Jump to content
joshc

Mac 128K factory photos

Recommended Posts

Found this great page full of high quality photos of the original factory and people working on the 128K Macs:
 

http://jplaffont.photoshelter.com/gallery/MACINTOSH-APPLE-FACTORY/G00009wivwJhB1_Q/C0000F9K_VeMs9DI

 

It's interesting how many people seem to be doing work on the machines, I thought the factory could produce a Mac every 27 seconds?

Edited by joshc

Share this post


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

It's interesting how many people seem to be doing work on the machines, I thought the factory could produce a Mac every 27 seconds?

27/sec was a production goal, and from what I've read, was not regularly achieved. 

 

The other important metric is that it took about 26 minutes to assemble a Macintosh.

 

Probably most of us here could reassemble our Macintosh in less time than that, but recall that the factory workers didn't have all the parts on one table all around them, and plus they had to stuff the motherboard with ICs, and you'll see from those photos there was some soldering work to be done too.

Edited by Dog Cow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Dog Cow some good info there!

 

@jessenator I know, hard to believe but it definitely looks that way!

 

I never appreciated how much work went into these machines - so much more set up involved than today.

 

Does anyone know what the suction cup device is that is shown in a few photos? http://jplaffont.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/MACINTOSH-APPLE-FACTORY/G00009wivwJhB1_Q/I0000pfew3Pbc91U/C0000F9K_VeMs9DI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jessenator said:

Could it be like a lupe (magnifier) for CRTs? something to check the calibration settings?

Yes, it was a calibration tool. They needed to set alignment, focus, screen size (to get precise WYSIWYG), and brightness. All these were calibrated at that factory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Self portrait of the photographer with what appears to be an early Plus

 

the floppy drive on the right is a 400k unit. 

 

The keyboard is short, and there is no label on the front casing. 

 

So my guess is rather a 128 or 512k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bibilit said:

Self portrait of the photographer with what appears to be an early Plus

 

the floppy drive on the right is a 400k unit. 

 

The keyboard is short, and there is no label on the front casing. 

 

So my guess is rather a 128 or 512k

The early Plus models did not have the label on the front casing, so looked the same as the 128K/512K to my knowledge.

 

However as you have rightly pointed out, the accessories match the 128K/512K not the Plus, so it could well be a 128K/512K upgraded to a Plus, as seem to be quite common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that whoever wrote the caption doesn't even know what date the photo was taken. Circa 1986. Chances are, the person who wrote the caption also got the computer model wrong, and it's a Mac 128K or 512K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Dog Cow. 

 

The Plus had the label next the Apple logo, IIRC only the 128/512 k series had no label at all. 

 

The Apple logo in the square surround was only seen in the early series, not the Plus. 

 

Of course, a Plus Logic board can be present, but a rear casing and front sticker should also be there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree too, but the Plus 'sticker' would not be there with a Plus upgrade. I have a 128K upgraded to Plus and the front bezel was kept as the original with no modifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given:

  1. I have two Pluses that are, from the front, indistinguishable from 512Ks, including the keyboard and mouse;
  2. This isn't at all uncommon, as far as I know, mine are completely unremarkable;
  3. This is a self-portrait of someone on their own website that they appear to roughly maintain themselves;
  4. Their memory, while doubtless faulty, is probably a better guide than completely random speculation on the Internet;

There's no particular reason why this can't be a Plus, is there?  The idea that the photographer would be completely wrong about a computer that they cared enough about to put in a pretty prominent position on their website and that randomers on the Internet know better seems a little... odd to me, honestly.  And if the question is 'was this photo taken before or after the Plus was upgraded?' then that information is so far lost to time that it's basically meaningless.

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

×