in all of its graphical glory, play back high quality music and
> much
> more.
And which upgrades did you shoe-horn into it? you must at least have a
greyscale card in it to watch video, right? And what about the music -
are you using it to play CDs on and external CD drive because that
doesn't *really* count as a processor intensive exercise, you can do
that on a Classic right? Even so, the stock SE/30 goes much faster than
the Stock LCII in black and white and is still a viable compact,
semi-portable word processing/spreadsheet/database machine.
> The 8MHz classics are a testament to the greatness of the Mac.
The Mac Classic is a sure sign that Apple changed immeasurably in 1990.
I am trying to build a '1990 Collection' to reflect it consisting of an
LC, a IIsi, and a Classic.
> Don't
> expect it to be a speed demon or replace a current desktop computer;
> look at
> the machine for what it is and enjoy the innovative GUI that changed the
> face of computers forever.
It's a Mac Plus in a much nicer (colour and shaped) case. As long as you
don't argue with that you will never go wrong. Think yourself lucky
these days as you see laptop technology from the Powerbook of spring
2000 being built into laptops in Spring 2002 for the conosumer market.
It took 5 years for the PLus to make it to consumer level!
--
Mark Benson
Vintage Macs List Nanny
aka
silicon_valley_pirate_uk (Yahoo! Messenger)
SilValleyPirate (AOL Instant Messenger)
Visit Flat Pack Macs Online at:
<http://fpm.gotdns.com>
Macintosh LC central
Microsoft Works - the world's largest oxymoron
--
Compact Macs is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and...
PowerON Computer Services <http://www.poweron.com> REPLACEMENT PARTS in STOCK
Drives, CD-ROMs, RAM, Mac OS SW, Power Supply <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
Compact Macs list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/compact.shtml>
The FAQ: <http://macfaq.org/>
Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Archive:<http://www.mail-archive.com/compact.macs%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
