My First Quadra

[Cory5412]

To be fair, I believe only two 68k Macs shipped with "Vampire Video" -- the IIci and the IIsi. Every other 68k Mac's onboard video, including all '040s, has dedicated VRAM.

And, this all brings about what I consider to be a very important point. At the end of the day, all these things perform extremely similar to one-another. The performance of a 40MHz '040 is going to be "pretty good" all things considered whether you upgrade a 475/605, 610, 650/800, 700/900, 950, or use an 840 directly. The advantages of having 20 megs of more of RAM are going to be apparent on all of those systems.

I used a 578 before (or after? I forget) I had my original 840 *(actually, it was after, I remember pulling the 040@40 out of the 840 and putting it in the 578 after the 840 died) for a while and it was just fine, even though I never overclocked it, so it was probably running at 25 or 33MHz.

And that's another point. In real day to day usage unless you're doing something balls-to-the-wall crazy like gaussian blurs on a long video or something, I don't think most people will really notice the difference between a 33MHz and a 40MHz system. Hell, for most things I don't think people will notice the difference between a 25 and a 40.

As to performa bundles - some of them were great. Really, if you were in a SOHO situation,  performa bundle was probably a great starting point. Just delete the edutainment off the disk and if you find you need more than Clarisworks, upgrade.

There were interesting exceptions to the "mouse and TeachText" rule over the years. I believe there was a particular Color Classic bundle which included ClarisWorks, and the PowerBook 1400's software bundle included ClarisWorks, Claris Organizer, and some Internet software (despite not bundling a modem, but I appreciate the sentiment.) At around the same time, there were office-specific bundles of machines like the 6500 and the 4400 (which I forgot earlier) which also included ClarisWorks, MYOB Accounting, Organizer, and some other things.

Having business bundles was a clever way for Apple to sell to people trying to buy a computer for a "home office" that didn't have kids or to buy a first or replacement computer for a business.

Also, yes, the Performas and the G3s do not coincide, I believe, at all. Perhaps the 6500 or 5500 was available for a few months leading up to the iMac, but I believe the Performa branding had been dropped by then.

Fragmented is the wrong word for Apple's product line. It was a pretty continuous gradient from the baseline 1400 models selling on clearance up to the 9600s that started at nearly $5000. There weren't very many holes by 1997, but there were ultimately too many models. I believe Jobs said there were 15 or 17 or so in total.

In numerical order, this is what was on sale at some point in 1997 before the introduction of the Power Macintosh G3, from Apple:

• 1400
• 2300
• 2400
• 3400
• 4400 (Called the 7220 in some markets.)
• 5300 (as a particularly low-cost option for education) (Outlived the 5400)
• 5500 (5400 until January or February.)
• 6360 (yes it existed into 1997)
• 6500
• TAM
• 7300 (WGS7350, also the WGS7250)
• 7600
• 8600 (8500 until ~January) (WGS 8550)
• 9600 (WGS9650) (9600 until ~January)
• ANS 500 (architecturally a 9500 but it ran AIX so I'm listing it last)
• ANS 700

Plus speed variants.

Needless to say, it was an utter mess, and by mid 1998 when all these models had finally been phased out it must have felt like a breath of fresh air. There was an awful lot of flexibility in the beige G3 family, and Apple could probably have kept selling it a little longer if they wanted to, although the blue-and-white G3 was a very well received successor to it.

In addition, when you lay it out like that there isn't really any indication of what each machine is for and what you can get with each. Nor is there any particularly good indication of, say, performance. You pretty much needed a magazine (preferably the whole years' worth, really) or a getting started guide to tell you what was good. Cutting that fat was probably one of the best things Apple could have done for itself.

Of note, the Power Macintosh G3s included AppleDesign keyboards and Apple has included keyboards with all of its machines except the Mac mini (BYODKM!) since. Also vaguely interesting is that since around 2013 or so Apple has been officially bundling iLife and iWork with Macs and iOS devices, which is probably one of the closest things the computing industry has to a performa bundle today. Perhaps Apple should sell a model of the 1.4GHz ULV iMac with kids.pbs.org and a sanitized version of wikipedia preloaded on the hard disk.

Also, just for funsies, I believe that the iMac G4 and eMac G4 were the last macs to come with one of the hallmarks of a performa bundle, an encyclopedia.

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

The Quadra 630 came first and its form factor and case design are right on as I see it. It came at a time when 17" CRTs were standard for business use and its metal chassis could support monitors well beyond what the injection molded cases of the Macs you've mentioned were rated. The one exception to that injection molded case limitation is the exceptional DuoDock with its elephantine support legs that was rated for 21" Color CRTs.

AV Macs that came before were counterfeit "Pro Models" that couldn't hold a candle to professional NuBus Content Production Workstations. The Quadra 630 and is offspring were designed from the ground up as consumer level AV machines with two brand new slots alongside the venerable LCIII PDS of the old low end Quadra 605/LC 475. They didn't bother with the iffy stereo speakers in the 5xx series for the 630 because by then everyone had adopted "computer speakers" that at their cheapest were higher quality.

That ModularMedusaMess construction is a lot more practical with the slide in motherboard than anything from the Mac II or Quadra lines. The metal chassis is rugged as hell and a breath of fresh air after the horrid 8xx case.

Yep, I got along with lower end Macs because I didn't need color or tremendous power doing object oriented graphics. The Rocket in the IIx worked great all through the Quadra era. I got the Quadra 630 as backup for that production machine, as my kid's AV/HomeWorkStation and for me to use as needed after he fell asleep. I wouldn't have set the 17" Trinitron Monitor/TV from the kiddo's Quadra 630 setup on top of my IIx/Rocket or the Quadra 605 I got later as a toy. That one got the Portrait, but that's another story.

 

[Cory5412]

To wander back toward the actual topic a little bit -- Ethernet and RAM is pretty much the only things I ever put in my Macs. I don't need or want dual displays on most of my systems and since I generally just use period or period-adjacent software, having more than like 24 or 32 megs of RAM isn't incredibly important to me. The most I'm doing is light Photoshop on QuickTake or Mavica images, which is lighter than "high end" users probably did in the day, with scanners.

 

[EvieSigma]

36MB of RAM is definitely a nice solid number for this era of machines. Need to get a 32MB SIMM for the P550 board in my CC.

 

[Cory5412]

So I just looked at EveryMac. The Quadra 630 predates the LC and Performa 630 by literally three days. The Quadra on July 15th and the LC/Performa on the 18th.

This is pretty clearly not something that was designed as a Quadra (which were generally always designed much more general purpose) and then later re-badged as a Performa.

Granted, the LC and Classic were also designed up front as inexpensive systems.

Regarding the AV Quadras: I don't think that they were meant to compete directly with, say, Avid systems. They were designed as cheap ways to produce "Multimedia!" content, basically 160x120 or 320x240 content for CD-ROMS.

Similarly, the AV Power Macintoshes probably didn't hold a candle to purpose-built AV equipment designed to be added to, say, the 9500/9600. The 8600 was a lot better, but that's what four years of development does. In the Power Mac era, the video in on professional desktops was generally "for" either conferencing or again for low end multimedia production.

The 630 series has merit, and they have no troubles whatsoever doing basically anything a 650/800 can do, minus the NuBus expansion, but they're definitely not Quadras first, even if the Quadra model technically predates the others by four days.

 

[Themk]

36MB of RAM is definitely a nice solid number for this era of machines. Need to get a 32MB SIMM for the P550 board in my CC.

Agreed. That being said, I am really happy with my 128MB SIMM. I love my 8MB on-board + 128MB SIMM = 136MB. Having that much memory helps a lot in NetBSD.

It's nice that this model accepts a 128MB SIMM.

To wander back toward the actual topic a little bit -- Ethernet and RAM is pretty much the only things I ever put in my Macs. I don't need or want dual displays on most of my systems and since I generally just use period or period-adjacent software, having more than like 24 or 32 megs of RAM isn't incredibly important to me. The most I'm doing is light Photoshop on QuickTake or Mavica images, which is lighter than "high end" users probably did in the day, with scanners.

Yup. But, unlike you, I ran some modern software (NetBSD) so I needed more RAM [] ]'>. All the upgrades I've ever done was Ethernet-- But I didn't pass up the opportunity to buy an SE/30 VidCard for cheap. I like 24-bit colour on my SE/30.

 

[Themk]

This is pretty clearly not something that was designed as a Quadra (which were generally always designed much more general purpose) and then later re-badged as a Performa.

Granted, the LC and Classic were also designed up front as inexpensive systems.

The 630 series has merit, and they have no troubles whatsoever doing basically anything a 650/800 can do, minus the NuBus expansion, but they're definitely not Quadras first, even if the Quadra model technically predates the others by four days.

If you look at it as a successor to the 610, then it seems to follow the 610's line of thinking fairly well. The 610 had a single PDS expansion slot, it had a built-in CDROM (optional), as well as no Ethernet on the entry level model as well. To be honest with you, it's kind of refreshing that the comm-slot card as supplied by Apple was 10BaseT. For the cost of buying the AAUI transceiver (today anyways) you can buy a card that already has 10BaseT on it for the 630. As to not being Quadras first, well, other then the limited expandability as you mentioned, they are very solid 040 machines, essentially designed to run at 40MHz (but then later crippled). As jt mentioned, the case is solid, and is capable of IIRC supporting 75 pounds on the top! The slide in motherboard is a really neat feature, and makes upgrades easy to do. I'm not totally sure if they are considered "Quadras first", but the architecture of the 630 is good and fast, which makes it enough of a Quadra for me. The real "not really a Quadra" is the Q605. Also, one of the things that is commonly brought up about this machine is ATA v. SCSI. In my testing I have found that ATA provides performance comparable to SCSI. (Except under NetBSD, which I'm not totally sure why) I dunno, I'm slightly inclined to go with Trash on the "Quadra first" notion, but at the same time too, Cory has provided some compelling argument points.

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

Dunno, depends how you look at it I guess. They announced it with the hoopla of a new Quadra with the full 040 reinstated and an optical drive at the low end of a new lineup and plans to cheapen it with the LC040 for a new line of less expensive consumer machines.

The Quadra 630 remains a low end Quadra like the 605 which had a wonderful form factor and LCIII PDS expansion, putting it squarely in the Quadra performance/consumer level expansion compromise per Apple's marketing policy. No room for a NuBus adapter like the taller Quadra 610, much less an optical bay. The Quadra 610 was more along the lines of a squished down and out sideways IIsi, which was a TERRIBLE design decision. The case was wholly unworkable with its greater desktop real estate requirements and CRT weight limitations.

The Quadra 630's return to the more efficient IIsi type form factor with a fabulous peripheral bay rearrangement, metal chassis support structure and much better cooling was a great decision. It's too bad that cooling setup precluded sitting a Portrait on top. :-/

 

[Themk]

Comparing the LC475/Q605 and the Q630 logic boards makes the 630 seem much more complex, like the 610 and 650/800.

Of course the Q630 is a low-end Quadra, but it sure can bang out some great 040 performance.

RE: the 610 case, I hate the front power button on it. It would be okay if you could power on the machine with the keyboard, but alas you can't! 630 wins here! If you think of the 630 as a IIsi of the Quadra family, then the expansion options make total sense. It's a shame, however, that there aren't more LC III PDS cards. :-/ On the other hand though, you get the MPEG media system in this machine, which takes up the LC III PDS [] ]'>!

I dunno, I like it!

 

[EvieSigma]

I've thought about trying to track down the A/V board for mine, but I might just get a 660AV or a 7500/7600 instead.

 

[Themk]

Well it's all about what you want to do. The nice thing about this machine is the MPEG media system!

 

[EvieSigma]

I'd like to have the AV functionality!

 

[Themk]

All three of these machines can have AV functionality. You just decide how you want to get AV functionality .

 

[Macdrone]

vince I have the parts for AV for the 630 series if you want me to set them aside.

 

[Gorgonops]

Comparing the LC475/Q605 and the Q630 logic boards makes the 630 seem much more complex, like the 610 and 650/800.

There's certainly more junk hanging off of a 630 than a 605 (IDE, second expansion slot, AV connectors), but technically speaking that's superficial; if you concentrate on the core of the machine the 630 is still more like a 605 than it is a 610/650/800 in that *all* of the latter machines have an interleaving-capable RAM controller while the 605/630/640 don't. If you're just talking about raw CPU performance the difference between *all* the machines is a wash; running at the same clock speed they all score essentially identical. (One long list of Speedometer 4.0.2 results I ran across suggested that at a given clock speed the "big" Quadras performed about *one percent* faster than the "small" ones, IE, A Centris 650@25mhz imperceptibly beats a 605, while a Quadra 650@33mhz likewise *slightly* bests a 630.)

In other words, to be clear, the "LC" designation for the various 475/605/630 variants that carries it doesn't imply the sort of "brain damaged" condition that it did back in the original LC/LCII days. All it's really a reference to is the core I/O setup (IE, an LC III compatible 68030 PDS slot instead of a native PDS or NuBus). That *is* a significant technical difference, but it does happen to be one that doesn't impact the performance of a standard configuration much. In *theory* a Quadra 650/800 could be equipped with a NuBus90 or 68040 PDS card that could put the I/O limitations of all the 630's available slots in the shade, but in practice, well, good luck finding one. (For the *one* device I can think of where that actually might have mattered, the DOS card that came in some 630/640 configurations, Apple cheated and had it plug directly into the CPU socket, IE, gave it direct 68040 PDS access the hard way.)

 

[Themk]

That makes sense. I wasn't trying to imply the architecture was more like the 610 and 650/800, I was just saying that, compared to a LC 575, or Q605, LC475, the logic board seems more complex. That is all. It was a physical observation.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. 630 has its quirks, but it cranks out enough performance for me. If I wanted NuBus playtime anyway, I would need a big box Mac II or Q900/950.

 

[EvieSigma]

vince I have the parts for AV for the 630 series if you want me to set them aside.

I may be interested...

 

[Cory5412]

This post kind of talks more about Apple in the '90s generically than about the 630 in particular. As a side-note, I'm not that great at brevity and this is the result of the third rewrite of this post.
 
So I took a look around on wikipedia.  On the date of its introduction in 1994, the Quadra 630 was the fifth 6-series Quadra on sale at that time. (605, 610, 630, 650, 660av) Just a few days later, the Quadra 610 was discontinued, but the 610 was almost certainly still widely available in reseller channels, probably for a few months.
 
For most of the year, there were four 6-series Quadras available, alongside, in no particular order, the LCIII, the LC500 series ( MacTV, 520, 550, and 575), the 6100 and 7100, 8100, 800s still stuck in the channel, and the 840av.
 
The 630 is a fine machine, but it's not a really good replacement for the 610, since it lacks things the IIsi and 610 had, such as parts commonality (in particular: NuBus and SCSI disks) with the rest of the product family, and it lacks some other important business features relative to the 610 in particular. Ethernet cost money to use regardless, but I'm betting an AUI transciever was less money than a Comm Slot ethernet card.
 
I think a lot of those particular decisions point to the 630's appropriateness in a home or K-6 educational environment, but not necessarily as a professional or institutional machine in situations where, say, reusing existing peripherals or connecting to a network is more expensive.
 
Ultimately though, Apple has always been a little loose with its product designations and making decisions as to who a product is "for" so while we can happily speculate, I don't think there'll be a direct official statement on what the 630 is "for" - other than that it was easy for Apple to put a few different badges on it and sell it into different markets. Something that was probably harder for the 610 and the 650, for cost and configuration reasons.
 
So, I think that the 630 is a fine (not good or amazing, just fine) machine, but I think it's a bad product, especially since Apple was still selling a whole bunch of '030 machines, and the Power Macintosh 6100 had already been introduced, and within just a few months would be rebranded as a performa.
 
And really, I think all of this is what makes the 630, 6200, and 5200 so perfectly emblematic of belaguered, directionless '90s Apple. There were too many products and no good way to know which one you should get, because any of them would work for almost anything, and many of them were literally identical hardware, but at different price points (650/800, 475/605) or extremely similar configurations with different price points (475/575/605/610/660). In the midst of making the push for the new PowerPC platform, Apple didn't bother to discontinue a few '030s still on sale (CC, LCIII, 520, 550, TV, Duo230, PB145B PB150 which was introduced after the 6100) and couldn't even be bothered to stop introducing new '040s (630, Duo280, PB500 series, PB190 in 1995).
 
And, I think this lack of direction and an utter glut of overlapping models spanning three or four generations of hardware cost Apple a lot. It's clear there was demand for Macs, I believe Apple was even profitable at this time, but I think that Apple's mismanagement of the platform cost them a lot of money, and so I don't think they were really healthy.

 

[Cory5412]

One more:

None of this is to dump on the 630 specifically. It's a fine machine in a sea of fine machines. Counting WGSes and the CCII (not available in the US), Apple sold 36 different Macintosh models in 1994.

I think late '80s and '90s Apple has always needed the reboot that Steve Jobs provided when he got back in 1997/1998. The Power Macintosh G3 and PowerBook G3 (Walstreet/Mainstreet) lineup is clear, concise, flexible, and with the addition of the iMac meets the needs of people buying every one of the 36 different Macintoshes sold in 1994.

Perhaps the point is that the 630 would have looked a lot better as a machine, even in the face of the 6100, if everything below it weren't still on sale. I think that the "55 or die" mentality was also poisonous to Apple. If they hadn't been trying to make such high margins, the machines could have been sold at much lower prices, greatly reducing the need to build new explicitly low-end models or keep machines like the LC III and Color Classic on sale.

Basically, I think that if the 6100 and 8100 were the only desktops Apple was selling, and if they were willing to take lower margins, the reduced cost and increased volume on the both would mean they could be priced lower, reducing the need to keep as many (or any) 68ks on the roster. That's what happened in 1998. The Power Macintosh G3 was introduced at $1600, down from the 7300's $1700 and rapidly dropped in price to $1299 over the course of 1998.

 

[Unknown_K]

Computer prices dropped like a rock from 1990 to 2000 so having to many price points would have been a major sales problem (and inventory problem). Having a Centris and Quadra sticker on the same machines was stupid.

During the 68k era they pretty much just released whole new machine designs every few years, unlike the G4 era where they kept the hardware kind of the same with tweeks and just had multiple processor updates.

Why would you build a 630 and also a Quadra 800 and 650? The 630 took away sales from the probably more expensive 650 and made the 800 look too expensive.