Peter, this All depends on your perspective. First let me address the design issues:
> From: Jack Gallemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > the Classic II is the pinnacle of > what the compact began as. Thinking back to the 128k, the Classic II > maintained the design ideas of the original more that the SE/30 > did..(IMHO) I totally agree with this. For me the Mac is represented more by a design achievement (both in case styling and GUI development) rather than technical hardware expandability or speed. When the Classic II came out, most of the PC world were still using cheap clone boxes that were best hidden under a desk or monitor stand and DOS was the king of the workplace -- if you were lucky you had an amber monochrome monitor. Even in 1992, a Mac Plus outperformed a typical DOS machine in style, interface and basic capabilities -- at least you could easily work with graphics. In my opinion, the SE series compacts were BUTT UGLY! They were covered in dust gathering details that were nothing more than a contradictory egotistical creation of Hartmut Esslinger, Apple's excessively expensive sub-contracted designer, whose arrogance was only exceed by Job's. So much so that he routinely accepts credit for the original Mac design created by Jerry Manock and Terry Oyama. His designs reflect everything the Mac isn't. The Classic returns the compact to it's design origins which allowed the Color Classic to expand on -- what a nightmare it would have been had it been based on the SE. IMHO. :-) BTW, the SE/30 design was a complete bastardization being one of Apple's first attempts to modify Esslinger's "Snow White" design language to move into a pure Apple design style. So, as for being crippled. Yes RAM is limited, yes there is no expansion, yes the data bus is slower. But that's about it. The Classic II was a lot less expensive, had a better case design and had a sound input! SO then I have to ask, what were people using their compacts for at the time that they needed all that the SE/30 offered? Ethernet capability. OK, I'll concede that that's an odd item missing from it given that the original Classic has a built-in network workstation in it's ROM. But that's easily solved using a SCSI based Ethernet adapter widely available. What-else? External video? OK, but the PowerBook was just coming into its own for portable presentation purposes. Accelerators ... OK, you got me. But let's be real. Even at the time, though the ability to extend the life of a purchase via upgrades makes it more valuable, like discovering a use for the computer years after you bought it, then finding you can't simply add to your investment to do it. But the Compact was already on the way out and being relegated to college dorm rooms, home users and markets where computing space was at a premium. The Color Classic likely only had an expansion slot because it was already part of the LC logic board it shared with the higher end 5xx series. Otherwise it was just as crippled as the Classic II. As a word processor, e-mail or bookkeeping device -- it's a great Mac. Every bit as good as the SE/30. By today's standards, and even at the time (if you could afford it), If you needed a Mac for color, expandability, speed, internet, networking, portability, etc. there are and were simply better choices than a B&W Compact Mac! Finally, expansion is overrated in hindsight. Again, by today's standards we can look back and see that while a stock SE/30 compared to a Classic II is a much better investment, the more gear you add onto an SE/30 extended its useful life, but compromised its performance compared to the Mac-type you were upgrading/expanding to keep up with. At the time, cost made it a necessity, today, it has little relevance to the choice. Perspective is everything. So when you try to to rate a Compact Mac by the best over all, I say it cannot be done empirically, because so much of the Mac experience is existential in nature, based solely on what the individual's needs are weighed against personal aesthetics. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder and for some it is the compact elegance of monster expansion, for others it is graceful arcs that frame the world's greatest GUI. It's like buying a house: if you have one that is built on a large lot but not much to look at, a purely utilitarian design and you're planning on having a huge family, you are excited by the expansion aspects of adding extra bedrooms as you need them. On the other hand, you have one on a small lot, but it's a custom built with great curb-appeal and a floor plan that suits your current lifestyle, you are excited by the prospect of relaxing there on the weekends and will worry about upgrading to a new house when you are ready to start a family. Which is better? > From: Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I've never actually used the Compact II, but wasn't it kind of a > crippled beast? Yeh, I know the SE/30 was a bit crippled too by the > ROM, but apart from that I don't know how you could do a better > original-style Mac. > > So... I'm actually interested in why you consider the Compact II better. -- Compact Macs is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/>. Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> Compact Macs list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/compact.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive:<http://www.mail-archive.com/compact.macs%40mail.maclaunch.com/> --------------------------------------------------------------- iPod Accessories for Less at 1-800-iPOD.COM Fast Delivery, Low Price, Good Deal www.1800ipod.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
