16 Nov
2001
16 Nov
'01
12:27 p.m.
With a
half-GB HDD, which was "stock" with the '630,
Actually the 630 came stock with a 250mb drive. The 631 had the 500mb.
Others in the 63x series had either 250's or 350's.
I've got to say this was a
MINIMALLY equipped computer, though the popular functions all seem to be
there.
I'm not at all certain how they (Apple) got all that functionality out of the
clearly limited resources.
That is because, up until OS 8, the Mac OS needed very little to run.
When compared to Windows, the MacOS was AMAZINGLY fast, stable, and
compact. OS 8 changed the RAM requirements because it moved the Mac ROM
from the logic board, to the hard drive (and thus, into
RAM when the OS
was running). This caused a spike in the OS RAM requirements.
(7.5.5 can
run in 4mb, 7.6 in 8mb but 8.0 jumps to 32mb)
I do believe
the typical PC of the time had a larger (14") monitor
IIRC, the entire performa color screen line came a 14" monitor (various
revision, but all were 14... the 630 was probably the Performa Plus
display). So the larger monitor point isn't really valid.
yet overall system cost
was about 20% less than this model.
Yup.. ok, ya got me there. This was during the fairly obvious days of
Mac's being more expensive for what you got out of it (20% ?, you are
being nice)
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
16 Nov
16 Nov
1:16 p.m.
>I do believe
>the typical PC of the time had a larger (14") monitor
Marketed as 14" but with the same viewable image area as the Apple 13".
Apple was about the last company to switch to the inflated imaginary
monitor size instead of what the actual display screen size was.
A pleasant surprise to me was learning that LCD screens are marketed with
actual display size, so a 17" LCD is the same as a 19" tube, and that makes
prices more attractive.
3:34 p.m.
I know what you mean. However, when MY newly purchased "14-inch" monitor
didn't
display an image from covering the entire visible area of the tube, I simply
took it back and got a different sort of monitor. I'm looking at a low-cost 17"
monitor, my smallest, right now, and there's no unused glass on the crt showing.
Not everyone is as fussy as I, I guess, but I do look forward to when we'll all
be able to afford 20" flat panel displays. I say that having acquired a number
of large CRT displays once-upon-a-time, when they certainly cost more than
equivalent flat panels cost today.
I've nursed a couple of the 19- or 20-inchers for a decade and a half, giving
some of them away when they became sufficiently low in contrast or sufficiently
nonlinear to annoy me. Of course, I tried a number of fixed-frequency types
because they appeared to be cheap enough, but they turned out otherwise once one
factored in the cost of a display adapter with firmware dedicated to the
specific sync pattern required for that particular monitor.
When did the practice of limiting the size designation of a given monitor to
something smaller than what the tube presented? It seems as though a tube with
a diagonal of 14.001" is a 15-inch monitor, as is one with 14.75" on the
diagonal. When they rate the "viewable" area, what they often mean is the part
of the glass you can see, not the part that you can use for your display. If
often requires tampering with the internals of the monitor to get a decent
utilization of the front face of the tube.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Ford" <mikeford(a)socal.rr.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: OT: paging MAC expert(s) --- What's a Performa?
>I do
believe
>the typical PC of the time had a larger (14") monitor
Marketed as 14" but with the same viewable image area as the Apple 13".
Apple was about the last company to switch to the inflated imaginary
monitor size instead of what the actual display screen size was.
A pleasant surprise to me was learning that LCD screens are marketed with
actual display size, so a 17" LCD is the same as a 19" tube, and that makes
prices more attractive.
17 Nov
17 Nov
7:22 a.m.
When compared
to Windows, the MacOS was AMAZINGLY fast, stable, and
compact.
And cooperatively multitasked. Ewww. <ducks to avoid flames>
8:58 a.m.
I have some doubts about that multitasking ... the system seems to go away for
5 - 30 minutes, depending on what it's doing, and won't allow any mouse or
keyboard activity to interrupt what it's doing, which is a mystery. It does
come back eventually, though I've not checked it extensively. This sort of
event happens on both boxes, so I doubt it's broken hardware.
Not to create an issue, but under Windows, that doesn't often happen, though
it's possible, I guess. <ducks to avoid flames> What could be going on?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Kaiser" <spectre(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: OT: paging MAC expert(s) --- What's a Performa?
This is truly its greatest fault, yes. Do note, though, that one advantage of
having less software available means less shovelware. Despite being non-
preemptive, classic MacOS crashes much less because the software Macs run
is generally better quality. We don't have everybody and his brother writing
crap that crashes the machine, though we don't have all the good stuff either.
Of course, with OS X.1 now available, this critique too is no longer valid.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
When compared to Windows, the MacOS was AMAZINGLY
fast, stable, and
compact.
And cooperatively multitasked. Ewww. <ducks to avoid flames> Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University *
ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter
Winchell ---------------------------
6:14 p.m.
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
I have some doubts about that multitasking ... the
system seems to go away for
5 - 30 minutes, depending on what it's doing, and won't allow any mouse or
keyboard activity to interrupt what it's doing, which is a mystery. It does
come back eventually, though I've not checked it extensively. This sort of
event happens on both boxes, so I doubt it's broken hardware.
Here's a thought.
Disable file sharing, and set the default Appletalk connection to the
built-in printer port. These can be set in the "File Sharing" and
"Appletalk" control panels, respectively.
ok
r.
6:33 p.m.
This box has been at it (rebuilding desktop file) since 2:30 this afternoon and
hasn't yet finished booting. I suspect there's a problem, as it previously took
only a minute or two. It won't let me do anything other than shut down. I've
rebooted it once, and it simply went back to what is was doing, which doesn't
seem to be leading anywhere.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "r. 'bear' stricklin" <red(a)bears.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: OT: paging MAC expert(s) --- What's a Performa?
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> I have some doubts about that multitasking ... the system seems to go away
for
5 - 30
minutes, depending on what it's doing, and won't allow any mouse or
keyboard activity to interrupt what it's doing, which is a mystery. It does
come back eventually, though I've not checked it extensively. This sort of
event happens on both boxes, so I doubt it's broken hardware.
Here's a thought.
Disable file sharing, and set the default Appletalk connection to the
built-in printer port. These can be set in the "File Sharing" and
"Appletalk" control panels, respectively.
ok
r.
8285
days inactive
8286
days old
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
edick＠idcomm.com -
jss＠subatomix.com -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
mythtech＠Mac.com -
red＠bears.org -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu