Hi,
I was looking at my meagre collection the other day, which is stacked up in a wardrobe. My LC630 is almost always sitting at the bottom of the pile. I can't put my finger on it ... but why is it a bit crap? Mine is @ 40Mhz, with DOS compatibility card (coupled with an Intel Overdrive 486 DX4-100!) and a 10GB HD - but I hardly use it.
Could it be because ...
- The onboard video is slow and unupgradable, even if "accelerated" in Marathon, it still looks pants
- The mishmash of slow IDE HD and SCSI optical drive, all hobbled together
- It was released at the same time as early PPC Macs, and always played second fiddle
- The next Mac that used the same case, the 6200 was an utter dog - and this associates with it!
- The internal design is messy (especially with the DOS card perched on top of the '040 socket)
All my other Macs take a special place in history - eg. being the fastest, the most upgradable, elegant design - the 630 doesn't aspire to any of these.
Do others feel the same?
JB
I was looking at my meagre collection the other day, which is stacked up in a wardrobe. My LC630 is almost always sitting at the bottom of the pile. I can't put my finger on it ... but why is it a bit crap? Mine is @ 40Mhz, with DOS compatibility card (coupled with an Intel Overdrive 486 DX4-100!) and a 10GB HD - but I hardly use it.
Could it be because ...
- The onboard video is slow and unupgradable, even if "accelerated" in Marathon, it still looks pants
- The mishmash of slow IDE HD and SCSI optical drive, all hobbled together
- It was released at the same time as early PPC Macs, and always played second fiddle
- The next Mac that used the same case, the 6200 was an utter dog - and this associates with it!
- The internal design is messy (especially with the DOS card perched on top of the '040 socket)
All my other Macs take a special place in history - eg. being the fastest, the most upgradable, elegant design - the 630 doesn't aspire to any of these.
Do others feel the same?
JB