-
Updated 2023-07-12: Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this follow-up post about our outage a week or so ago.
Another useless piece of trivia
- Thread starter beachycove
- Start date
alk
Well-known member
Centrises used either a slower 68040 CPU than their Quadra siblings (25 MHz versus 33 MHz) or 68LC040 processors (no FPU) while Quadras (Quadra 605, which was introduced on the day the entire Centris line was killed, is the only exception) used full 68040 processors at higher speeds. IIvx used an '030 so doesn't really fit in. I suspect the term "Centris" as applied to the IIvx is just a matter of convenience for marketing because it was introduced months before the first real Centris was introduced.
Peace,
Drew
Peace,
Drew
beachycove
Well-known member
The Centris line did indeed mostly have more lowly processors, but they could be cut-down in other ways also, or alternately. E.g., ethernet was not standard on the Centris 610. Yet, on the other side of the coin, a Centris 660av is identical to a Quadra 660av. Presumably the Centris 660av retailed with less RAM?
But now I find a Mac II in the line as well.
'Tis very confusing.
What the inclusion of a IIvx in Centris marketing literature might suggest, then, is either: a) the Centris was as much a marketing concept - the concept being lower consumer cost - as it was a badge; B) the company was losing money and desperate to sell c. 1993, so any marketing ploy that had the potential to increase sales by suggesting to an ordinary mortal that the new machines were affordable was embraced, including calling something that was for all intents and purposes not a Centris ... a Centris, even at the expense of muddying the marketing waters; c) Apple was trying to pretend that they were not really still wanting to sell an honestly crappy Mac II in '93, tarnished with Performa 600 associations (an even crappier machine), to innocent buyers; or d) a bit of all three.
The idea that the marketing document is merely a slip, however, just has to be nonsense. You can be quite sure that the statement that a IIvx is a Centris was perfectly deliberate, even if it was piffle.
I have a couple of Centris 660av machines, as well as a IIvx, as it happens. So now I have three Centrises. ... Is that the plural? Equill?
But now I find a Mac II in the line as well.
'Tis very confusing.
What the inclusion of a IIvx in Centris marketing literature might suggest, then, is either: a) the Centris was as much a marketing concept - the concept being lower consumer cost - as it was a badge; B) the company was losing money and desperate to sell c. 1993, so any marketing ploy that had the potential to increase sales by suggesting to an ordinary mortal that the new machines were affordable was embraced, including calling something that was for all intents and purposes not a Centris ... a Centris, even at the expense of muddying the marketing waters; c) Apple was trying to pretend that they were not really still wanting to sell an honestly crappy Mac II in '93, tarnished with Performa 600 associations (an even crappier machine), to innocent buyers; or d) a bit of all three.
The idea that the marketing document is merely a slip, however, just has to be nonsense. You can be quite sure that the statement that a IIvx is a Centris was perfectly deliberate, even if it was piffle.
I have a couple of Centris 660av machines, as well as a IIvx, as it happens. So now I have three Centrises. ... Is that the plural? Equill?
Scott Baret
Well-known member
First, remember that no piece of trivia is considered "useless" 
I have never heard the IIvx classified as a Centris but then again it makes more sense for it to be lumped in with the Centris machines than the older Mac IIs since the architecture is different. The IIvx is basically an 030-powered Centris machine if you look at how the machine is built. It's got more in common with the low-end 040s than the IIci and others that it was competing against.
In late 1992 the IIci was still in production. Apple probably came up with the IIvx as one last ditch attempt to save IIci sales and to offer a new low-end for the upcoming Centris line that replaced the IIci (which was a mid-range model by this point in time). However, the IIvx never really had a chance to succeed because of the less expensive IIsi (which was about the same in terms of performance) and because of the popularity of the old IIci, the lower-end "Macs for the Masses" (at the time, the Classic II and LC II), and the higher-end models.
Apple could have easily made the IIci for another year in place of the IIvx but went with the IIvx for one reason--to save money on cases and architecture. Keep in mind that Apple was simply sticking different badges on the same cases to make many models in the mid-1990s.
Of course, we all know what happened with the IIvx...hence the term "IIvx-ed" that's still in use today...
I have never heard the IIvx classified as a Centris but then again it makes more sense for it to be lumped in with the Centris machines than the older Mac IIs since the architecture is different. The IIvx is basically an 030-powered Centris machine if you look at how the machine is built. It's got more in common with the low-end 040s than the IIci and others that it was competing against.
In late 1992 the IIci was still in production. Apple probably came up with the IIvx as one last ditch attempt to save IIci sales and to offer a new low-end for the upcoming Centris line that replaced the IIci (which was a mid-range model by this point in time). However, the IIvx never really had a chance to succeed because of the less expensive IIsi (which was about the same in terms of performance) and because of the popularity of the old IIci, the lower-end "Macs for the Masses" (at the time, the Classic II and LC II), and the higher-end models.
Apple could have easily made the IIci for another year in place of the IIvx but went with the IIvx for one reason--to save money on cases and architecture. Keep in mind that Apple was simply sticking different badges on the same cases to make many models in the mid-1990s.
Of course, we all know what happened with the IIvx...hence the term "IIvx-ed" that's still in use today...
Charlieman
Well-known member
The IIvx/IIvi/Performa 600 share the case design of the Centris/Quadra full size desktop, but otherwise have little in common. The IIvx family have a 68030 processor, a IIci PDS slot and use 30 pin SIMMs -- classic 68030 NuBus architecture. The only thing that might put it in the Centris family is the shared case and internal CD-ROM drive capacity -- note the emphasis on multimedia content in the advert in the top post.
macgeek417
Well-known member
Centri???
Scott Baret
Well-known member
I was indeed referring to the case architecture. Yet another way Apple had to save money in the not-so-roaring 1990s...and another way they "homogenized" Macs.
If I recall correctly, the IIvx was crippled in that while the CPU ran at around 32MHz, the bus speed was only 16MHz.
This may have been done to preserve NuBus compatibility with older machines, but made it a real "buyer beware" machine, because the CPU clock speed did not reflect the actual performance of the machine. (Much like the Classic II: it shared the same 16MHz 68030 processor as the SE/30, but with a 16 bit bus it performed poorly by comparison).
This may have been done to preserve NuBus compatibility with older machines, but made it a real "buyer beware" machine, because the CPU clock speed did not reflect the actual performance of the machine. (Much like the Classic II: it shared the same 16MHz 68030 processor as the SE/30, but with a 16 bit bus it performed poorly by comparison).
beachycove
Well-known member
The IIvx has 32k L2 cache and a 68882 co-processor, which makes it superior to its Performa 600 cousin, but both are significantly slower than a IIci and even others of the earlier Mac II series.
I used a Performa 600 for some 5 years, and it worked fine as a word processor; I still have the beast, which now seems slower than cold molasses, truth be told. Years later, I was given my CENTRIS IIvx, and it is slightly faster but really not by much.
The problem with the machines was obviously the half-speed bus. Otherwise, the IIvx in particular would have had a lot going for it.
Question: Was the slow bus a real cost-saving measure (many dollars or just pennies?), or were the machines deliberately hobbled so as not to compete with the others in the line?
I used a Performa 600 for some 5 years, and it worked fine as a word processor; I still have the beast, which now seems slower than cold molasses, truth be told. Years later, I was given my CENTRIS IIvx, and it is slightly faster but really not by much.
The problem with the machines was obviously the half-speed bus. Otherwise, the IIvx in particular would have had a lot going for it.
Question: Was the slow bus a real cost-saving measure (many dollars or just pennies?), or were the machines deliberately hobbled so as not to compete with the others in the line?
I would guess that it was a marketing decision. Running the bus at 32 MHz might have increased costs in two ways. The motherboard would have to work at the faster speed and a handful of chips would have to work at the faster speed.
Manufacturing costs for the parts would have been pretty much identical--except that yield might have been a bit lower if they disposed of the ones that wouldn't operate at 32 MHz.
Back then, it might have had a noticeable impact on yield which would raise the cost by some percentage, but it might not have. While I don't know where the technology was at that time, I can guess based on what was available on the market. The IIci had been around a couple of years running just fine at 25 MHz. I doubt that the state of the art was having any trouble with 32 MHz by that time.
However, I really am not sure how much of a challenge 32 MHz vs. 16 MHz operation was back in that time frame. Today, the price would be identical. The tools are available to design and build hardware for operation at either speed with trivial effort.
Scott Baret
Well-known member
Keep in mind that the IIci was still in the lineup when the IIvx was introduced and would be for a few more months. It may have been a marketing decision.
I'm more interested to know why the IIvi was introduced. It was never sold in the US; perhaps it was intended for markets where a "stepping stone" between the LCII and the higher end Macs, including the IIvx, was needed due to trends of the day? It seems to have identical specifications to the LCII except that a 68882 was available as an option.
I'm more interested to know why the IIvi was introduced. It was never sold in the US; perhaps it was intended for markets where a "stepping stone" between the LCII and the higher end Macs, including the IIvx, was needed due to trends of the day? It seems to have identical specifications to the LCII except that a 68882 was available as an option.
equill
Well-known member
We have often seen, in the public and internal code names for Macs, in Easter Eggs and in the names of applications, that there were some erudite people travailing in the Apple grottos. That they then chose Centris, the little-known and solitary example of the sixth declension in Latin, comes as no surprise. So little-known, in fact, that the word can be found in no Latin dictionary. Its declension, as befits an outlier (a contraction of out-and-out liar), was unusual, viz.:
- centris, centres
centri, centries
centrum, centrem
centruius, centriorum
centri, centribus
centre, centrebus
which you will readily discern as borrowing heavily from the common five declensions. All things considered, perhaps we should stick with Centrises rather than Centres.
de
