Slashdot Mirror

I'd consider the "Digital Audio" G4s to be the best price/performance place for people looking for a cheap way to play around with OS X. Most of them came with Quickdraw Extreme-capable video cards and they all have at least a CD burner.

Just make sure you stock up on RAM [at least 512 IMO] and you'll have a smooth while not exactly rocket-powered OS X experience. The 466s seem to run around $500 on eBay.

How can Apple sell this mythical ipod device so cheap?

Easy, Apple can sell the unit at cost and make it up in $99 battery sales. If you live in Europe (and are a loyal Apple customer), you can even sign a petition asking them to please lower replacement battery prices. I personally won't buy anything from Apple until I know what the accessories and replacement parts cost.

So I suppose the release of the Twentieth Anniversary Mac in 1997 was due to some bug in the OS?

Yes, I know it was the twentieth anniversary of Apple, the company, but isn't the name a little ambiguous?

Actually, in just three weeks there will be a real anniversary of the introduction of the Macintosh - January 24th, 1984.

icab is crap, and no one uses it anymore.

iCab is impressive in the fact that it's essentially the work of one man. Two if you count the InScript (iCab's ECMAScript engine) developer. Until Opera got into the Mac scene, it was the number three GUI browser for the Mac, and it had implemented the link tag, which spurred Opera and then Mozilla to do so. With that in place, intelligent pre-fetching became possible, and Herr Clauss implemented that too. For these reasons alone iCab is important. Add that it's the only actively developed browser for Classic MacOS that I know of, and definitely the only actively developed browser for 68k Macs, and it is definitely worth mentioning. These niches may be small, but if you're in that niche, iCab is the most important browser out there. My mother-in-law has a 6100, and iCab is the only modern browser (broken ol' Netscape 4 is not really an option) she can run with acceptable speed.

The G5 is to the G4 as the Athlon 64 is to the Athlon XP. Apples to oranges (no pun intended).

Or maybe like the PowerPC to the 68k? If yes, then actually Apple has a (bad) record of making crippled machines with PowerPC stuffed into a 68k motherboard like the early performas. Much earlier, they also did put a 32-bit CPU on a 16-bit motherboard crippling the LC. Early adopters, beware; especially if you want to go the el cheapo way.

The G5 is to the G4 as the Athlon 64 is to the Athlon XP. Apples to oranges (no pun intended).

Or maybe like the PowerPC to the 68k? If yes, then actually Apple has a (bad) record of making crippled machines with PowerPC stuffed into a 68k motherboard like the early performas. Much earlier, they also did put a 32-bit CPU on a 16-bit motherboard crippling the LC. Early adopters, beware; especially if you want to go the el cheapo way.

well, they've done it in the past on the desktop model... when the g4 debuted the first model was the "yikes" line that was, essentially, a g4 chip on a g3 motherboard. it was a couple of months until the "sawtooth" line with the g4-specific mobo came out.

Original mac (128K, 512K, Plus, SE and SE/30) had no space for a hard drive inside.

I don't think so. My Macintosh SE had a 20 MB hard drive.

Yeah, poor Xerox! They were really on their way to shipping the "computer for the rest of us" when those guys from Apple busted into the ivory tower at the Palo Alto campus and convinced the researchers that they'd be much happier publishing papers and pursuing cutting edge technology free from market concerns than they would trying to deliver next big thing.

If only they had stuck to their gut instinct for consumer products.

Why not go after Bindows, or some of the other *indows clones ?

Perhaps you're thinking of the All-in-One G3? It's beige, and was an "old-world" machine, designed before Jobs and the "rebirth" of Apple.

I remember reading that the 56K limit was legal, not technical (and that this legal limit is actually something like 53K:

"In the U.S., the FCC places a power ceiling on phone lines of -12dbm average per 3 second interval. X2 modems work within this by restricting throughput to 53kbps in the U.S. X2 modems can theoretically work at 56k, although they are constrained to operate 5% slower than this in the U.S. (Some users have reported occasional connections past 53kbps.)"

(from this page

Which raises the question of just what it is you've got in your close, coz it must be an imposter :)

Really?

I remember the iMac dropping the floppy drive in 1998, three years before Dell made it an OPTION rather than removing it all together, where it still sits.

I also remember the iMac in 1998 having exactly ZERO legacy peripheral connectivity. Dell STILL is using PS/2, parallel, and serial COM ports, and on models that they aren't, guess what - there is still an ISA bridge in the chipset from Intel, and the IDE controller is sitting on it.

Even earlier than that, with the Power Macintosh 7200 / 8200 / 9200 series where they eradicated all internal connectivity in favor of PCI. In 1997. Dell didn't do this until late in the Pentium III models where they finally got rid of that last ISA slot that was on the bottom of the board.

The first two companies to standardize on Intel's PCI architecture were not using Intel processors. They were Apple (PowerPC) and DEC (Alpha). This is widely known.

Oh, and I guess that Apple didn't ship the 20th Anniversary Mac with an LCD screen in 1997 did they?

Care to try again?

Granted, these are all valid issues when learning a new interface, but with that thinking wouldn't we be better off using keyboards and f-keys with no mouses (after all, at one time you couldn't expect to regularly find a mouse on anything but a Mac)... or taken to an extreme - who would want to use a clinky keyboard where you have to type in everything when you can just re-use paper cards, and they stay sorted in their carts so neatly !

Not trying to discount your very valid points, but if there is one thing humans do well, it's learning a new trick (no matter how old the dog).

No, my point was that they should have gotten the biggest monitor they could have afforded back then (used 20 inchers were good, and cheaper than the computer), and a non-all-in-one Mac.

This is especially important for older users, whose eyes aren't so good any more: they need the biggest display they can afford, so they can read what's on the screen with a minimum of pain and strain. I'm only 42, and I find that I appreciate my old (late '80's) 21 inch Iiyama monitor more every year, so you don't have to be ancient for this to really matter.

Because your parents had an all-in-one, they had to keep it for eight years, and suffer with a tiny screen and a slow cpu the whole time. If your parents had put a big chunk of money into a monitor, and relatively little into the computer, then they wouldn't have had to keep the old box until they couldn't stand it any more. They wouldn't have had to suffer with a 640 by 480 screen for eight years, either. Their total cost for two computers and one decent monitor would probably have been slightly less than what they actually paid for one computer with a crappy monitor and one with a slightly better monitor[1].

Whether you buy PC or Mac, spend as much as you can on your monitor: it'll make every day you use your computer better, computer after computer after computer. Spend only as much as you must on your computer: the high-end ones become unusable as fast as the cheapies.

[1] This uses prices from Lowendmac.com.
The LC520 had a crappy display, and cost $2000 in 1993. The iMac was enormously better, but still not as good as the 19 to 21 inch monitor they could have gotten back in 1993 for close to $1000. They could have gotten a quadra 605 for $900 at the end of 1993, so a good 19+ inch monitor and a Mac for $2000 was doable. The Quadra had a 68040, too! Then, when you factor in the lower cost of a beige G3 some years later instead of the iMac, you begin to get savings as well as better equipment.

No, my point was that they should have gotten the biggest monitor they could have afforded back then (used 20 inchers were good, and cheaper than the computer), and a non-all-in-one Mac.

This is especially important for older users, whose eyes aren't so good any more: they need the biggest display they can afford, so they can read what's on the screen with a minimum of pain and strain. I'm only 42, and I find that I appreciate my old (late '80's) 21 inch Iiyama monitor more every year, so you don't have to be ancient for this to really matter.

Because your parents had an all-in-one, they had to keep it for eight years, and suffer with a tiny screen and a slow cpu the whole time. If your parents had put a big chunk of money into a monitor, and relatively little into the computer, then they wouldn't have had to keep the old box until they couldn't stand it any more. They wouldn't have had to suffer with a 640 by 480 screen for eight years, either. Their total cost for two computers and one decent monitor would probably have been slightly less than what they actually paid for one computer with a crappy monitor and one with a slightly better monitor[1].

Whether you buy PC or Mac, spend as much as you can on your monitor: it'll make every day you use your computer better, computer after computer after computer. Spend only as much as you must on your computer: the high-end ones become unusable as fast as the cheapies.

[1] This uses prices from Lowendmac.com.
The LC520 had a crappy display, and cost $2000 in 1993. The iMac was enormously better, but still not as good as the 19 to 21 inch monitor they could have gotten back in 1993 for close to $1000. They could have gotten a quadra 605 for $900 at the end of 1993, so a good 19+ inch monitor and a Mac for $2000 was doable. The Quadra had a 68040, too! Then, when you factor in the lower cost of a beige G3 some years later instead of the iMac, you begin to get savings as well as better equipment.

No, my point was that they should have gotten the biggest monitor they could have afforded back then (used 20 inchers were good, and cheaper than the computer), and a non-all-in-one Mac.

This is especially important for older users, whose eyes aren't so good any more: they need the biggest display they can afford, so they can read what's on the screen with a minimum of pain and strain. I'm only 42, and I find that I appreciate my old (late '80's) 21 inch Iiyama monitor more every year, so you don't have to be ancient for this to really matter.

Because your parents had an all-in-one, they had to keep it for eight years, and suffer with a tiny screen and a slow cpu the whole time. If your parents had put a big chunk of money into a monitor, and relatively little into the computer, then they wouldn't have had to keep the old box until they couldn't stand it any more. They wouldn't have had to suffer with a 640 by 480 screen for eight years, either. Their total cost for two computers and one decent monitor would probably have been slightly less than what they actually paid for one computer with a crappy monitor and one with a slightly better monitor[1].

Whether you buy PC or Mac, spend as much as you can on your monitor: it'll make every day you use your computer better, computer after computer after computer. Spend only as much as you must on your computer: the high-end ones become unusable as fast as the cheapies.

[1] This uses prices from Lowendmac.com.
The LC520 had a crappy display, and cost $2000 in 1993. The iMac was enormously better, but still not as good as the 19 to 21 inch monitor they could have gotten back in 1993 for close to $1000. They could have gotten a quadra 605 for $900 at the end of 1993, so a good 19+ inch monitor and a Mac for $2000 was doable. The Quadra had a 68040, too! Then, when you factor in the lower cost of a beige G3 some years later instead of the iMac, you begin to get savings as well as better equipment.

From Low End Mac .com "Offering up to twice the performance of the G3 and three times the power of a Pentium III at the same clock speed, the G4 was Apple's first serious pro computer after Steve Jobs became iCEO."
I could find more, but it's late, I'm tired, I have work tomorrow, and I assume you can use Google.

Be careful what permanent marker you use. Some say that depending on the kind of "oil" used in the ink it can "eat" through the disk eventually.

Brand makers are even labeling some as CD safe nowadays - I'd make sure that you look for one marked as such just to be safe on any important CD's.

Here's one article I found to elaborate a little more. Mac Lab Report

"...or yet another person, who's running Windows Me, and think "Wow, that person's a Republican"."

I guess that's why Limbaugh, G.W. Bush, and Tom Clancy use Macs, eh?

Info on conservative Mac users can be found here, but THIS Mac user says that using a Mac DOES equate to Communism...and that is a good thing, in his eyes.

Color Classic

Sure, it post-dates the MacII. But Apple did build color all-in-ones before the iMac.

It was a Powerbook 5300cs. I've got one, but the power connector came off the motherboard inside, and I haven't had time to open it up and solder it back on. I just hope aliens don't invade before the holidays...

The install was three disks long (when will they start offering a DVD?)

Oh yes, the users of fairly new (and fully supported) machines will be really happy with that. Apple can do it with OEM versions of MacOS, bundled with computers equipped with built-in DVD, but they SHOULD NOT do it with the boxed retail version.

I know! I mean, this company is a flock of ravenous vultures... just forcing those people who just bought their brand new Power Macs only 6 f**king years ago to upgrade, just to run the latest OS! I mean, if Microsoft ever dropped support for my 90MHz Pentium in Longhorn, I'd be so ticked, I'd have to slit my own wrists and cry, on my bed, in the dark.

You can find prices on older iBooks here, including both used and refurbished. Still not the same price as that Dell - macs just don't depreciate the same way.

Depends on what you need and where you look. Many readers of LEM are almost begging to give old hw/sw away so they don't have to throw it out. Before I moved this summer I had to throw away the guts of my C650...my first computer, purchased in fall 1993. That was a sad day. Other than the original hard drive dying, it worked fine.

I have an old PowerBook 540c in mint condition. From the specs:

- introduced 1994.05.16 at $4,840; discontinued 1995.08.26
- requires System 7.1.1 or later; highest version supported without a PPC upgrade is Mac OS 8.1.
- CPU: 33 MHz 68LC040
- FPU: none

I bought it in 1998 for $20. I even ran rc5 on it for a while, and it would take about 3 days to finish the smallest block (with the rc5-64 challenge). It was a real POS, but it was small and portable.

My first machine was a 486-33 (really 25mhz, but overclocked)with 4 megs of ram running win3.1. I used it all through 1994-1996 until i could afford a pentium 200, which i still have collecting dust.

The oldest i am still using is a generic k6-400. Hey, it runs win98 just fine for web browsing and e-mail checking.

I am using my Tandy 1000 RL (circa 1989?) as a monitor stand. Oh! Better yet, I'm using an Apple Power Macintosh 6100/66 as a monitor stand at work. It's from mid 1985.

A little off on the Mac date. The Power Mac 6100/66 was introduced in 1995, not 1985. In 1985, I was running my beloved, brand-new Apple //c, with 128kb of RAM and an internal 5.25" floppy drive, while my uncle (an engineer) was running a brand-new, super-expensive, super-powerful Macintosh -- no adjectives, since the Macintosh came out only the year before. How I wanted one of those!!

I still have my //c and some of the software for it, and it still works. The expensive RGB monitor that I got with it is still pretty nice, although tiny.

BTW, you're right, the Tandy 1000RL was in the late 80s/early 90s.

hm... can't help you there but the guys over at Low End Mac probably can - try subscribing to their "G list" if it isn't covered in an article somewhere

"legacy-free PCs" have been on the market since 1999.

What took them so long?

On LowEndMac.com, I read this on whether to buy a Mac G4 Dual 1.25Ghz, or a Mac G5 Dual 2GHz, and they found that the 2GHz had a better price/performance ratio. I can't compare it with a PC, though. However, my guess is that pitting it against an Opteron would give a similar price/performance ratio. Their Mac G5 page says CPU upgrades are "likely" in one place, and in another, it says accelerators (new CPUs) aren't likely, so I wouldn't hold my breath. All Mac towers after the "Yikes!" G4 (350-400MHz) have AGP (starting with the "Sawtooth" G4, available in 400-500MHz configurations), so you can throw in a GeForce FX 5900, which MURDERS a GeForce 4 Ti4200 (they don't seem to have Mac drivers for the GeForce 4 Ti series - only the GeForce FX and 4 MX series).

In the last season, Jerry had a 20th Anniversay Mac. That system was released in May of '97 (20th anniversary of Apple, not 20th anniversary of the Mac itself...) so it makes chronological sense that he'd have one in the '97-'98 final season. More info at http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/tam.shtml.

The problem is, Apple used to have lots of confusing model numbers.

Which is better, a 5400, a 6300, a 7200, or an 8100? Normal people couldn't figure that mess out. The only clear rule seemed to be that three-digit model numbers were m68k and 4-digit model numbers were PowerPC.

Then they introduced the PowerMac G3, and ditched model numbers entirely. This was around the time Apple acquired NeXT and Steve Jobs; I don't recall whether the naming of the G3 systems was before Jobs' arrival or not. In any case, under Jobs' reign, they're trying to keep things simple by using only the product names and (for PowerMacs and PowerBooks) the processor generation, e.g. iMac and PowerBook G4.

Of course there have been many revisions of each product over the years, and it is necessary to distinguish between models. Sometimes internal development code-names leak to the public and are widely used, such as "Yikes" and "Sawtooth" which refer to the motherboards used in the first and second versions of the PowerMac G4. Apple's official documented names for these systems are "PowerMac G4 (PCI Graphics)" and "PowerMac G4 (AGP Graphics)" and the way Apple recommends you tell them apart is that the headphone and microphone jacks are oriented horizontally on one, and vertically on the other.

There have been eight different models all named simply "iMac". They are very different machines - early models took PC66 SO-DIMMs, later models took standard PC-100 DIMMs, and the latest models have G4 processors and LCD displays.

Never mind that there have been several different processors, from both Motorola and IBM, that Apple calls simply "G3" or "G4". My eMac (original 700MHz model) apparently has a PowerPC 7450, according to the "hostinfo" command (Apple System Profiler doesn't even show it).

Apple hardware docs

The problem is, Apple used to have lots of confusing model numbers.

Which is better, a 5400, a 6300, a 7200, or an 8100? Normal people couldn't figure that mess out. The only clear rule seemed to be that three-digit model numbers were m68k and 4-digit model numbers were PowerPC.

Then they introduced the PowerMac G3, and ditched model numbers entirely. This was around the time Apple acquired NeXT and Steve Jobs; I don't recall whether the naming of the G3 systems was before Jobs' arrival or not. In any case, under Jobs' reign, they're trying to keep things simple by using only the product names and (for PowerMacs and PowerBooks) the processor generation, e.g. iMac and PowerBook G4.

Of course there have been many revisions of each product over the years, and it is necessary to distinguish between models. Sometimes internal development code-names leak to the public and are widely used, such as "Yikes" and "Sawtooth" which refer to the motherboards used in the first and second versions of the PowerMac G4. Apple's official documented names for these systems are "PowerMac G4 (PCI Graphics)" and "PowerMac G4 (AGP Graphics)" and the way Apple recommends you tell them apart is that the headphone and microphone jacks are oriented horizontally on one, and vertically on the other.

There have been eight different models all named simply "iMac". They are very different machines - early models took PC66 SO-DIMMs, later models took standard PC-100 DIMMs, and the latest models have G4 processors and LCD displays.

Never mind that there have been several different processors, from both Motorola and IBM, that Apple calls simply "G3" or "G4". My eMac (original 700MHz model) apparently has a PowerPC 7450, according to the "hostinfo" command (Apple System Profiler doesn't even show it).

Apple hardware docs

The problem is, Apple used to have lots of confusing model numbers.

Which is better, a 5400, a 6300, a 7200, or an 8100? Normal people couldn't figure that mess out. The only clear rule seemed to be that three-digit model numbers were m68k and 4-digit model numbers were PowerPC.

Then they introduced the PowerMac G3, and ditched model numbers entirely. This was around the time Apple acquired NeXT and Steve Jobs; I don't recall whether the naming of the G3 systems was before Jobs' arrival or not. In any case, under Jobs' reign, they're trying to keep things simple by using only the product names and (for PowerMacs and PowerBooks) the processor generation, e.g. iMac and PowerBook G4.

Of course there have been many revisions of each product over the years, and it is necessary to distinguish between models. Sometimes internal development code-names leak to the public and are widely used, such as "Yikes" and "Sawtooth" which refer to the motherboards used in the first and second versions of the PowerMac G4. Apple's official documented names for these systems are "PowerMac G4 (PCI Graphics)" and "PowerMac G4 (AGP Graphics)" and the way Apple recommends you tell them apart is that the headphone and microphone jacks are oriented horizontally on one, and vertically on the other.

There have been eight different models all named simply "iMac". They are very different machines - early models took PC66 SO-DIMMs, later models took standard PC-100 DIMMs, and the latest models have G4 processors and LCD displays.

Never mind that there have been several different processors, from both Motorola and IBM, that Apple calls simply "G3" or "G4". My eMac (original 700MHz model) apparently has a PowerPC 7450, according to the "hostinfo" command (Apple System Profiler doesn't even show it).

Apple hardware docs

The Performa 6116 was a decent box. The Performa 460 and the Performa 475 actually kicked all kinds of butt, particularly if you put a FPU into the P460 or a real 68040 into a P475. Now, the 52xx and 62xx/63xx Performas, OTOH, blew goats. Ruined the reputation of the PowerPC 603 and 603e, which actually were decent chips. Thanks a lot, Michael Spindler...

You know what would be nice? If Apple made the entire keyboard/mouse assembly on the PowerBooks swappable with an alternate design (or several alternatives.)

Ah, the Mac Portable complete with lead-acid battery. You could swap out modular keyboard components like numpads, trackballs, even an ashtray module.

Strangely enough, the portable wasn't that weird for 1989. The way laptops look now - keyboard pushed back, trackpad front center, wrist-rest layout, along with using a trackpad in lieu of a trackball - was first done on the original PowerBooks. Everyone does it now, of course.

Like they have been so many times before, Apple was there, did that, got the T-Shirt. The PowerBook 1400 had a clear plastic panel you could put a picture under for customization purposes. This was in October 1996.

If you want a prebuilt unit, I can verify that the Maxtor Personal Storage 5000XT works well. I have used it on several different Macs running OS X. No problems whatsoever.

Using large drives in Firewire enclosures may have been a problem at some point but I can assure you this is no longer the case (no pun intended).

Interesting. Support for M68K, M88K, HP-PA, Sparc, PPC, i386, I860, M88110...

Just what else do you want? Apple have OSX ready for FAR more than just the PPC boxes they're shooting with now.

There's a difference between "there's a list of strings in the kernel that bears a startling resemblance to the list of processors that NeXT and Apple have ever ported to" and "Apple has Mac OS X ready for that list of processors".

Let's look at the list:

1. M68K - NeXT's original machines were 68030-based
2. M88K, M88110 - I think NeXT were looking at building 88k-based machines at one point
3. HP-PA - there was a PA-RISC port of NeXTStEP
4. SPARC - there was a SPARC port of NeXTStEP
5. PPC - Macs capable of running Mac OS X use PowerPC processors
6. i386 - there was an x86 port of NeXTStEP, and there's also Darwin/x86

The only surprise to me in that list is i860.

(Yes, I know, that posting, especially with the "Apple have OSX ready for FAR more than just the PPC boxes they're shooting with now." statement - right, Apple's got Mac OS X ready to run on shiny new Motorola 88K workstations - is so silly it was probably a troll, and I bit. Oh, well....)

I also run OSX.2 on a beige G3, although I just use "office apps" and not Photoshop or Quark. Works happy enough, although you will lose the use of your internal floppy drive and local printers on the printer port.

Have a look at the info at LowEndMac. The most important thing to remember is that if you put in a bigger drive, the boot partition must be 8Gb or smaller.

The only other gotchas I remember were:

• you can't use your internal floppy disk (unless you want to download drivers from mkLinux?)
• for some reason I had to set to it to never go to sleep
• sometimes had problems booting after it had been disconnected from power (to fix it I had to use the reset button on the motherboard, jiggle the personality card, and recite a chant)

Maximum amount of RAM you can fit in a Beige G3 is 768M.

The G3 will support 3x256M Dimms.

Have a look on Low End Mac or Accelerate Your Mac for some good pointers.

If your iMac genuinely is a bondi blue model then it's not from any time later than January 99. Sorry... quibble.

...are the minimum specs for a reason.

But it's not about minimum specs at all. The PowerBook I run it on is well above the minimum specs.

From Apple's "System Requirements" page:

Mac OS X Version 10.2 requires a Power Mac G3, G4, G4 Cube; iMac; PowerBook G3, G4; iBook; or eMac computer; at least 128MB of physical RAM and a built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied video card. Mac OS X does not support the original PowerBook G3 or processor upgrade cards.

There was the original G3 Powerbook, the Series I, the Series II, the Bronze and the Firewire line. So we're talking two series past the minimum.

Don't forget they had some stuff on ROMS, somewhere about 1MB I think.

1 MB? Not by a long shot. The 128K Mac had 64KB ROM.

JP

hi troll!

1997 called and they want their gripe back.

At no time in Macintosh history did they have an industry-standard serial port

Actually, if we're getting pedantic (or historic in this case) the 128K, 512K, and 512KE all sported DB-9 serial ports.

At no time in Macintosh history did they have an industry-standard serial port

Actually, if we're getting pedantic (or historic in this case) the 128K, 512K, and 512KE all sported DB-9 serial ports.