68kMLA Classic Interface
This is a version of the 68kMLA forums for viewing on your favorite old mac. Visitors on modern platforms may prefer the main site.
| Click here to select a new forum. | | My top Pick's (To Collect) - 68K Macintosh Powerbook's | Posted by: CelGen on 2013-02-13 10:03:57
I remember messing with a 150 for a while and HATED it. I was so happy when I found a 180.
| Posted by: beachycove on 2013-02-13 12:10:22
I can remember lusting after a 540c when they were new, but all those zeros in the price kept me from buying, even though by then I was a working man. In retrospect, however, I now appreciate the 68030 PowerBooks more than the 040s for their energy saving features. Any 68LC040-based PowerBook was obviously faster, but the 040 chip had much more primitive power savings features than the 030, and the combination of the two (speed and lack of granular power management) sucks down so much more power in an 040 than an 030 (with energy saving features properly set) that the difference is startling.
With a RAM disk, Write Now or Nisus Compact, a minimal system installation, decent RAM, and a good battery, one of these 030 PowerBooks can be kept going for a working day (allowing for periodic, short system sleeps when idle, and esp. with the newer NiMh cells available). Then you pop in a spare battery and go just as long again. The 040 'books, though much more powerful, could not match that specific kind of performance, which was so suitable for lengthy spells of word crunching and the like (which is mostly how they were used back then). 3 hrs or so was tops for an 040, especially with later System software that demanded running it from the HD, so that in that sense, you got half the performance.
My absolute favourite, accordingly, is the 270c. Fabulous screen, compact, interesting technologically, lots of RAM expansion available, and running everything on a 33MHz 68030 with 68882: the 270c is 68k PowerBook bliss. Mine can run Nisus Writer 5 from a RAM disk like greased lightning, and that's with the processor set at half speed.
| Posted by: Trash80toHP_Mini on 2013-02-13 13:56:41
Passive screens are just plain terrible. From today's perspective it may seem so, but back then, LCDs suffered badly by comparison of quality from one direction AND price from the other direction. It's easy to say "no compromises" in hindsight and for collecting. These things cost real money at much higher prices then, than the machines of today that are bought with badly inflated currency at those lower price points.
I feel sorry for anyone that had to use one every day,detracts from the whole computer using experience. Back then any screen at all was a Godsend, so we weren't all that picky. The PB100 was a revelation, especially booting running from its battery backed RAMdisk, the TrackBall was better than it's less sleek sibs and size and weight . . . fuggedaboudit!
I lusted after the Duo 250's Active Matrix GS LCD, but the 230 was fine for anything but doing billing at the pool club in bright sunshine. It sufficed, especially with 20 & 17" CRTs docked on either end of the commute.
| Posted by: uniserver on 2013-02-13 14:09:31
They did it right with the portable!
Started out fresh with a proper screen!
| Posted by: Unknown_K on 2013-02-13 14:54:22
The only 68k laptop I have is a 170, and I have about 4 guts from 170's just to get 1 that is 100% working and not cracked or missing plastics (which is why I don't bother with the other 68K models). The only other Apple laptops I have are Wallstreets, and even there the dualscan screen sucks (only have 1 with DS).
| | < 2 |
|