I would be much more interested in finding a Performa 250 or Performa 275 than a Performa 200 if I'm looking for a rare all-in-one, but that's just me.
My first Mac was a Performa 460. It was essentially an LC III+ (33 MHz 68030 in an LC-style case), but considering that the 46x line was more common than the LC III+ line, you might argue that the LC III+ was a copy of the 460. It was a fine machine, and I never had any trouble with it. You could argue that it was underpowered compared to the other Macs of the time (many of them with '040 processors), but then you'd be missing the point: If you wanted to spend a mint for a machine with three NuBus slots and an '040, you would have bought a Quadra. That's like arguing that the BMW 3-series is garbage because for only a couple tens of grand more, you can buy a BMW-7 series.
Other than the ridiculously outdated video controller in the 6400 and the low memory ceiling, I don't see what the problem is with that machine. I much prefer the 5400, but still, the machine is quite capable for a low-end, low-price PCI Mac.
Peace,
Drew
My first Mac was a Performa 460. It was essentially an LC III+ (33 MHz 68030 in an LC-style case), but considering that the 46x line was more common than the LC III+ line, you might argue that the LC III+ was a copy of the 460. It was a fine machine, and I never had any trouble with it. You could argue that it was underpowered compared to the other Macs of the time (many of them with '040 processors), but then you'd be missing the point: If you wanted to spend a mint for a machine with three NuBus slots and an '040, you would have bought a Quadra. That's like arguing that the BMW 3-series is garbage because for only a couple tens of grand more, you can buy a BMW-7 series.
Other than the ridiculously outdated video controller in the 6400 and the low memory ceiling, I don't see what the problem is with that machine. I much prefer the 5400, but still, the machine is quite capable for a low-end, low-price PCI Mac.
Peace,
Drew