>Anyway, don't dishonor the Mac II, which was a fine machine for its
>day, by saying that the LC is a close relative. :-)
OK, OK, I see that I deserved that, at least to some extent, for
having made the mistake of closely comparing the LC and the II. I was
paraphrasing Everymac.com and some other website (Apple Museum, Apple
History?) when I said that, but the exact quote was that they were
"distant cousins". And now I realize that just because they were the
only two 68020-based Macs doesn't mean they were really related.
Also, I did understand that both the LC and LC II were hamstrung by
their 16-bit data paths, but for some reason I was under the mistaken
impression that it was a much more severe hindrance for the LC II,
with its 68030, than it was for the LC with its 68020. I stand
corrected.
But hey, Trag, c'mon dude! It wasn't like I was trying to recommend
the LC to someone who needs to run major apps on System 7 with a lot
of RAM, etc! {-D
>The marketing weenies were probably pressuring the engineering folks
>to build a machine that wouldn't compete with the IIsi and the
>abominable LC is what we got.
Yeah, that's exactly what it was. They had the IIsi and the Mac
Classic out at the same time and they wanted to position this sucker
right in between. I do agree with you that Apple applied overkill to
the process of "dumbing down" the LC so it wouldn't compete with the
IIsi, but at least they admitted the reason for its existence in its
very name. It was never the kind of machine that would please us
power users, but they weren't aiming for us when they made it. God
knows how many schools had those things. Even colleges- one of the
ones I picked up came from UNC-Greensboro's Physics and Astronomy
Department.
>Basically, the LC could be a better machine with exactly the same
>hardware, if the ROM was better written. It could be a pretty good
>machine, albeit a little more expensive with a wider data bus. [...]
>It didn't become what it should have been until the LC III.
I agree, but unfortunately the LC III doesn't run System 6. If it
did, I'd never have mentioned the LC, and neither would I be using
one for my own System 6 project.
I know I tend to make a habit out of defending the real low-level
machines, usually the ones in pizza boxes (Mark Benson, little help
here!) I use two 6100s that I'm very loyal to- they're kinda like the
workhorse mules in a barnyard of racehorses. So I won't go on about
the LC too much here, other than to say that when LowEndMac made it a
Road Apple, it was with two bullets ("compromised; nice computers as
long as you are aware of their limitations") not three ("fairly
compromised", like the Mac TV or IIvx) or even four ("avoid at all
costs", the Performas 52xx-62xx). And you know, I just noticed that
the IIfx itself is a one-bullet Road Apple- at the same time they
rated it a Best Buy! Go figure.
All I was saying was, for what Oob's dad wants to do, I think a 20MHz
LC with 10MB of RAM running System 6 should be sufficient, and save
him the trouble of paying shipping for a larger machine, or trying to
track one down locally.
--
Vintage Macs is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and...
Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Enter To Win A |
-- Canon PowerShot Digital Cameras start at $299 | Free iBook! |
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
Vintage Macs list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/vintagemacs.shtml>
The FAQ: <http://macfaq.org/>
--> 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/vintage.macs%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
