Classic II Corrosion: Am I Screwed?

[Mac128]

yuhong, I meant it's stunted in the sense that it did not improve on the SE/30, or the SE. Both Classics lowered the bar of what was expected from a Compact Mac.

Crickett, yes, I have powered every Compact Mac with every other compact Mac. Never for long periods, but simple mods in the power connectors allowed them to power on and function normally. But much more than a simple mod is needed to fit an SE/30 logicboard into a Classic case, as the logicboard is twice as big as the Classic logicboards. And two other major problems are the screen brightness control and sound as well as rear bucket ports.

I have put an entire SE chassis inside a Classic case, but the problem there is of course the rear ports need to be modified, which is easy enough to do, since the Classic's are higher, a new row can just be cut beneath them. In fact all of the compact chassis will fit inside all of the other Macs.

 

[Crickett]

Crickett, yes, I have powered every Compact Mac with every other compact Mac. Never for long periods, but simple mods in the power connectors allowed them to power on and function normally. But much more than a simple mod is needed to fit an SE/30 logicboard into a Classic case, as the logicboard is twice as big as the Classic logicboards. And two other major problems are the screen brightness control and sound as well as rear bucket ports.
I have put an entire SE chassis inside a Classic case, but the problem there is of course the rear ports need to be modified, which is easy enough to do, since the Classic's are higher, a new row can just be cut beneath them. In fact all of the compact chassis will fit inside all of the other Macs.

Eeenteresting indeed . . . I shall have to search specs & compare the SE/30 PSU to the Classic II's to get an idea about powering an SE/30 via Classic PSU long-term.

I know the Classic's are a half-depth board, but I think I could remove/relocate the fan (a la http://myoldmac.net/share/RC07/MacClassicII_256grayscale.php) to make room for a full-depth board & keep the C2 chassis & bucket.

 

[phreakout]

The reason Apple built the Classic line of Macintoshes was to corner the market on computers costing less than $1,500 USD. The problem with doing that is you end up releasing hardware with less performance gain for the price. The Macintosh Classic I cost $999 to $1500 USD, had an 8 Mhz 68000 processor and up to 4 MB RAM supported. The Macintosh Classic II cost $1900 USD, had a 16 Mhz 68030 processor and up to 10 MB RAM supported. Compare that to an SE/SE FDHD costing $2898 and $3900, had an 8 Mhz 68000 processor and up to 4 MB RAM supported. And let's not forget the SE/30 costing $6500, had a 16 Mhz 68030 processor and can support up to an unbelieveable 128 MB RAM (unbelieveable by 1989 standards, of course).

Despite all these machines having the same processors (SE/SE FDHD vs. Classic and SE/30 vs. Classic II), the Classic I and II series were much slower. Here are some excerpts from MacWorld's Mac Secrets, 5th Edition by David Pogue and Joseph Schorr:

Macintosh Classic

After releasing increasingly faster and more powerful computers for several years, Apple released a cheaper, more basic compact Classic model, based on the slower 68000 microprocessor, in October 1990. Why this step backward? Apple was attempting to create a truly competitively priced computer, one that would be especially attractive to new users. The stripped-down Classic without a hard drive listed for about $1,000—a new low in complete-Mac-system pricing that would stand unchallenged for nearly a decade.

The modest price also meant modest equipment. The Classic was only 25 percent faster than the Mac Plus released more than four years earlier. The limited processing power outdated the Classic quickly; it was discontinued less than two years later and replaced by the more powerful Classic II.

Macintosh Classic II (Performa 200)

The Classic II, also marketed as the Performa 200, was the last of the original compact Macs. It runs twice as fast as the Classic and includes a connector for an optional math coprocessor. Unlike the Classic, the Classic II has a microphone jack for sound input.

The Classic II is newer than the SE/30, which it replaced in October 1991. To the chagrin of Mac users who loved the SE/30, however, the Classic II handles most processing jobs about 30 percent slower,even though it’s equipped with the same microprocessor. What accounts for the difference? The data path.

The Classic II is equipped with only a 16-bit data path between the ’030 processor and the RAM chips, whereas the SE/30 provides a 32-bit data path. In other words, the Classic II can move only halfas much data at one time between the computer’s memory and central processor as the SE/30.

When the Classic II was released, it cost about $1,000 less than an SE/30 (which at the time was selling for more than $3,000), making it a good deal despite the slower speed.

73s de Phreakout. :rambo:

 

[Osgeld]

(Performa 200)

woot!

 

[Mac128]

phreakout, thanks for the history lesson, but I'm not sure I understand why you posted it. It's also wrong. The Classic and Classic II overlapped by one full year, the Classic II did not replace the Classic, no more than the SE/30 replaced the SE. You could have saved yourself some trouble and just posted links to many other sites that would have been more accurate. :beige:

It seems to me the Classic series' step-backward here was not in question from a business standpoint but rather, the chagrin of the customers who still loved the form-factor, who were unwilling to accept less than what they had. Whatever the reason Apple did what they did, there is no reason to settle for less today than an SE or SE/30, which was the high-mark for the compact Mac. Price is no longer a significant issue. Style on the other hand is an issue, and then as now, Apple was counting on it to help move units.

 

[yuhong]

And on the original Classic, it was to finally replace the Plus from 1986, which was the last Mac still produced that still use the 800K floppy and the old keyboard/mouse interface dating back to the Mac 128K. While the Mac Classic is indeed less expandable than the SE, it still include many of the enhancements from the SE, such as the ADB keyboard/mouse interface, better SCSI, a newer ROM than in the Plus, and support for an internal hard drive, and more.

 

[Mac128]

And on the original Classic, it was to finally replace the Plus from 1986

Yes, and on that front it was absolutely a step up. However, it left a gaping hole where the SE was, and I believe it actually ran slower than the older technology.

In addition, a year later, System 7.0.1 was released, arguably the highest system useable on the Classic. It also shipped with only 1MB RAM. Anybody who tried to get by with that small amount too long for the entry price, found themselves out of luck if they needed to upgrade since it required a non-standard RAM board, whereas a Plus and SE could keep adding years past their discontinuation without any special attachments. Apple sold it as an upgradable computer, but once users upgraded it to a usable condition, they might as well have bought an LC.

Apple had to redesign the logicboard anyway. Why they wouldn't take the 16MHz bus used on the Portable and put it in the Classic at the same price point is beyond me – at a minimum, they should have offered it as an option. As it is, there was no trade off, just a step backward. I don't buy the 1.4MB drive as an upgrade feature, it had been around for 2 years at that point, and actually saved them money not to have buy obsolete 800K drives, or support them. One of the reasons I hate the Classic so much is because so many schools who had been so well served by Apple over the years, bought tons of Classics without knowing how antiquated they really were and found themselves with useless equipment just a year later, with payments still to be made on them. That's the day Apple lost to the PC, when parents started having better technology at home than the kids had at school.

 

[yuhong]

It also shipped with only 1MB RAM. Anybody who tried to get by with that small amount too long for the entry price, found themselves out of luck if they needed to upgrade since it required a non-standard RAM board

Yea, that entry level config also didn't have any hard drive built-in and was simply to replace the Plus period at a lower price, which I am sure tempted many buyers. Because of the lack of these two things, it was not ready for System 7 out of the box which was released 6 months after the Classic! There was a better more expensive config with that non-standard RAM board already installed resulting in 2MB of RAM and a 40MB hard drive installed too that was ready for System 7 (which needed both of these things) and you could then get 2 standard 1MB SIMMs and install it on the non-standard RAM board later, resulting in 4MB of RAM which was the max.

 

[yuhong]

don't buy the 1.4MB drive as an upgrade feature, it had been around for 2 years at that point, and actually saved them money not to have buy obsolete 800K drives, or support them.

Yea, I did say that the Mac Plus "was the last Mac still produced that still use the 800K floppy and the old keyboard/mouse interface dating back to the Mac 128K". In fact, I think that the Mac Plus was the biggest barrier to the death of the 800K GCR floppy for years.

 

[yuhong]

However, it left a gaping hole where the SE was, and I believe it actually ran slower than the older technology.

I think it ran at the same speed at the SE, which was slightly faster than the Plus, owning to changes in the video and RAM refresh.

 

[phreakout]

Sorry about posting the history lesson. I was trying to show that despite the Classic I and II being the successor to the Plus, SE/SE FDHD and SE/30, the latter isn't as stripped down for use. I still would use my SE/30 over a Classic II any day.

Keep in mind that the tidbits from Mac Secrets was written some time in 1998/1999, so the info is a bit dated. But still, you can't give credit where it's due, and David Pogue did a good job writing that series. I relearned a lot of stuff I could have easily missed out on. That, plus the fact that no links exist that I've searched around for, contain PDFs of the books to reference from. So I did the next best thing and pulled it out of my own copy.

Correct. Price is not as significant an issue compared to then. But I think we can all agree that the machine we want to buy is capable of doing what it needs to do and in the least amount of time. Sadly, I was too poor to afford a computer when they became available in the 80s and 90s, but waiting almost 15 to 20 years after that machine's creation allows you that luxury.

73s de Phreakout. :rambo:

 

[Mac128]

Yea, that entry level config also didn't have any hard drive built-in and was simply to replace the Plus period at a lower price ...There was a better more expensive config with that non-standard RAM board already installed resulting in 2MB of RAM and a 40MB hard drive installed too that was ready for System 7 (which needed both of these things)

Yes, but even the Plus was selling with 2MB stock at the end. And unlike the Plus, if you did not upgrade the RAM board right away after you dropped $1,000, you were screwed – Remember System 7 was the first users had to pay for too, so many Classic users opted out. Many Classics I have seen are missing the RAM board. You sound like an Apple marketing brochure defending the Classic. A hard drive could be added anytime for years afterward, but not that RAM card. It trapped a lot of people into that 1MB configuration. The point remains, it was a bad decision by Apple in the long run and left SE users no options until the Color Classic, which offered no improvement over the SE/30. Apple came to see the compact as an entry-level model to be phased out, and never produced a superior compact to the SE/30.

Also, Apple advertised the Classic as being 25% faster than the Plus, and the SE as being 15-20% faster. However, I believe I have seen benchmark tests which indicate the SE was faster than the Classic in some real world tests. I might be wrong since I can't currently find anything to prove or disprove. I leave it to others expertise.

 

[yuhong]

Remember System 7 was the first users had to pay for too, so many Classic users opted out.

Actually 7.1 was the first release where Apple actually began charging for system software. With 7.0 the system software was still free, but the upgrade kits had the manuals too.

 

[Mac128]

Yes, which is why I wrote System 7, not 7.0. And System 7 remains the first system Apple charged for, not counting boxed sets with manuals of System 6. So, 6 months after the Classic was released, Apple offered 6.0.8 to maintain compatibility with System 7. Since System 7 required more than 1MB RAM and a SCSI drive to run, it is unlikely many Classic users plunked down the money only 6 months later to add a very expensive hard drive and another Meg of RAM, plus they got the illusion of an upgrade with 6.0.8. A year later, Apple began charging for the System as well, adding yet another deterrent to upgrading.

 

[yuhong]

Since System 7 required more than 1MB RAM and a SCSI drive to run, it is unlikely many Classic users plunked down the money only 6 months later to add a very expensive hard drive and another Meg of RAM.

Yea, it would be better if they bought the 2/40 config with both already installed in the first place, but I bet the $999 price was tempting.

 

[beachycove]

In response to an earlier post (I no longer know how to Quote):

Apple did produce what is in some ways a superior compact to the SE/30. It just wasn't sold in the USA. It was the Color Classic II, and it was a very capable little consumer/ education machine: 33MHz processor, 32-bit clean, 33 bus, 36MB RAM capability, LCPDS/ethernet capability, thousands of colours with a vram upgrade, built-in microphone....

Now, having said that, there are also lots of ways in which the CCII was not superior to an SE/30: no version of A/UX, for example, runs on a CCII and certainly it was not in any sense of the term a high end machine when it was introduced. But it also wasn't the cheap / deliberately crippled machines that the Classic, Classic II and Color Classic were.

So yes, the SE/30 is king of the Compact hill, but even so, it is not the fastest or (for most uses) the most capable of the Compacts. That distinction is the CCII's.

My own view is that the trouble with Apple's products at the time in question was that the company was in the business of soaking its customers by charging way too much for hardware, when it really ought to have been in the business of selling lots more computers more cheaply. Its profit margins were obscene, and though the strategy of selling low volumes at high margins kept the company in business for a few years, making good machines at less grotesquely inflated prices (like today) would have allowed for higher sales and thus there would have been no need for the crippled "low cost" line.

 

[yuhong]

My own view is that the trouble with Apple's products at the time in question was that the company was in the business of soaking its customers by charging way too much for hardware, when it really ought to have been in the business of selling lots more computers more cheaply. Its profit margins were obscene

Yea, Gassee was famous for that strategy, and that was part of why he was forced out. After that, the October 1990 round of Macs (which not only include the Classic, but also the LC and IIsi) began development, and these machines was developed in realisation that this strategy was a mistake.