Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Anyone ever hear of one of these? They're essentially a 6200/75 with just the Apple logo and "PHX 100" in the sticker on the front; it doesn't say Macintosh or Performa or anything on it. Cursory searches only turn up a few hits with no real info. I thought maybe it's part of an early production run or sold as a special kit that never really got public attention, like a specialized corporate or educational order. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for fun: This forum thread is now the third result in google for apple PHX 100. Do you have a picture of it or any other notes about markings on it? A link to where you saw it or anything?

 

The only connections I have been able to think of are that Phoenix, AZ's rotary club is the 100th such club to exist, so they call themselves some variation of Phoenix 100 or Rotary 100.

 

The only other conection I can thikn of is that the Power Macintosh 5500 was apparently given the codename Phoenix. So, like, in that Apple-specific context, "100" is the clock speed of the 6300, so my initial thought is testing the next revision, but per wiki the actual codename of the 6300 is Elixir.

 

If it doesn't look like a prototype (or have any labeling thuswise) then it probably isn't and it's more likely some kind of special edition like the JLPGA PowerBook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought one, along with a beat-up Quadra 630, for $20 on Yahoo! Auctions. They should be here in a couple days and I'll put up a few pictures. I figure it's either a pre-production unit or rebadged for inclusion in some sort of custom set. The more or less complete lack of info could point either way. A review of the logic board will help: if it's one of the 100MHz units and has "PHX" on it somewhere then it's probably a preproduction unit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either they are common in Japan or the same units are making rounds. I have not seen one in the states yet, only in Japan for some reason. Even then I found out about one and that led me to a second. And that was probably 10 years ago. Since then I have seen a couple more pop up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. But if that is the case, why remove the "Macintosh" stamping yet retain the Apple logo on the case. Not totally doubting that story, but some more information would be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given what Apple was doing with names at the time, this kind of tracks, in the realm of "generally, things that Apple could/would do."

 

At the end of the actual Performa line in the US, Apple started applying Power Macintosh as a label to products packaged and sold almost identically. The 4400, 6400, and 6500 in particular, with the fun addition that there were explicitly business-focused variants of those three machines.

 

For example:

http://www.vectronicscollections.org/gallery/ads/macintosh/0268.php

and http://www.vectronicscollections.org/gallery/ads/macintosh/0269.php

 

The idea that Apple might have picked a different name for a product line being sold a different way or through a differentchannel isn't particularly surprising, in that sense.

 

The thing I'd love to see more of is what software bundles or hardware bundles looked like, advertising material, perhaps even reviews of the machines. Contextr stuff, basically.

 

You can look at this stack and go "oh, I know what a 6200/75, a 7200/90, a 7500/100 and an 8500/120 are" and be correct, but that's an interesting grouping in the sense that, realistically the 6200 wasn't considered in with the 7200/7500/8500 in most contexts in the US. To the extent that it existed as a Power Macintosh, I don't think Apple really gave it its fair due in that market, mostly because the 7200 is the real successor to the 6100 and the 630 is the base model home computer during the time of the 6100, 7100, and 8100. And, as far as I can tell, 630s and 8100s or 630s and 840s weren't really ever sold directly next to one-another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2019 at 11:57 PM, mrpippy said:

Found an old Usenet post which said that it was a special product line customized for businesses, like Performa was for consumers here in the US

 

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/fj.sys.mac/NYZC-J8cFnU/htOow4WdijEJ

That's interesting. I wonder why there are no records of this? You'd figure hardcore Apple geeks would have been in the know. Maybe it was a very specifically targeted campaign aimed at the Asian business market? I doubt most office drones bother to look at the make/model of their computer, let alone remember what they used nearly 30 years ago, so this particular bit of history is nearly lost to time unless someone manages to turn up some sales material referencing these machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

The thing I'd love to see more of is what software bundles or hardware bundles looked like, advertising material, perhaps even reviews of the machines. Contextr stuff, basically.

 

You can look at this stack and go "oh, I know what a 6200/75, a 7200/90, a 7500/100 and an 8500/120 are" and be correct, but that's an interesting grouping in the sense that, realistically the 6200 wasn't considered in with the 7200/7500/8500 in most contexts in the US. To the extent that it existed as a Power Macintosh, I don't think Apple really gave it its fair due in that market, mostly because the 7200 is the real successor to the 6100 and the 630 is the base model home computer during the time of the 6100, 7100, and 8100. And, as far as I can tell, 630s and 8100s or 630s and 840s weren't really ever sold directly next to one-another.

They probably came with ClarisWorks and Claris Emailer (if it wasn't bundled in the same suite) and maybe some third-party apps. Maybe that was the big selling point wit these: a large third-party library specifically tailored to business. Either way I have no idea; the one I bought comes with just the bare unit and I'm 90% sure the hard drive will be gone.

 

Anyway I'd imagine the 6200 was grouped in for the people/businesses whose only demands were that it be PPC at the lowest price point, same as the reason it was built in the first place: cheapest PPC they could make, but also widely compatible with hardware and software they already own. Apparently a lot of these things didn't even come with a keyboard, just a mouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

3 hours ago, Franklinstein said:

I'd imagine the 6200 was grouped in for the people/businesses whose only demands were that it be PPC at the lowest price point

That's a valid use case even in the US. To the extent that the "Power Macintosh" 6200 sold at all, it was to that same market, since a 6200 was still several hundred less than a 7200.

 

The 6200 is, as we know, not really anywhere near as bad as a machine as it's made out to be. It performs around as well as the 6100 and it was hundreds less than *that* madhine was upon its (the 6200's) introduction.

 

3 hours ago, Franklinstein said:

Apparently a lot of these things didn't even come with a keyboard, just a mouse.

That's normal for the Power Macintosh market. Keyboard didn't become 100% standard equipment in the Mac lineup until 1997 or 1998 when the Beige G3s were introduced and all the old models were discontinued (so, 1998 when the 9600 was finally killed.)

 

3 hours ago, Franklinstein said:

Maybe that was the big selling point wit these: a large third-party library specifically tailored to business.

That was specifically the way I read it in the newsgroup article that was shared. Performa-like bundles, but for a particular business need.

 

I believe there were one or two 630/6200 variants that were business bundles, and of course there were the 4400/6500 business bundles.

 

Re ClarisWorks/Emailer bundles, a couple non-performa machines in the US ended up with lite software bundles like that, the PB1400 in particular, probably a couple others (LCs and Classic/CC often had clarisworks bundled back in those days too) so if the machine was specifically intended to  be an easy start, I can see that. That particular practice died off by the mid '90s in the US so I can see it as a nicety as a Performa Lite bundle.

 

That said, if the market they were selling into was expected to have a large existing Macintosh ecosystem, the performa bundle usually wasn't needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Cory5412 said:

The 6200 is, as we know, not really anywhere near as bad as a machine as it's made out to be.

Indeed! I’ve got the “Performa” branded version and it’s a great Mac. Never really understood why it’s such a hated model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The abridged back-story on that is that in 1997 when Low End Mac was first going, Dan Knight was (correctly) dispensing the advice that if you were paying a couple hundred for a used computer, the 6200 was the worst of what was available. This is reasonable advice for 1997-2003, but instead of just leaving it there, and later acknowledging that after around 2003 or so even a 7200 or 8500 wasn't a good machine any more, the legend of how bad this particular machine grew.

 

Since then, there have been at least a half dozen other editorials about the 6200 specifically, all on LEM, all of which outright fabricate utterly ridiculous infromation. "left 32" and "right 32?" somebody had to outright invent that. It makes literally no sense. And it's not like the 6200's developer notes were ever hard to find.

 

There were a couple actual problems with the 6200/5200, which Apple fixed via recall, at which point Apple also put some extra RAM in the machines it serviced, because in 1995 8 megs is barely enough to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah we've been down this road with the 52/62xx before. In summary: LEM wrote a bunch of crap on the internet that a lot of people (including myself those many years ago) initially took seriously, and then some guy wrote a rebuttal that's more correct but still has errors, but the long and short of it is that in truth the 52/62xx is essentially a Quadra 63x with a built-in PPC upgrade, so there are several bottlenecks present that hamper performance due to the extensive cost-cutting and/or drive for backwards compatibility. Also, the 603 with its 8k+8k split cache was too small to hold the 68k emulator in L1, so performance with 68k code suffered. If either the L1 was a unified 16k, as it was in the 601 (though the 601 had 32k unified), or it was larger, as it is with the 603e's 16k+16k, 68k code emulation performance would have been vastly improved. This is why the later 53/63xx boards with 100 or 120MHz 603e processors felt so much faster despite being architecturally identical.

That being said, the 52/62xx wasn't really that bad unless you were running exclusively 68k programs, and even then they were still at least as fast as the 68k boxes they replaced. Could it have been better? Sure, if you wanted to spend more money. But if you wanted to spend more money, you'd get a 7200 or 7500. These were also built with both CS and LC PDS slots in addition to (two unpaired) 72-pin RAM slots, so you can take your old Quadra 630 or LC 575, pull out its extra RAM and expansion cards (except the IIe card; those won't work here), and drop them into your new 52/62xx. An excellent choice for business or education customers with legacy devices they could reuse for additional cost savings.

 

Anywho, pictures are below. You'll notice that, aside from the badging on the front, there's nothing special about this thing: it's a 62xx/75 by a different name. As I figured, the hard drive was gone, so there's no telling what may have been installed on it. It does come with both the TV tuner and A/V input card, though, which I figure would be a little out of place on an office drone's work computer. 

IMG_5142.JPG

IMG_5143.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Performa 6300 I got in 95 or so as a kid was not “bad.” It ran games well, allowed for word processing and even photoshop. I am sure heavy graphics and math wouldn’t be great, but that didn’t apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My recent revelation: not that long ago I discovered that PPC architecture runs 68k programs in emulation (better late than never I guess...). Our Performa 6218CD came with a metric cr*p tonne of software, some of it 68k and not fat, most notably The Even More Incredible Machine.

 

It ran like cold molasses in January, even slower than a school computer I installed in on briefly before getting caught... "Don't copy that floppy..." And it bugged me to no end. Later it ran perfectly well on our iMac DV...

 

Flash forward to getting my turbo IIsi and I'm playing TIM and it's snappy and barely slowed down even when multiple things like bouncing objects are going all over the screen. Wait, what? Then I watched a video about the first Power Macs and my"bad" family computer didn't seem that "bad."

 

 

That's an interesting machine/rebadge. As a child, knowing less than I do now, I was fascinated by missing ports. It would've sent be through the roof to see a decked out 62xx machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 6300 (as well as later/faster versions of the PB2300, 5300, and 1400, which all share the same architecture) do have more cache, which does help the 68k emulator issue.

 

Speed Doubler 8 as well as running as much PPC native stuff (including newer versions of the OS) should all help.

 

3 hours ago, Franklinstein said:

and then some guy wrote a rebuttal that's more correct but still has errors,

By that, do you mean http://www.taylordesign.net/classic-macintosh/the-mythical-road-apple/ or  http://www.taylordesign.net/classic-macintosh/a-response-to-the-mythical-road-apple/ ?

 

I'm curious as to what you mean by "still has errors"? As far as I know these articles are some of the best representation of the truth of the 6200 & Co: they're, as you say, a 630 with a PPC upgrade integrated, and that PPC upgrade got faster/better over the course of a few revisions.

 

1 hour ago, jessenator said:

most notably The Even More Incredible Machine.

I'll admit, I'm surprised (but also tbh completely unsurprised) Apple would bundle something they would/should have known would have been slow on the machine.

 

I wonder if somehow in their testing it ended up different or if this is an indication that Apple outright didn't test what they were bundling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

By that, do you mean http://www.taylordesign.net/classic-macintosh/the-mythical-road-apple/ or  http://www.taylordesign.net/classic-macintosh/a-response-to-the-mythical-road-apple/ ?

 

I'm curious as to what you mean by "still has errors"? As far as I know these articles are some of the best representation of the truth of the 6200 & Co: they're, as you say, a 630 with a PPC upgrade integrated, and that PPC upgrade got faster/better over the course of a few revisions.

Yeah thats it. Im not going to deconstruct the whole thing, but quick and obvious examples are where it says "L2 runs at processor speed," when L2 actually runs at logic board speed (37.5 or 40MHz), and missing that the Primetime II (III in the 6300) provides the '030 bus for both the LC PDS and CS slot, which can hamper performance if both cards are populated and used simultaneously. Then there's the fact that all of the comparisons were based on the improved 6300 when the original and primary gripe was with the 62xx (which he sort of hand-waves away at the end). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All or almost all of that was addressed in the response article, the second one I linked.

 

I'll have to look at the cache stuff.

 

In terms of 75MHz machine speed: I need to get a network card working in my 6200, but when I put 7.6.1 on it at a friend's house and we put IE5 and macbench on it, it was "Fine" - in MacBench 4 it turns in almost the same scores as a 6100/60. Given that that that's intended to be representative of ~1997's Mac productivity applications, that's "Fine" in 1995.

 

And really, in 1995, the 6200 launched at a bit over half what a 6100 cost, in a complete bundle, and it was as fast as the 6100 was. For a home computer, that's pretty reasonable.

 

(Yes, that's for PPC apps, but much of what came with the 6200's bundles was PPC or FAT, and PPC/FAT software was becoming increasingly common, it seems like this issue was only specifically problematic with a couple games from the time. Incredible Machine series has been mentioned a couple times.)

 

Almost more importantly, to the point about the origin of the legend of the 6200, which is Scott Barber and Dan Knight, from the perspective of "it's 1997-2000 and I'm in a Computer Renaissance" - the 6200 should be at an advantage compared to 1995 when it was new, because by then, you'd be able to put 8+, speeddoubler 8, and a fair amount of free/cheap native software (including internet tools) from magazine coverdiscs on it, and it would be "fine" for the duties expected of a cheap used machine at the time.

 

To the cache issue specifically, where does it specify what bus speed the cache runs at? In the dev note, the block diagram shows it being essentially directly connected very closely to the CPU, but doesn't appear to list a speed.

 

In addition, from page 14 of the dev note:

Quote

The 603 bus is connected directly to the main processor and runs at the same clock rate. An external 256 KB second-level cache and 4 MB of ROM attach directly to the 603 data bus and help to optomize system performance.

 

So, I think that Daniel Taylor is probably correct in saying the 256k cache runs at the full speed of the CPU. Apple certainly thought so, and wrote as much as their dev note.

 

here is the relevant part of the diagram:

image.png

Presuming here that the dark black line labeled P_D63-0 is the 603 bus, the one that runs at 75MHz in the 5200/6200.

 

2 hours ago, Franklinstein said:

Then there's the fact that all of the comparisons were based on the improved 6300 when the original and primary gripe was with the 62xx

LEM, and subsequently, others, categorize the faster 100MHz+ systems based on this architeture in the same way and (incorrectly) list all of the same limitations on those machines as the 6200. It's definitely worth noting that Daniel Taylor's experiences from the '90s were on a 6300, but it doesn't invalidate anything he wrote.

 

2 hours ago, Franklinstein said:

the Primetime II (III in the 6300) provides the '030 bus for both the LC PDS and CS slot, which can hamper performance if both cards are populated and used simultaneously. 

Curious: In what scenarios does this come up? What combination can create a performance impact?

 

And, is that combination likely to have been used in any high amount in 1995?

 

And, given that you can have five complete 6200 systems including productivity software, displays, keyboards/mice and usually printers and/or modems for the cost of a single bare 9500, do you think it actually matters, at all?

 

Apple's own dev note (granted, this isn't like, "marketing material" or anything a store clerk would have been able to clarify in 1995, but they wouldn't have been sure about this re compatibility between, say, an LCII and a 630 either, *and* the implication in the text is that the PrimeTime in the original 630 did the same thing, meaning this specific limitation/situation isn't even new to the 6200, it's the second generation to have this consideration, since the LCPDS is technically an 020/030 PDS slot and the 640 is of course an '040 system) suggests that there are compatibility issues, but doesn't say anything about performance.

 

Anyway, extremely curious as to which card combinations display performance issues, especially compared to any other LC-class 030 system equipped with either an internal modem or Ethernet. (Actually, a 575 comparison could be interesting, but I wouldn't be surprised if it also has PrimeTime or something like it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try running a 68k version of MacBench on the 6100 and original 62xx for comparison. The only valid complaint against these machines is that 68k emulation suffered on the 6200 compared to its contemporaries or successor models, and if MB4 is a fat binary or PPC native you won't not notice the effect with a native PPC comparison with the 6100. 

 

Nothing outside of supercomputers ran external cache at CPU speed, ever, at least not once CPU speed started to decouple from bus speeds in 1990-something. No way Apple was going to pay for 100MHz SRAMs for a bargain basement computer. If they could even get 100+MHz SRAMs in 1995, they would have put them in the 9500. Guess what? They didn't: the 9500 ran its L2 between 40 and 50MHz depending on processor bus speed. All Apple L2 caches ran at logic board bus speed until the 9600/300 and 350, which had specially designed processor cards that ran the onboard L2 cache at 100MHz (while ignoring the slower logic board cache), which is still far less than the 300/350MHz of the processor clock. Then of course there were the G3s and G4s with backside caches, and those never ran faster than 50% of clock speed, usually less. The whole point and largest benefit of an L2 cache is to have low-overhead SRAM memory (read: no refresh cycles required) available directly to the processor without having to go through/wait for other chips or narrower buses to get there. The 603 processor can only talk to external devices including L2 cache at logic board bus speeds, especially since not only is L2 directly on the 60x bus in these machines, but so is the ROM and Capella, and I guarantee none of those are capable of 100MHz operation.

 

As for a bottleneck between CS and LC PDS? I never said this was an exclusive problem for the 6200; it affects anything with Primetime including the Q630 and LC 575. Two networking cards could be problematic, if it was even possible to use legacy Mac OS simultaneously on two different domains or network types. Or CS Ethernet and a PDS video card. Or on the 575, CS Ethernet and a IIe card. It's not likely a problem anyone would encounter often, but there's the potential for degradation if both slots were active simultaneously, especially since they're both only 16MHz slots that may share the same '030 bus (the dev note isn't terribly clear if it's two '030 buses or one shared) and the Primetime has other things to do in addition to managing both expansion slots. 

 

My point was that there were a few errors or omissions in the guy's page, not that every word he typed was wrong; its still better than the LEM BS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small correction regarding full-speed external caches:

It could technically be argued that the Pentium Pro uses an external cache, because the cache and CPU are built individually on two separate dies, but I contend that it doesn't: this cache is built in the same process as the CPU and the two are ultimately bonded together in the same processor module. They are intertwined to such a degree that any error in bonding or in either die rendered the entire module as scrap; it couldn't be reworked, unlike a faulty memory module mounted externally. Thus, I define the PPro's cache as internal.

 

The Slot 2 Pentium II and III Xeons used a similar approach: the CPU and cache modules are both built on the same process as the CPU but this time all of the chips are attached to a carrier board on a special full-speed cache bus. These are proper external caches running at full processor speed, but nothing else in the system is on this bus or runs at this speed except the L2 cache; everything else is accessed by the 100MHz FSB (the later 133MHz FSB PIII Xeons use small on-die L2 caches, negating the argument and ultimately the need for a slot-based processor).

 

Regardless, both processors were targeted at the maximum performance money-is-no-object end of the IT field and both ended up in a variety of Top 500 Supercomputers (such as Sandia's ASCI Red) while the 603 was used in zero, so I wasn't totally inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

To the cache issue specifically, where does it specify what bus speed the cache runs at? In the dev note, the block diagram shows it being essentially directly connected very closely to the CPU, but doesn't appear to list a speed.

 

In addition, from page 14 of the dev note:

 

So, I think that Daniel Taylor is probably correct in saying the 256k cache runs at the full speed of the CPU. Apple certainly thought so, and wrote as much as their dev note.

Actually, nowhere in that entire Dev Note does it mention system bus speed, so I can understand where there may be some confusion because of this omission; totally Apple's fault here. This is amended in the later 6300's Dev Note (again, the guy's using the 6200's Dev Note to talk about the 6300) but for reference, the 52/62xx uses a 37.5MHz system bus. This bus clock, provided by a single oscillator and central clock generator chip, is used by the processor for its external transactions (internally it is clocked at 2x bus), and it is also the base clock for Capella and F108 and by extension the L2 cache and system RAM. The clock generator chip provides Primetime with a separate 16MHz clock to run the CS/LC PDS slots, in addition to various other clock frequencies used throughout the system.

 

According to Motorola's user manual for the 603, this is a non-standard and unsupported configuration: the 603 is designed to only run at 1, 2, 3, or 4x bus speed, with a variety of supported bus speeds. However, 37.5 is not one of them; the 75MHz part is designed to be run at 3x a 25MHz bus. while the fastest 1:1 speed available for the 603 is 66MHz. In addition, no Apple support chips in existence at that time could operate beyond 50MHz, let alone up to 66MHz. If they did, don't you think the 9500 would operate at the same speed? Why would their flagship have slower parts than their cheapest machine?

 

Anyway the later 53/63xx is the same except it has a standard 40MHz system bus and now the 603e supports half multipliers, which is how we get 100MHz clocks from a 40MHz base (40x2.5). The rest of the clocks and Primetime's operation are still the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Franklinstein said:

Regardless, both processors were targeted at the maximum performance money-is-no-object end of the IT field and both ended up in a variety of Top 500 Supercomputers (such as Sandia's ASCI Red) while the 603 was used in zero, so I wasn't totally inaccurate.

 

But isn't the 603 more akin to a Celeron than a Pentium II/Pentium III? The higher end x86 boxes were the Pentium II and Pentium III, while your home consumer model was typically a Celeron or K6. The higher end Macs used a 604/604e while there lower end were a 603/603e. 

 

You could get something more consumer like a 7300 with a 604e just like you could get higher end consumer boxes with a Pentium II/III. Both cheaper than the full blown HP Kayak or Powermac 9500.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my own experience but I saw just as many PII/III boxes back in the day in use at home as I did Celerons and AMD K5/K6/etc chips.  Actually the AMDs were really not all that popular until the Athlon series came out.  From then on 2-3 years, it was probably 80% AMD chips in consumer PCs that I saw but the vast majority were HP machines.  

 

Most of the Celeron based machines I worked on were used in K-12 education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the best Mac equivalent to the Celeron is a couple 6400/4400 and 7200 models that shipped without L2 cache.

 

The 6200/6300 all did. I still haven't had a chance to look at the 6300 developer note to see what Apple said there. As far as I know, Apple never published a revision to the 6200 note, so it's possible that the speeds of the 603 bus are different from the two models.

 

Notably, the only things on the 603 bus are the CPU itself, the Calpella, and the ROM/Cache, so none of the existing chips from the 030/040 platforms involved in the 630/6200/6300 platform need to run at "very" high speed. Those buses (the '040 bus connecting Calpella to PrimeTime I/II/III, F108, and Valkryie, and the '030 PDS and i/o stuff coming out of Primetime II run at) run at their own speeds. The developer note for the 6200 does also state the speed of the 603 bus (it says it's the same speed as the CPU frequency) and the i/o bus coming out of PrimeTime II, but it doesn't specify the frequencies of the 040 data/address buses.

 

It's possible that the 040 bus in this machine runs at 37.5MHz, but the 603 bus is disconnected, logically and physically, from the 040 bus and doesn't need to run at the same speed. As the Taylor Design article says, basically  Calpella/F108 is the northbridge and PrimeTime is the southbridge.

 

Everything I've seen of newer platforms suggests that when things like "using '030 PDS cards" isn't a concern then 

 

22 hours ago, Franklinstein said:

Two networking cards could be problematic,

Let's be ENTIRELY clear here: In a different subforum on this very site, somebody put a 10/100 NuBus ethernet card into a Quadra 950 with a powerPC upgrade and it wasn't meaningfully faster than the onboard  network interface.

 

I put a file on my big fast file server on my fully switched gigabit LAN and my blue-and-white G3 can't routinely break a couple megabits of download speed, in IE. (Netscape does a little better.)

 

Classic Mac OS is HORRIFYINGLY bad at networking.

 

That said - yes, in some cases (with router software, ASIP supports multihoming as well) two network interfaces are supported. That said, even a 6200 cost a lot more than a real switch or router even in 1995 so nobody would've done it.

 

22 hours ago, Franklinstein said:

 Or CS Ethernet and a PDS video card. Or on the 575, CS Ethernet and a IIe card. It's not likely a problem anyone would encounter often, but there's the potential for degradation if both slots were active simultaneously, especially since they're both only 16MHz slots that may share the same '030 bus (the dev note isn't terribly clear if it's two '030 buses or one shared) and the Primetime has other things to do in addition to managing both expansion slots. 

Ethernet/video could be an issue, but, what's NuBus like? there's machines with video, ethernet and their disk all hanging off an 020 or 030-based nubus interfaces.

 

Ethernet+IIe card is a desirable configuration, but I have it on reasonably good authority (I asked a person who is deep in 8-bit Apple II) about it and he says this configuration is officially unsupported. "Apple says it won't work."

 

I have never seen any english-speaking Mac user use pretty much anything other than network or IIe card in an LCPDS slot. I'm well aware that other cards existed -- even outside of Japan -- but to my knowledge the installed base is pretty much zero, relative to the number of these machines that both were in use when they were new/current/relevant and now, in a "vintage" contxt.

 

Given the local love for the Color Classic and the existence of the CCII, I'm not at all going to be surprised to hear that this specific thing is different in Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×