Numbering

[Apostrophe]

I've just thought of something: Do they just randomly number computers? For instance, why the Centris 610? If it was the first Centris, why not the Centris 1?

And why do they skip 40 and go ahead to the Centris 650? And why is the '660av 10 more?

Any thoughts?

-Apostrophe

 

[Scott Baret]

It's got to do with the type of the case. Just like BMW and Volvo use numbers to signify the style of the car, Apple used them for the case.

Here are the ones they used for desktop Macs:

2: Compact Mac

4: LC Style Mac

5: AIO Mac

6: This one varies. Some are IIsi-size cases, others are low-slung Macs

7: IIci-size Mac

8: Minitower

9: Full size tower

Some 6 series Macs are actually in 7 series cases. Also, the Power Mac 4400 violates every rule.

For laptops:

1: Standard size laptop

2: Duo/small laptop

3: Standard size laptop

5: Full featured laptop

 

[Charlieman]

I've just thought of something: Do they just randomly number computers?

Yup, get over it.

You'd think that the Performa 580 would be a development of the LC/Performa 575, but it is a mod of the Quadra 630.

PowerMac 7220 shares almost nothing with the 7200.

 

[Scott Baret]

AIO Equivalents (68Ks)

SE/30 = Modified IIx/IIcx (minus NuBus slots)

200 = Classic II = Modified LCII (same basic structure but modified to use monochrome compact architecture), LCII = Performa 400 Series (with numbers less than 450)

250 = Colour Classic = Modified LCII (differences include extra ADB port, different connectors (i.e. video), sometimes a 4.5V CMOS, and lack of System 6 support), also LC II = Performa 400 Series (with numbers less than 450)

275 = Colour Classic II = LCIII+ = Performa 460(roughly the same as 550)

520 = LCIII = Performa 450

550 = LCIII+ = Performa 460 (roughly the same as Colour Classic II)

575 = LC475

580 = LC630

There are also offshoots of the 5xx series such as a "Money Magazine Edition" which I think off the top of my head was the Performa 560. These, like the Performa 400s with numbers less than 450, were all the same machine save for bundled software/addons.

Also, the Mac IIvi seems very similar to the LCII/Classic II/Colour Classic trio except it can support an internal CD-ROM.

Another odd variation--sometimes you will see an LC 550 with no CD-ROM. These were budget versions sold to schools.

 

[Quadraman]

I've just thought of something: Do they just randomly number computers? For instance, why the Centris 610? If it was the first Centris, why not the Centris 1?And why do they skip 40 and go ahead to the Centris 650? And why is the '660av 10 more?

Any thoughts?

-Apostrophe

They used the same number system as the Quadra. There was a Centris 610 and a Quadra 610. The Centris was a lower spec version of the Quadra. There was also a Centris 650 and a Quadra 650. Same deal. The Centrises used LC040's while Quadras used the full 040. Centrises usually shipped with less main memory and VRAM as well. The Centris name was dropped shortly after because the customers Apple was targeting with the Centris name were going either for something cheaper in the Performa range or spent the extra for a faster Quadra. There wasn't enough room in the marketplace for a range that split the difference in price and performance. Apple made more money by selling Quadras than Centrises, anyway. The Centris was Apple's Edsel.

I'm not sure of the logic behind the numbering system, but there is a heirarchy that comes into play. 5xx models are all in ones designed mainly for education, 6xx models are typically 5xx models without the built in monitor, 7xx is low end servers (the sole representative being the Q700), 8xx is mid range servers and 9xx is high end servers. Some models don't fit neatly into their appointed heirarchy like the AV models, which are a lot more powerful at some tasks than the other models in their number range. Some models numbers are logical (840AV, mid range server, 40mhz CPU and AV circuitry) but others aren't. (660AV?? there are no 60mhz CPU's back then). The 950 also doesn't follow since there also were no 50mhz CPU's yet, either. And what about the 700, 800 and 900? You could say as the first representatives (only in the case of the 700) in their classes that they used 00 at the end to show that, but where then is the 500? The 5xx and 6xx numbering schemes defy logic even further with a multitude of machines in a multitude of configurations, none of which can be adequately reflected in the numerical designation. Why were there 4xx machines and why does the Performa 200 stand out as the only representative of it's numerical group? Why is the Performa 600 the only 6xx machine to still use a 68030? Was there even a need to market the Classic II as a Performa? I'm sure someone has a list from inside Apple that shows the logic used in the numbering scheme, but I sure haven't seen it.

 

[bigD]

There was also a Centris 650 and a Quadra 650. Same deal. The Centrises used LC040's while Quadras used the full 040.

While there were some versions of the Centris 650 that had LC 040 chips (these also didn't have ethernet), most had the full 040 and ethernet. You are right about the Centris 610 though - it had the 20MHz LC 040.

 

[Scott Baret]

There was a Performa 250 and 275 (CC and CCII) but I don't ever recall anyone selling them in the US.

 

[II2II]

These number systems are created by marketers. Their sense of reality differs from that of the universe itself (for example, mathematics is completely arbitrary for 610 can come after 950). Trying to think like they think is bound to cause heads to spontaneously explode.

More realistically, they want numbers to convey a particular image. The 950 likely had the biggest number because it was a more powerful machine. If Apple wanted to sell an 700 with AppleShare for 3/4ths the price of a 950, they would probably call it a 910 simply because it sounds like a similar class of machine.