Jump to content

Which B&W Compact Mac is the BEST?!?


Which B&W Compact Mac is the BEST?!?  

57 members have voted

  1. 1. Which B&W Compact Mac is the BEST?!?

    • 128K/512K/512Ke
      1
    • Plus
      9
    • SE/SE SuperDrive
      4
    • SE/30
      31
    • Classic
      4
    • Classic II
      4
    • None, I prefer Mac LC's
      4


Recommended Posts

Looks like I'm the only one to vote for the SE. Like most other peeps, I voted for the one I own. I'm sure the SE/30 pwnz the SE, but I like my SE FDHD lol!!

 

I'd like to get my mitts on something pre-SE or a colour compact Mac, like a Colour Classic.

 

LCs/Performas may be faster than Compacts, but they don't look so cute ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it's the SE/30 hands down. However, many of the previous posts now have me curious for the first runner up, the Classic II. I haven't ever played with the Classic II so I can't really say (I have played with the Classic I and you can keep it :p), but I do remember the SE/30 being quite fast for a compact Mac.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found it hard to choose between the SE/30 and the Classic II. They each have slight advantages in certain areas, but are more or less equal. I don't recall any upgrades being avalable for the Classic II, though, so in that regard I had to give the advantage to the SE/30.

 

I have three Pluses, btw. One platinum, one beige, and one that looks like a 128 or 512 that was converted using an Apple upgrade kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Classic II vs. SE/30. The SE/30 is faster. Not just a little bit faster; much faster. The Classic II crippled the bus; unforgivable, to my taste. Add to that the fact that the FPU is built-in (don't have to hunt for a rare and expensive add-on card), and the amazing 128MB ram ceiling, the SE/30 stands head and shoulders (er, crt and disk drives?) above the Classic II.

 

The SE/30 remains a quite usable Mac -- it can surf ok, it supports CD burners, and has that terrific form factor. Love it, love it, love it.

 

But yes, I still have a great fondness for the Plus. Although it can't do nearly as many things as its far more capable younger brother, it has a certain retro charm that is difficult to resist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I judge by my assessment of a machine's contribution to the "Macintosh phenomenon" :-)

 

Plus is therefore my choice.

 

Surely the original is the one that contributed the most to the "Macintosh phenomenon"? :p

Except it wasn't successful.

 

what do you mean it wasnt succesfull ?

it was succesfull enough to release the fatmac in 85 succesful enough to release the plus

it was succesfull enough to release the whole macintosh line with out the orginal you woudl not be here saying it was not succesfull and i woudl not be typing this on imac G5

 

sounds very succesfull to me

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean it didn't sell anything like what they'd hoped, and was pretty much unusable because of the memory and other limitations. You seem to be claiming it was successful just because it had successful progeny. Not much of a criterion to employ when trying to choose between them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I judge by my assessment of a machine's contribution to the "Macintosh phenomenon" :-)

 

Plus is therefore my choice.

 

Surely the original is the one that contributed the most to the "Macintosh phenomenon"? :p

Except it wasn't successful.

 

what do you mean it wasnt succesfull ?

it was succesfull enough to release the fatmac in 85 succesful enough to release the plus

it was succesfull enough to release the whole macintosh line with out the orginal you woudl not be here saying it was not succesfull and i woudl not be typing this on imac G5

 

sounds very succesfull to me

 

The 512 was released to address deficiencies in the 128 that were holding it back from being more successful, like the low memory and the super slow hard drive port that accessed at floppy drive speeds. The Plus was released to fix further deficiencies found in the 512. The original 128 wasn't even outselling the Apple II line and the early Macs were losing money for Apple. They may have been selling, but they were still negatively impacting Apple's profits, so from that perspective, they weren't successful until after enough improvements were made to call it the Plus. You only have to look at how long the 128 and 512 models were on the market and compare them to how long the Plus was. The Plus was their longest running Mac model, ever. They wouldn't have kept selling it in the numbers they did if it was losing money, so by measures of both sales and profits, the Plus was the first really successful Mac.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

No. Its only built-in expansion possibility (after a smidgin of RAM) is an FPU, on a card that makes hensteeth seem common. However, with an Asanté EN/SC adapter and System 7.5 or higher, it can talk to its fellows over ethernet at a dizzying 10Mb/s. The Classic II is remembered with affection in this household as an indefatigable workhorse for four years, but the palm still has to go to the SE/30 for sheer muscle, though the Classic II wins on any assessment of looks.

 

de

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...