TheNeil: Apologise to the LC III... or else!

[paws]

Dear TheNeil.

Whilst doing our friday evening surfing, we tripped upon your page on the excellent Macintosh LC III+ computer of 1993 here:

http://www.theneil.plus.com/maclc3plus.html

We are deeply shocked by the following statements:

In every respect the LC III+ (or Performa 460 in this case) is totally uninspiring and dull. It doesn't exactly fly along, it doesn't inspire and it doesn't really do anything except sit on the desk looking like a flat beige box. Ok it does what it does...but it doesn't make you proud to be a Mac fanatic.

The LC III, III+, and equivalent Performas, are fantastic machines offering very adequate performance for System 7 in a small footprint, with low power consumption and near silence to boot. It offers a full 68030 - meaning support for a RAM disk - and an optional MMU as well as the ability to be expanded with an LC PDS ethernet card in order talk to modern networks. While its minimal aesthetics might not earn it a spot in the Vintage Computer Village People Tribute Band, we are some who regard that as a feature. The only fruitiness I want on my desktop is the Apple logo, thank you very much!

The clean design of the case exterior is mirrored by the orderliness of its insides, providing unparalleled ease of access to all expansion facalities and component replacement; if you've ever had to test, for instance, 27 sticks of RAM for size and function comma lack thereof, you would appreciate the LC case as a high point of Apple design and not something to look down one's nose and make snide remarks about. You would appreciate it even more if you had done such a thing on the same night that you attempted a similar feat with 30 pin SIMMs in a Quadra 700, resulting in you chewing off three and a half fingers from your left hand out sheer frustration with the power supply removal, drive bracket removal cycle necessary to change the RAM on such a beast.

We demand you apologise to the Little Pizzabox of Wonderful that is the Macintosh LC III - that you sing praise to its cleanliness and openupability of casing and rhapsodise about its easily satiated demand for the product of volts and amperes in spite of its fully featured motherboard - and that wear your underwear on the outside for three weeks as a penance for your slanderous writings.

X

 

[Franklinstein]

I like the LC III. It was my first Mac. $60 at Goodwill in 2001 (we were poor!) got me the LC III (4/80), its matching Apple Color Display, ClarisWorks 3.0, and After Dark 1.0. It was a good machine. It was dated, of course, but with 7.1 and a small RAM upgrade, it was fine.

I certainly prefer maintenance on one of those compared to anything in a Quadra 800 case or one if its descendants, but that goes without saying.

You've got it right, paws, about the machine's attributes; I doubt I could elaborate.

Perhaps TheNeil was comparing the LC III+ to its LC III predecessor (a simple 8MHz speed bump wasn't too impressive), or maybe the fact that it was introduced only days before the noticeably faster '040-based 475 debuted made it seem quickly dated.

I dunno. But they're good, solid, well-made machines. I doubt I'd defend the Classic II or LC II (or other models...), because they were designed on the super-cheap with features missing (no on-board FPU upgrade), crippled (stupid RAM max, 16-bit system bus), obsolete (Classic's then-ancient 8MHz 68000 or most of the 62xx's hardware), or just plain lame (MacTV - fun novelty TV, but the computer part sucked hard-core).

In short, if you're gonna slander a machine, go after one where a complaint is valid, not a tried-and-true workhorse.

 

[TheNeil]

Speaking as the defence...

While it's true that on its own merits the LC III+ is a commendable and hard-working machine, when put in context with the rest of the LC line, it's release was hardly groundbreaking. It offered practically zip over the previous machine and it didn't bring anything new to the line. The LC line was evolving like so many Mac serieses but the LC line never evolved anywhere near as much it had the potential to (it's almost the Porsche 911 of the IT world - over 40 years old and still pretty much the same machine, just tweaked here and there but nothing radical or new). As was pointed out by Franklinstein, the timing of the LC III+'s release also seems super-bad from a consumer point of view- very much as though Apple were deliberately trying to screw customers. Then we hit the thorny matter of aesthetics (I know, I know, what sings to one person is dire to another) but, to me, the entire LC line are just dull to look at and don't inspire anything inside - they're kind of indicative of the 'beige box' mentality that had permeated Apple at the time - dull and unimaginative.

At the end of the day, your opinion of a machine depends on what you're expecting from it. In this case I found that the LC machines weren't what I expected from Apple. Yes they're solid and dependable but if that's not what ticks your boxes then it doesn't matter. For me I like a machine to have 'soul', to be aesthetically 'interesting' (not necessarily insane or artistically brilliant but 'interesting') and to do things that I never expected of it. I appreciate that there are many plus points to the LC design (ease of access is definitely one of them)(using this as a case in point, the Quadra 800 machines get a damn good kicking from me for their horrendous case designs) but, for me, the LC III+ just doesn't have that 'je nais sa quios', hence the statement under cross-examination here (m'lud).

The defence rests (and is actually more shocked that someone visited my site )

 

[wthww]

No offence TheNeil, But uh.. your site design is awfully reminiscant of another site I know of, 'specially the top bar and where you list the specs of a computer.

http://www.old-computers.com/news/default.asp

//wthww

 

[LCGuy]

I personally quite like the LCIII. We got mine brand new back in 1993, and it was my first computer, and the machine that got me into Macs, and computers in general. I still have it, and it still runs as good as it did the day we pulled it out of the box. It may be a "boring" machine, but for me, it was still the machine that started it all...

 

[Quadraman]

The LC range was designed to be cheap computers for education for the most part. You have to look at them in that context. They couldn't be too fast or they would compete directly with Apple's higher end models and they couldn't be too feature laden or the price would be beyond what most schools could afford to pay. The LC III+ was one of the better models in the series, so it is surprising that anyone should have a negative comment to make about it.

As for the remark that you find it surprising that the LC III and III+ should be available at the same time when the only substantial difference was the speed of the CPU, why not? That is like saying that the Powermac G4's should have only been available with one CPU speed. Why bother having 3 or 4 models out at the same time with the only difference being clock speed or number of CPU's? Why not just sell one model and simplify things? Having 25 and 33mhz LC's on the market at the same time is no different than having 466, 533, 733 and dual 533 Digital Audio's on the market at the same time.

And your site does look an awful lot like old-computers.com. A little too much like it.

 

[luddite]

And your site does look an awful lot like old-computers.com. A little too much like it.

I don't find the similarity too worrying, though I would question the use of the green phosphor scan lines motif which suggests an earlier epoch in computing history...

 

[luddite]

...and for what it's worth, I find the LC pizza box to be by far the most esthetically pleasing non-compact 68K case design. I find the proportions border on the divine and the upward-angled stance brings to mind a lithe predator poised to pounce on its unwary prey...

 

[equant]

Agree with Luddite across the board on this one.

TheNeil, your website looks fine. Building such a website is no small effort and it's nice to read the personal aspect of your content.

I also support Quadraman's comments about the LC/LC+ speed difference issue.

 

[TheNeil]

Is this 'have a go at me day' or something?

Does my site really upset people that much? Does the fact that two sites happen to use on element that happens to look the same really constitute a crime against humanity? I know what, I'll just go and re-design the whole thing. Maybe I should run some surveys to find out what would be aesthetically pleasing to everyone and spend months re-designing and re-coding the damn thing. Or maybe I should just delete it and not bother at all.

I take on board what everyone has said about the LC III+ being a 'workhorse' and 'solid' and 'reliable' and all the rest of it but it still doesn't light me up and I find it a dull and boring machine. Sorry if anyone finds that to be offensive but it's true (in my opinion - I'm not trying to set a precedent here or anything or dictate that 'TheNeil hath spoken so henceforth...'). It's my site and it's my opinion based on my preferences and tastes. If you don't like it then go do your own [insert rude word here] site and bang on about how wonderful it is.

 

[equant]

I thought the OP was tongue and cheek. I mean, we're all bored forums users, and there's only so much fodder for 68k talk. However, the website design criticism was unnecessary.

Now the SE/30... there is an over-rated boring machine.

 

[TheNeil]

I thought the OP was tongue and cheek. I mean, we're all bored forums users, and there's only so much fodder for 68k talk. However, the website design criticism was unnecessary.
Now the SE/30... there is an over-rated boring machine.

Grr

 

[beachycove]

I rather like your site. It's not Vectronics or Danamania, but it's one of the best in my judgment. Keep it up, mate!

 

[MacMan]

I have fond memories of the LC form factor as the first Mac I ever used was an LC or LC II, back in the days of primary school. Hours of fun were had playing with Kidpix on that machine!

I particularly like TheNeil's website and actually use it as a first reference when I'm looking for info about a Mac model, mainly because it is more in-depth than LowEndMac and isn't swamped with adverts. It was actually an inspiration for my own site which details the models in my Mac collection in an anecdotal way, though my lack of real web programming skills don't make it nearly as pleasing to the eye.

 

[luddite]

Is this 'have a go at me day' or something?

No, I was just being a dick for my own amusement. Your site looks fine and, more importantly, works fine.

 

[LCGuy]

Those who are having a go at TheNeil about his website, knock it off. This forum is for discussion on the LC/Performa series Macs - not on website critiques.

Discussion on the pros and cons of the LCIII (and other LC series Macs) is fine, but after that, I draw the line.

 

[Temetka]

I had an LC475 which I loved. Wouldn't mind getting another one. While I respect theneil's opinions (I disagree as I loved my LC) he is not exactly forcing them on anyone.

When I got my LC475 for free I thought it was awesome. So skinny of a machine, it was moderately powerful with a full '040 and 36MB of RAM. I fitted in some more VRAM and a new 9.1GB HD and it was happy. Great machine. I sold it in a fit of stupidity.

 

[tomlee59]

Those who are having a go at TheNeil about his website, knock it off. This forum is for discussion on the LC/Performa series Macs - not on website critiques.

The amount of care and effort that TheNeil has put into that website is clearly evident. I could never put together anything even a tenth as good!

 

[equill]

Hear, hear. Regardless of what I might aim to achieve if I were to try, TheNeil has done it, and admirably.

de