Mac II Series vs Quadra 700

[Gorgonops]

I'm not sure what you're arguing for here, Trash. Whether the computer display we see on film was shot live with the actors (which they *have* been doing since the late 1970's by tweaking CRTs to scan at the same frame rate as film) or matted in later the system generating it appears to be running actual specific software. (Verses some completely fake "Hollywood OS" that's just animation, which is, granted, very common in films.) The whole reason the "videophone" scene amuses me is because they expended so little effort in hiding that the actor was just saying his lines at a recorded video file playing on the Radius Studio player; they didn't even try to mock up a "surveillance camera" interface without a progress bar.

 

[Johnnya101]

This is an actual real screen being displayed, not fake. The crew had to actually tweak the AB to refresh at 20 hertz or whatever the speed of the camera was.

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

Cool, thanks for the info guys. Wasn't arguing a thing, just a point of curiosity about the process in that time frame. When did they switch to green screens?

 

[trag]

Unfortunately you are. It's solid ABS, my (7100) PPC conversion required an @$$graft to free up that third slot for the A/V Card in the PDS,

Huh. You wouldn't think it would be worth it to retool when they could just plug in a slot cover. Unless all the slots were closed after molding and required milling to open them. Then it would save them a step.

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

They had to re-tool just about the whole case anyway. Different front bezel and gouging a hole in the back for that stupid proprietary AAUI connector.

 

[Gorgonops]

Cool, thanks for the info guys. Wasn't arguing a thing, just a point of curiosity about the process in that time frame. When did they switch to green screens?

I don't think they ever "switched to green screens" for filming computer screens, at least in the sense that the statement implies, IE, that every time you see a CRT on screen in a movie or television program it's a green screen. The technique a filmmaker is going to use to get a shot is going to depend on what the scene is and what mood they're trying to set. An intimate shot of someone interacting with a computer in a dimly-lit room, ala the Jurassic Park control center, is going to be really difficult to get right if you're depending on matting-in (or greenscreening, whatever) a synthetic display. Heck, in some of the shots you can clearly see the curve of the glass and reflections on the screen. The computer monitor is itself a focal point, not just the contents of it.

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

Yeah, didn't really think they made it from from ChromaKey Blue to Green while it was necessary to go the effects route. Doing the shot in camera with the computer display as a character makes a world of sense from every possible angle. I'm still fascinated by how the processes interact, the history of ILM and its offshoot industries.

Such sea change in film technology occurred between the Bicentenial production schedule of Star Wars and the early "green screen era" beginning around Y2K. The JurassicMac© character seems to me to be about halfway in between those dates in terms of production technology. In another 25 years, after the hard core faithful have passed on, they'll remaster/remake an entirely digital Episode IV  .  .  .

.  .  .  and Luke still won't be able to act worth a lick! :

 

[Scott Baret]

While I love all this talk of Jurassic Park and where this has headed, one comment related to the original intent of the topic: keep in mind some programs don't place nice with the 68040. If you want to run certain older programs, especially fussier ones like games, you'll want a Mac II over a Quadra. I have yet to get Shufflepuck Cafe running on an 040 of any kind, for example (yet it runs fine on an 030, even a newer one like a PB180 or LC550).

The 7.0.1 or 7.1 debate as far as which system would be run if the OS isn't A/UX in Jurassic Park can be settled pretty easily. It's clearly 7.0.1 because the movie would be going into editing and production by August 1992.

 

[Gorgonops]

I have yet to get Shufflepuck Cafe running on an 040 of any kind, for example (yet it runs fine on an 030, even a newer one like a PB180 or LC550).

"Self-modifying" code was never really considered kosher for the 68000 series (at least post-68020), but it's the 68040's cache architecture that definitively broke software using it. The tradeoff, of course, is the 68040 is something close to twice as fast per clock than the 68030 is. So... you pay your money and make your choice.

The sad fact is that for any "long-lived" computer platform like the Mac you can't ever really pick just one perfect machine that's going to run all software from all eras. (It's sort of amusing to see the debates on vintage PC forums about what's the *minimum* number of systems an enthusiast has to own if they want to be able to optimally run all the good DOS games for IBM PC compatibles. The number tends to settle around "a lot") There's software written for the original toasters that will break on even the slowest Mac II, so while a midrange 68030 might be *somewhat* more compatible with the bulk of the Mac software library than a Quadra I doubt the effective difference is much. And of course a Quadra can run things a 68030 can't really handle, like OS 8/8.1 or games like Marathon.

 

[Unknown_K]

Mac gamers had it easy since pretty much all games used the built in sound and video. PC gaming had so many varieties of sound cards and video cards (this is before 3D) needed for optimal gaming you needed quite a few machines to get the most of it.

I have a decent Mac collection, but my PC collection is much bigger and starts from a dual 180K floppy 64K IBM PC.

 

[Scott Baret]

Even outside of processor architecture, stuff broke early on. Ever run the original MacPaint on a computer with a color display?

I keep both an LC and SE on my desk just because some software won't work on one or the other.

Speaking of one thing over another...take the II over the Quadra (except the IIvx/IIvi) if you value running System 6, and go with an original II if you need something pre-6.

 

[zuctronic]

Even outside of processor architecture, stuff broke early on. Ever run the original MacPaint on a computer with a color display?

I keep both an LC and SE on my desk just because some software won't work on one or the other.

Speaking of one thing over another...take the II over the Quadra (except the IIvx/IIvi) if you value running System 6, and go with an original II if you need something pre-6.

Yeah, I agree with that. I don't know if there is any good replacement for a Mac SE with 4MB of RAM. All those old games that boot straight from floppy like Sub Battle Simulator and Dark Castle are dodgy on anything newer and definitely won't boot on a Quadra (or even a Mac IIci)

 

[ArmorAlley]

From own perspective, I think that you are doing it wrong.

Instead of *or*, you should be thinking *and*.

I have my collection organised so:

6 basic Macs - roughly one per CPU category

680x0

1. B&W Systems 1-6 — Mac SE almost any compact Mac will do

2. Colour Systems 4-7.1 — Mac IIfx almost any Mac II

3. Quadra Systems 7.1-8.1 — Performa 475 almost any 68040 will do

PPC

4. Pre G3 Systems 7.1-8.1 — PM 7200/166 almost any PPC up to the G3s will do

5. G3 Mac OS 8.6-9.2 — PM G3 (B&W) almost any G3 will do

6. G4 Mac OS 9.2.2 — PM G4 (MDD) almost any G3 will do

To be sure, I've upgraded them to almost as far as they can go and I'm not rigid in the categorisation. I use a Wallstreet for the Pre-G3 software more than the PM7200, for example.

In short, I think that you set your eyes on two expensive and desirable Macs. With the same money, you could get something as good for less and more machines.

To answer your question, btw, in my opinion, if it is a toss-up between a Mac II and Q700, consider the primary differences: the latter is many times faster than any Mac II (and can run much more software well) but the former can run System 6. Which is more important to you? Unless you really want a Q700, I save up and get a Q950.

 

[Johnnya101]

Well eventually I will get a IIfx or II but I'm just saying for now. The 950 is awesome but looks huge.

I love the look of the II series and the 700, which is why I like the 700, and also power.

 

[EvieSigma]

The 950 is huge, but not any more huge than a 9600 or a G5/Mac Pro. You don't need a server sized space for it.

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

I've always had a different approach, grab 'em, any of 'em, whenever I have had the opportunity and $$$ on hand for the snag!

Then again, I'm bat-poo crazy. The only sure way I've found to have divested myself of a significant portion of the resulting hoard of Macs and Clones was to have been voluntarily committed, unable to make the payments and losing most of my collection down the storage room whirlpool eleven years ago as a result.

I don't particularly recommend that strategy, but it's been loads of fun! [] ]'>

edit: I'm totally open about this stuff, if anonymous, being so has led to help for a lot of people IRL. Take care of yourselves, gang. A mind is a terrible thing to lose. This has been a public service announcement.