|
||
|
|
LC Design and CaveatsThe LC idealIn 1990 Apple launched the Macintosh LC. The LC quite simply stood for 'Low Cost'. It was to be the cheapest Mac in the new line up. It was basically a re-box of the 1987 Macintosh II computer. The 16MHz 68020 CPU and 16-bit 16MHz bus were retained, as was the dual floppy capability (optional). The two different models of LC had either dual floppy or a floppy and a 40MB or 80MB hard disk. These machines were slower than both the SE/30, which was discontinued that year, and that year's Macintosh II machines. It was however also significantly less expensive. It fulfilled its Low Cost role and was often chosen by education authorities for the value it offered, especially the LCIII and upward machines. The range was upgraded progressively and branched into all-in-ones (LC520-LC580) and 'Flat Pack' desktop machines (LC-LC475), which paradoxically came with a 12" CRT screen anyway, until the LC475 was discontinued and replaced with a Power Macintosh equivalent in 1996. There are two Power Macintosh models, the 5200/75 and 5300/100 that were also given the LC moniker but by this time the range had really merged with the Performa range of consumer machines. The LC and LCII - Bones of Contention?
It is a well appreciated fact that the LC and LCII Macintosh computers were deliberately crippled by Apple to make them lower machines. The LC had a very sluggish 68020 CPU in it that really didn't cope running the newer System 7.0 OS launched shortly after the machine. The LCII had a 16MHz 68030 CPU which, although supposedly much faster, was dragged down by old memory standards, a slow bus and a poor architecture. This meant the first two LCs were, all round, pretty sickly and poor machines. One solution to this problem is that they will both run the older System 6.0.8 operating system. The LC originally came with System 6.0.7 so it is an obvious upgrade for that machine. The LCII however came with System 7.0.1 or 6.0.8L, depending on where you bought it (US or Europe), but will happily run the standard version of System 6.0.8.
The LCIII - LCs looking bright at last....In March 1993 the Macintosh LCII was discontinued and its replacement, the LCIII introduced in February of that year, became the 'low cost' machine in Apple's range for the next 12 months. The LCIII heralded a new age for the LC. Finally Apple had let off with the crippling restrictions the first two models were saddled with and was given a much improved system. Apple introduced a 32bit wide 25MHz bus with a new, improved LCIII PDS slot (which became standard on many later 68k Mac models) and 72-pin 32bit SIMM memory modules rated at a minimum of 80ns. Also the VRAM started at 512k and was expandable to 768k with the addition of a 256k VRAM SIMM. A bigger hard disk complement of 80MB or 160MB also meant breathing space was a little better. The default operating system, System 7.1 (with Enabler 003), was a vast improvement on System 6 and 7.0 and was a good runner on this machine. The RAM slot was designed to accommodate up to 32MB of RAM which, combined with the 4MB of onboard RAM, gave a much improved maximum of 36MB or RAM which has since been upped to 68 or 132MB in some machines using 64MB and 128MB SIMMs respectively (see the RAM section for details). These revisions were carried over to the LC475 and combined with the new more powerful 68LC040 (which had a few FPU issues but that wasn't a problem, for most) and the all-in-one machines. The LCIII revisions finally made the LCs, all in all, pretty practical little machines for everyday use and they became popular systems both in the home, as the Performa 46x series, and in schools. The Great LCIII/+ Case Mystery - Revised
I have had a great deal of feedback about the whole LCIII case debacle so I decided to re write this section now it *appears* I have cleared this issue up. Auto Inject or Manual Inject - What's it all about?
I have been asked by a few people now to explain the difference between the manual inject and auto inject Apple floppy drives. This paragraph I wrote in a recent e-mail to someone pretty much explains it. |
|