Does anyone know what I can do with my mother's old Performa 630CD and
LaserWriter that would have any application in today's world? My general
impression is that this computer is complete junk considering no one I know
is a webmaster needing a 68k server and there seems to be no hardware I can
salvage from internal components that could be used in more modern Macs of
any kind.

However, I thought I'd just throw it out there and see if there is anyone
with any ideas on what I could do with this setup. Thanks.

On 1/10/04 8:00 PM, in article U62Mb.6008$EL4.4588@nwrddc02.gnilink.net,
"oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> wrote:

> Does anyone know what I can do with my mother's old Performa 630CD and
> LaserWriter that would have any application in today's world? My general
> impression is that this computer is complete junk considering no one I know
> is a webmaster needing a 68k server and there seems to be no hardware I can
> salvage from internal components that could be used in more modern Macs of
> any kind.
>
> However, I thought I'd just throw it out there and see if there is anyone
> with any ideas on what I could do with this setup. Thanks.
>
>

I keep an old 68k machine (a Color Classic) in my kitchen simply for my
recipes.
--

Brian Ehni

Thanks Brian, but actually, my question was based on the fact that my mother
wants to give the Performa away but doesn't know who to give it to that
would actually want it or have a use for it. Even schools these days tend to
have more recent computers than 68040 Macs.

Just as an aside, I should point out that the Performa was bought in the
summer of 1996, *just* as the PowerPCs were coming out. Not even a year
after we had it there were tons of applications coming out-- email programs
and word processors, the basics-- that would only run on PowerPC processors.
In stark contrast to this is the fact that my old IBM Aptiva, running a
Pentium I/166 and manufactured in September of 1996, is still chugging right
along and is even running Windows ME.

For you knee-jerk Mac enthusiasts, I should make a disclaimer here that this
is not to say "Macs are superior to PCs." It is only to demonstrate the
stupidity of Apple in making a *completely obsolete* processor and
motherboard technology that not even 1 year later could not be used with the
majority of its own platform's programs or operating system upgrades!

That aside, however, I really would like to hear from anybody who has ideas
on the issue I have raised. Thanks.
"Brian Paul Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BC26300C.532DB%behni@comcast.net...
> I keep an old 68k machine (a Color Classic) in my kitchen simply for my
> recipes.
> --
>
> Brian Ehni
>

Correction to previous message:

"For you knee-jerk Mac enthusiasts, I should make a disclaimer here that
this is not to say "PCs are superior to Macs."

"oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> wrote in message
news:vFaMb.4552$et1.3013@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> Thanks Brian, but actually, my question was based on the fact that my
mother
> wants to give the Performa away but doesn't know who to give it to that
> would actually want it or have a use for it. Even schools these days tend
to
> have more recent computers than 68040 Macs.
>
> Just as an aside, I should point out that the Performa was bought in the
> summer of 1996, *just* as the PowerPCs were coming out. Not even a year
> after we had it there were tons of applications coming out-- email
programs
> and word processors, the basics-- that would only run on PowerPC
processors.
> In stark contrast to this is the fact that my old IBM Aptiva, running a
> Pentium I/166 and manufactured in September of 1996, is still chugging
right
> along and is even running Windows ME.
>
> For you knee-jerk Mac enthusiasts, I should make a disclaimer here that
this
> is not to say "Macs are superior to PCs." It is only to demonstrate the
> stupidity of Apple in making a *completely obsolete* processor and
> motherboard technology that not even 1 year later could not be used with
the
> majority of its own platform's programs or operating system upgrades!
>
> That aside, however, I really would like to hear from anybody who has
ideas
> on the issue I have raised. Thanks.
> "Brian Paul Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BC26300C.532DB%behni@comcast.net...
> > I keep an old 68k machine (a Color Classic) in my kitchen simply for my
> > recipes.
> > --
> >
> > Brian Ehni
> >
>
>

On 1/11/04 5:43 AM, in article vFaMb.4552$et1.3013@nwrddc03.gnilink.net,
"oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> wrote:

> Thanks Brian, but actually, my question was based on the fact that my mother
> wants to give the Performa away but doesn't know who to give it to that
> would actually want it or have a use for it. Even schools these days tend to
> have more recent computers than 68040 Macs.
>
> Just as an aside, I should point out that the Performa was bought in the
> summer of 1996, *just* as the PowerPCs were coming out. Not even a year
> after we had it there were tons of applications coming out-- email programs
> and word processors, the basics-- that would only run on PowerPC processors.
> In stark contrast to this is the fact that my old IBM Aptiva, running a
> Pentium I/166 and manufactured in September of 1996, is still chugging right
> along and is even running Windows ME.
>
> For you knee-jerk Mac enthusiasts, I should make a disclaimer here that this
> is not to say "Macs are superior to PCs." It is only to demonstrate the
> stupidity of Apple in making a *completely obsolete* processor and
> motherboard technology that not even 1 year later could not be used with the
> majority of its own platform's programs or operating system upgrades!
>
> That aside, however, I really would like to hear from anybody who has ideas
> on the issue I have raised. Thanks.
> "Brian Paul Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BC26300C.532DB%behni@comcast.net...
>> I keep an old 68k machine (a Color Classic) in my kitchen simply for my
>> recipes.
>> --
>>
>> Brian Ehni
>>
>
>
You're comparing apples to oranges, oodler. Compare one of the original
PowerPCs to your Pentium, and you'll see they stack up very nicely. Any
PowerPC can run up to OS 9.1.

The 68040 is comparable to a 486, NOT a Pentium. How many 486s are even
still in use?

As for a place to donate, try Big Brother/Big Sister or similar; there are
many children today who have no computer, and are being left behind.
--

Brian Ehni

Brian-

Since the PowerPC and the 68040 were so fundamentally different, WHY was
Apple still selling them alongside the PowerPC? At the time, PowerPCs were
nearly twice as expensive as a comparable '040, and no one warned us that
99% of applications would, within the year we bought it, be totally
incompatible with our system. Had we known this, we would've bought a
PowerPC. But in comparison, at the time, in late 1996 and early 1997, I
definitely didn't see Pentiums being advertised alongside 486s. It upsets
me-- and I think rightfully-- that Apple misled my mother and me in this
way. If they were still going to sell them, the least Apple could have done
was warn us that the '040s were on the cusp of complete obsolescence. But
they didn't; they made it seem like the PowerPCs were simply "more advanced"
than the '040s.

In comparison to the old Mac situation I find it lucky that my Aptiva, which
my father now uses, is still upgradeable and expandable. But for two
machines manufactured in the same time period, I find it deplorable that one
is still an OK computer and and the other, well, really isn't.

oodler

"Brian Paul Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BC26BF86.533C6%behni@comcast.net...

> You're comparing apples to oranges, oodler. Compare one of the original
> PowerPCs to your Pentium, and you'll see they stack up very nicely. Any
> PowerPC can run up to OS 9.1.
>
> The 68040 is comparable to a 486, NOT a Pentium. How many 486s are even
> still in use?
>
> As for a place to donate, try Big Brother/Big Sister or similar; there are
> many children today who have no computer, and are being left behind.
> --
>
> Brian Ehni
>

On 1/11/04 4:08 PM, in article 7PjMb.5548$et1.4764@nwrddc03.gnilink.net,
"oodler" <whowhere@oopsie.poo> wrote:

> Brian-
>
> Since the PowerPC and the 68040 were so fundamentally different, WHY was
> Apple still selling them alongside the PowerPC?

Ask Compac, HP, and Packard Bell (wait, they are long gone) why they sold
486s and Pentiums side-by-side; profits. The 68040/486 dies were fully
amortized, and additional units sold were pure profit. Besides, when was the
last time you went to a car dealer and found only one model car? Chevrolet
has models that span the gamut from basic transportation (like your Mon's
68040) to luxury (that PowerPC).

> At the time, PowerPCs were
> nearly twice as expensive as a comparable '040, and no one warned us that
> 99% of applications would, within the year we bought it, be totally
> incompatible with our system. Had we known this, we would've bought a
> PowerPC. But in comparison, at the time, in late 1996 and early 1997, I
> definitely didn't see Pentiums being advertised alongside 486s.

Software not sold by Apple is hardly Apple's fault. I don't recall having
difficulty finding software for my IIvx (68030), even as the G3 was
released. Maybe you are confusing the machine with OS; OS 9 required major
differences in software that most publishers had to issue patches for, IIRC.

They were; I sold plenty of them at Circuit City and then CompUSA at the
time.

> It upsets
> me-- and I think rightfully-- that Apple misled my mother and me in this
> way. If they were still going to sell them, the least Apple could have done
> was warn us that the '040s were on the cusp of complete obsolescence. But
> they didn't; they made it seem like the PowerPCs were simply "more advanced"
> than the '040s.

I never had that impression; to me the PowerPC was obviously Apple's
(Motorloa's, actually) answer to the Pentium (and I don't believe I ever saw
any ads from Apple that indicated otherwise). You may recall that Apple WAS
forced, however, to actually make the PowerPC upgrade for some 68040
machines, because Apple said they would be available. It took a lawsuit,
though.

> In comparison to the old Mac situation I find it lucky that my Aptiva, which
> my father now uses, is still upgradeable and expandable. But for two
> machines manufactured in the same time period, I find it deplorable that one
> is still an OK computer and and the other, well, really isn't.

Is the Aptiva a Pentium or 486? Makes a big difference, though the old 68040
and PowerPC 601's are still "upgradeable", too. You can still buy RAM, you
can still find SCSI drives, etc. The one thing you can't find are NUBUS
cards, and even when those computers were new, they were difficult to get. I
remember looking everywhere for a NUBUS video card for my Radius 81/110 that
would drive my 21" monitor at millions of colors. Of course, try finding an
ISA card for that Aptiva nowadays. But I digress. Apples have always seen
fewer actual upgrades than PCs because they came with more than PCs usually
did. Ever have to add audio to a Mac? You used to have to BUY sound cards
for PCs. Macs have consistently offered more RAM capacity than PCs as well.
Another issue driving the upgradeability of Macs is third parties. Macs have
never held more than 10% of the PC market, while the Wintel platform has
always held more than 90%. Manufacturers are less likely to make for such a
small segment (hence my search for that video card).

>
> oodler
>
> "Brian Paul Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BC26BF86.533C6%behni@comcast.net...
>
>> You're comparing apples to oranges, oodler. Compare one of the original
>> PowerPCs to your Pentium, and you'll see they stack up very nicely. Any
>> PowerPC can run up to OS 9.1.
>>
>> The 68040 is comparable to a 486, NOT a Pentium. How many 486s are even
>> still in use?
>>
>> As for a place to donate, try Big Brother/Big Sister or similar; there are
>> many children today who have no computer, and are being left behind.
>> --
>>
>> Brian Ehni
>>
>
>

--

Brian Ehni