LCII vs. Mac IIsi vs. LCIII
Eric Nefflen
I have an opperturnity for either a Mac LC II or Mac IIsi for the same price
in the same ram/hard drive configuration. I know the IIsi is faster, but I've
herd of problems with the video. Which do you recommend?
Also, what's the difference between a LC II, LC III, IIsi, IIvi, and IIfx?
Thanks....
Eric
--
Michael K. Murray
Nefflen) wrote:
A good place to look is:
___
_____ (o o) _____
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=w=-U-=w=-=-( ___ )
| | Apple Macintosh Model Listing Version 5/16/94 | |
| | (AKA Mac Facts II) Please email corrections. | |
| | Copyright 1993, 1994 Sterling Babcock (jd...@ee.duke.edu) | |
|___| Macintosh is a Trademark of Apple Computer, Inc. |___|
(_____)-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-(_____)
This is a list of all Apple Macintosh Models: past, present, or rumored.
I can send you the whole file if you want it but the document is
about on the usual mac archive places. I think it is called
macfactstwo940516.txt
Well at least mine was! maybe someone knows an ftp site.
Michael.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Michael Murray %
% Department of Pure Mathematics %
% University of Adelaide Fax: 61+ 8 232 5670 %
% Adelaide SA 5005 Phone: 61+ 8 303 4174 %
% Australia Email: mmu...@maths.adelaide.edu.au %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Daniel Mark Rosen
: Ok all you Mac gurus:
Besides the fact that they are all discontinued (I think that the
LCIII is ) That means that it will be hard to find a brand new one.
The LCII is limited to a maximum of 10M of RAM. Total. It's a
hardware thing. The IIsi is faster, and while it had video speed
problems, it is faster than the LCII.
However, the LCIII is the fastest of them all. It has to have sys
7.1 to run. It has the faster memory management and can take up to
36(?, I think)M of RAM.
The IIvi isn't bad, except (1)only the IIvx is available in the US.
and (2)it got outshined on it's release by the Quadra line, ergo
large price drops.
The IIfx used to be Apple's big boy. It still is a big boy, getting
away from the smaller footprint that the LC and IIsi have. It runs
a faster 030 chip than the LCIII, but with the new 32-bus in the
LCIII, I am not sure which one comes out on top.
--
% Realname: Daniel Mark Rosen * The University of Delaware %
% Internet: cali...@chopin.udel.edu * at NewArk %
%********* Senior Site Assistant @ Recitation Hall Art Site **********%
Misha6
Eric> I have an opperturnity for either a Mac LC II or Mac IIsi for the
Eric> same price in the same ram/hard drive configuration. I know the IIsi
Eric> is faster, but I've herd of problems with the video. Which do you
Eric> recommend?
Definitely the IIsi. The advantages the si has over the LC II are that is
has a 20Mhz 68030 chip with a 32bit data path verses the LC II's 16 MHz
68030 with a 16 bit data path.
The clock speed between the two computers does not make that big of
difference, but the jump from 16-bit to a 32-bit data path makes a world
of performance difference.
Also, the LC II can read only 10 megs of RAM (although it can hold 12).
The si is expandable to 65 megs of RAM.
Eric> Also, what's the difference between a LC II, LC III, IIsi, IIvi, and
Eric> IIfx?
Well I already talked about the LC II and IIsi.
The LC III has a 25Mhz 68030 processor and a 32-bit data path. It is a
hair faster than the si and much faster than the LC II.
The vi is not sold in the U.S. It has a 16Mhz '030 with a 32-bit bus
width. It's performance is close to that of an si.
The IIfx has a 40Mhz '030 and a 32-bit bus width. It is faster than any
other of the above computers.
Nathan Raymond (Phillips Academy 94)
In a previous article, ge...@apanix.apana.org.au (Geoff Peters) says:
>LCII - 16 MHz '030, no FPU, limited expansion
>LCIII - 25 MHz '030, no FPU, limited expansion
>IIsi - 20 MHz '030, no FPU unless you obtain an adapter card
>IIvi - 33 MHz '030, FPU, but suffers in the speed department thanks to its
^^^^^^
Wrong. The IIvi is 16Mhz '030, and the IIvx is 32Mhz. The IIvi was never
sold through Apple in the US, it was one of those computers they only sold
abroad (like the Color Classic II). The IIvx is just a 16Mhz motherboard
with a 32Mhz '030 with some external cache, so it runs like a IIci.
>folded data path. Avoid like the plague!!
>IIfx - 40 MHz '030, FPU, six-slot case, no internal video (card required);
>this beast is, IMO, one of the best Macs ever produced by Apple.
Technically, it is, but Apple never implemented all the DMA and misc.
harware in the IIfx in any System Software, so you can never reach the
computer's full hardware potential. Not much of an upgrade path from it,
either.
>
>Geoffrey
>
>--
>Geoffrey Peters | All e-mail to: | # CAUTION #
> | ge...@apanix.apana.org.au | # HARD HEAD AREA #
>-----------------------+---------------------------+----------------------
>"It's not his voice, it's the way he tries to find the notes, and misses."
>
--
"We don't know one millionth of one percent about anything."
- Thomas Alva Edison
Geoff Peters
>Ok all you Mac gurus:
>I have an opperturnity for either a Mac LC II or Mac IIsi for the same price
>in the same ram/hard drive configuration. I know the IIsi is faster, but I've
>herd of problems with the video. Which do you recommend?
If I had to choose twixt an LC II and a IIsi, I'd go for the IIsi any day.
You can reliably clock-chip a IIsi from 20 MHz to 25 MHz, plus it's more
expandable.
The only real problemw itht he IIsi video is that it pinches some of the
main RAM for display purposes (the LC has its own VRAM), which can slow
things down somewhat - although this slowdown is all but eliminated when
you change the IIsi's master crystal from 40 MHz to 50 MHz.
>Also, what's the difference between a LC II, LC III, IIsi, IIvi, and IIfx?
LCII - 16 MHz '030, no FPU, limited expansion
LCIII - 25 MHz '030, no FPU, limited expansion
IIsi - 20 MHz '030, no FPU unless you obtain an adapter card
IIvi - 33 MHz '030, FPU, but suffers in the speed department thanks to its
folded data path. Avoid like the plague!!
IIfx - 40 MHz '030, FPU, six-slot case, no internal video (card required);
this beast is, IMO, one of the best Macs ever produced by Apple.
L.H....@student.lut.ac.uk
>LCII - 16 MHz '030, no FPU, limited expansion
>LCIII - 25 MHz '030, no FPU, limited expansion
>IIsi - 20 MHz '030, no FPU unless you obtain an adapter card
>IIvi - 33 MHz '030, FPU, but suffers in the speed department thanks to its
>folded data path. Avoid like the plague!!
>IIfx - 40 MHz '030, FPU, six-slot case, no internal video (card required);
>this beast is, IMO, one of the best Macs ever produced by Apple.
Corrections:
LCII has folded data-path, so is slower than the 16MHz 030 would suggest.
That's what you get for using an 020 design base with an 030.
LCIII has an FPU socket, so it's very easy to add an FPU without taking up
the PDS slot, which would be required in the LC and LC II.
IIvi was a 16MHz 030 machine. You're thinking of the IIvx, a 32MHz Mac with
32K static RAM cache but a 16MHz bus (not 'folded' data path). Note how the
nomenclature was swapped round from the IIcx and IIci (Apple marketing: 'We
found that customers felt that x was more prestigious than i'). BTW, a
Performa 600 is a IIvx without the 32K cache.
I'd rate the IIvx with the cache as roughly equivalent to the IIci, but with
better video. The case is more sturdy and is upgradable to a Centris or Quadra
650 or 7100 -= hardly 'avoid like the plague'.
The IIfx requires special memory SIMMs, has unique SCSI problems, and has
expensive hardware not used by normal Apple system software. I'd say avoid it
like the plague.
Of course, all of this CORRECT information is in the csm.hardware FAQ, which
you might take the trouble to read.
L.
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
L.H....@student.lut.ac.uk Email me for a copy of the Mac screensaver FAQ
Silas Lang
: >IIfx - 40 MHz '030, FPU, six-slot case, no internal video (card required);
: >this beast is, IMO, one of the best Macs ever produced by Apple.
: Technically, it is, but Apple never implemented all the DMA and misc.
: harware in the IIfx in any System Software, so you can never reach the
: computer's full hardware potential. Not much of an upgrade path from it,
: either.
I've worked on two different IIfx's and have found them to be terribly
flakey machines. I've had easily 4 to 5 more crashes on them than I have
on LCIIIs, Q650s Q800 or Q950s. Add to that the weird memory and the
extra flakey SCSI implementation (with the one of a kind black
terminator) and you end up with a machine that is a little faster but far
less productive than the other 030 models.
Pascal Meunier
Lang) wrote:
> I've worked on two different IIfx's and have found them to be terribly
> flakey machines. I've had easily 4 to 5 more crashes on them than I have
> on LCIIIs, Q650s Q800 or Q950s. Add to that the weird memory and the
> extra flakey SCSI implementation (with the one of a kind black
> terminator) and you end up with a machine that is a little faster but far
> less productive than the other 030 models.
With system 7.1, and the serial switch control panel, our IIfx (16/1000)
with two SCSI devices, a modem and AppleTalk network attached doesn't crash
more often than our IIvx. Plus, the IIfx is a lot faster than the IIvx
(this is especially noticeable in Mathcad, which crawls on the IIvx), and
the IIvx (33 MHz '030) is already faster than the LCIII. But then, we run
disk check utilities at least every week, we trashed most 32-bit dirty
applications, and we got rid of as many non-Apple control panels or
extensions as possible.
Pascal
Peter Kerr
For 30 bucks I can't understand why they never shipped them like that.
--
Peter Kerr bodger
School of Music chandler
University of Auckland neo-Luddite