| Click here to select a new forum. |
| Are the Classic and Classic II worth buying? |
Posted by: Trash80toHP_Mini on 2016-12-03 07:47:16
I plan on making it sort of the ultimate 68000 Mac, like how the SE/30 is the ultimate 030 compact when loaded up with RAM and fun stuff. That title's already taken by any maxed out PowerBook 100, but the ultimate Compact Mac title is open. [🙂] ]'>
|
Posted by: Cory5412 on 2016-12-03 08:41:36
If you already have an SE, I recommend you pass these up and either buy accessories and connecting infrastructure for all of your Macs, or some parts for the SE or another system that has been needing it.
EDIT: Either the PB100 or the Portable is probably the ultimate '000 Mac. They shipped at 16MHz and support more than just 4M of RAM.
|
Posted by: bibilit on 2016-12-03 10:32:02
Either the PB100 or the Portable is probably the ultimate '000 Mac I agree, my favorite being the 100, the Portable being too bulky for me.
|
Posted by: EvieSigma on 2016-12-03 11:29:44
The 100 is a neat machine, but their fragility makes me nervous.
As for not buying a Classic over a SE, well, I bought a SE instead of a Classic so...
|
Posted by: Challenger 1983 on 2016-12-03 11:35:03
I would rather buy an se/30 than a classic but I'm stuck with a classic
|
Posted by: EvieSigma on 2016-12-03 11:36:39
Take it from me, you need to have a lot of cash set aside for a SE/30. Either you'll need to pay for capacitor replacement like I did or buy the tools and learn how to do it yourself.
|
Posted by: IlikeTech on 2016-12-04 16:26:07
From what I've heard, no. They seem like a pain, because of leaky caps, and leaky batteries.
|
Posted by: techknight on 2016-12-05 19:03:03
ive got a very yellowed albeit restored SE/30 that ill be dumping on the market soon enough.Â
|
Posted by: Scott Baret on 2016-12-08 21:48:15
One thing to consider regarding Classics...their power consumption is much lower than that of the SE, yet they provide the benefit of the internal hard drive.
100W for the SEs vs. 76W for the Classics. (Of course, a Plus is only 60W, but those power supplies can't run a hard drive and are barely adequate as-is).
The extra 24W may not seem like much, but if you use multiples of these, it's worth noting in case you have concerns about your electrical system or just want to save a little energy.
Energy Star wasn't a thing yet when these computers came out, but the Classic II would be my candidate to wear the badge since it gives full 030 power with a hard drive and CRT for just 76W.
|
Posted by: Unknown_K on 2016-12-08 23:07:53
76 to 100W is not that big of a difference.
|
Posted by: EvieSigma on 2016-12-09 05:33:31
I usually only run one of my old Macs at a time so power consumption doesn't worry me at all.
|
Posted by: Cory5412 on 2016-12-09 10:09:42
The 100 is a neat machine, but their fragility makes me nervous. Fragility? As in, they're known fragile, or as in, you're concerned that after 25+ years they might be fragile?
I had a non-working 100 some number of years ago and it never seemed like it was going to be particularly fragile. I've got a 180 today and it's one of the sturdier Apple laptops I've ever used/had.
|
Posted by: Gorgonops on 2016-12-09 10:11:08
Note that those wattage ratings are what the power supply is *capable* of, not what it's actually putting out. I'd be rather surprised if the Classics use much less power in practice *as measured by actual draw* than their SE equivalents. Perhaps a few watts due to their use of more highly integrated circuitry but nothing to write home about. Granted a fully tricked-out with 128MB of RAM SE/30 might draw quite a lot more than a Classic II but most of the difference would be power used by the RAM itself, nothing about the system proper.
If you have a Kill-a-Watt meter and examples of the various systems lying around you're welcome to try it. The power supply in my 2006 Mac Pro is rated at something like 900 watts but the most I've seen it draw is around 250, and that's with three hard disks and 32GB of RAM in the chassis.
|
Posted by: Gorgonops on 2016-12-09 10:13:43
I had a non-working 100 some number of years ago and it never seemed like it was going to be particularly fragile. I assume they meant "fragility" in that it's hard to find a working one and keep it working, which seems to be true, not that the design itself was fragile when it was new. Tellingly the one you had yourself was "non-working".
|
Posted by: EvieSigma on 2016-12-09 12:19:51
Fragility? As in, they're known fragile, or as in, you're concerned that after 25+ years they might be fragile?
I had a non-working 100 some number of years ago and it never seemed like it was going to be particularly fragile. I've got a 180 today and it's one of the sturdier Apple laptops I've ever used/had. Fragility in the sense that quite a lot of PB100s in the current year are broken in some way. I know there are various failure points for all 100 Series PowerBooks but the 100 seems to be notorious for screen issues, capacitor problems, and who knows what else. The later models (aside from plastic issues and potential bad screen caps) seem to hold up better.
|
Posted by: Unknown_K on 2016-12-09 12:56:24
Its not people take the old powerbooks out to bounce around in the wild. You might as well use them even if they will eventually break or die (they will sitting around anyway).
|
Posted by: EvieSigma on 2016-12-09 16:34:09
I guess it comes down to trying to avoid buying computers that require immediate repairs. Only did that with my SE/30 because I considered it worthwhile, I don't know if I'd consider it worth it on a PB100 when I have a working 180.
|
| < 3 |