Sure, it was crippled compared to the SE and SE/30 in lacking an
expansion port. But, taken into context with the 128K/512K iterations,
it was right in line with the design aesthetics, which I see as being
an appliance level system. The SE and SE/30s seem to fall into more of
an expandable, multipurpose, system. The Classics (which were indeed
nostalgic turns for the early Macs, hence the name) seem to be designed
with simple tasks in mind (word processing, simple art, etc). Granted,
you could do a lot more with them, but I don't know if that was the
original plan for them. If you needed more power, you could get a more
powerful machine (Quadra 700 or 900 or the "wicked fast" IIfx).
I've always enjoyed simple yet complete systems. It also curbs my need
(desire?) to hop on eBay for extras and add-ons.
Jack
On Jul 11, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Peter da Silva wrote:
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
---------------------------------------------------------------
