compact macs (was Re: Ten Year Rule)

Teo Zenios teoz at neo.rr.com
Tue Nov 24 15:28:20 CST 2009


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Al Kossow" <aek at bitsavers.org>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" 
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: compact macs (was Re: Ten Year Rule)


> I had been fiddling around trying to decide which of the old 68K macs I 
> liked
> the best. At the time, my favorite was the Q800 with a 40MHz processor, 
> which
> was supported but never released because it was too close in performance 
> to
> the 840AV. I hadn't played much with the Powerbooks, mostly because they 
> were
> developed by a different group and we didn't have many prototypes around, 
> so
> I picked up about a dozen different models the last couple of weeks on 
> eBay
> cheap so I could get a better feel for them. It's interesting to look at 
> how
> fast the technology advanced in them through the 90's, and how each one 
> seems
> to be crippled in a different way so that in the end I didn't end up 
> liking
> any of the 68K models. The 190cs should have been the best, being the 
> last,
> but they left out ethernet, for example.
>
>
What was crippled in the Mac II and Quadra series? I think it was kind of 
odd Apple didn't include some cache for the fastest machines like the 
Q800/840av/950. I have an aftermarket 950 CPU upgrade that is 68040/50 
(overclocked 40mhz) with some cache and it is faster then stock for sure. 
Another machine has a Daystar PPC 601-80 and between that card and the 950 
mainboard you can stuff 384MB of RAM and have it usable on the 68K side (no 
idea what you could use it all for). While the workstations were decent 
Apple did shortchange everything else so it would not be as fast as the more 
expensive models (ram limits, bus speed, cpu options, upgrade slots, etc).







More information about the cctalk mailing list