When I bought this Mac it was actually completely fubar. The internal battery ruptured and ruined the main board, so I had to source a “new” one. The new one came recapped by the seller and I recapped the analog board myself, so it should be good for a long time to come.
My complaint about the Classic II is that it is a degraded SE/30, with a maximum of 10MB RAM, no coprocessor, and no expandability except through the external SCSI, compared to 128MB RAM, a coprocessor and a PDS with the SE/30. Restoration isn't any more difficult on SE/30, and network cards are not hard to find. Plus it can run A/UX and a modern OS, NetBSD 9 (but without a GUI, which is fine for many purposes), so the SE/30 is well worth the slightly higher investment price for a fixer-upper, and once restored, it is worth a $1000 or more, so easy to not only recoup investment, but make a tidy profit.
The Classic II is more or less just using the LC chipset in a compact Mac form factor, whereas the SE/30 was a repackaged IIcx and came out almost three years earlier. The initial price of a basic Classic II was US$1900, whereas the SE/30 cost a staggering US$6500.
And don't remind me of the prices in Germany :). I remember seeing my first IIfx at our local Apple dealer, it cost about 35k German marks IIRC... a new VW Golf car was around 25k marks back then.
Apple's initial price for the SE/30 in the US was $4369, but price came down rapidly in the first year, ultimately costing less than a Mac II with greyscale card and monochrome monitor by the end of 1989. But that was 30 years ago. Today, there seems to be a Mac mafia buying up the lower priced auctions and then jacking up prices of these ancient machines on turnaround, but you can still find an untouched SE/30 within spitting distance of the cost of a Classic II. They're both attractive machines in the compact format, but I wouldn't accept a Classic II for free, where I'd be tempted to buy certain particular SE/30 models, depending on condition, for few to several hundreds of dollars.
Interesting, the SE/30 page on everymac gives the initial price of $6500 I quoted above - but maybe this was not the price for the basic configuration.
I had an SE/30 many years ago (gave it to a friend in the late 90s) and used it to run A/UX. Good times :). Now I only have a Classic II which badly needs recapping...
Back then initial price may have had nothing to do with actual out to door price - as initial price was often set before the machines even could ship at all, let alone in quantity.
The Classic II is a low budget machine and the SE/30 is a workstation. They're not competitors in the slightest and shouldn't be compared as if they were.
I would be surprised if the machines are remotely similar in price these days. The Classic II isn't a cost reduced version of an older model, it has also been crippled.
For a lot of people, that's not going to matter. People seem to have the notion that old computers were only good for word processing and games. That is, more-or-less, what the Classic II was designed for. That is not what the SE/30 was designed for.
The reality is that machines like the SE/30 were targeted at organizations and professionals with deep pockets. Throw in a display adapter and a two page display, and it was used for desktop publishing. Throw in a network card, and it was used as a server. If the standard System Software wasn't good enough, there was even a option to run A/UX. Even something as simple as RAM demonstrates how fundamentally different these machines were. The Classic II was capped at 10 MB of RAM. The SE/30 was certified for 32 MB of RAM, but the hardware design accommodated 128 MB of RAM.
A Classic II can run almost any software that an SE/30 can, a bit more slowly and perhaps with an eye on the available memory. It would also be out of character for that machine. While basement tinkerers are not going to care about something being in character, collectors are going to care and collectors have a huge impact upon prices.
While the top priced SE/30 today exceed the top priced Classic II, for the unrestored machines there is a lot of variance. You can find Classic II for sale on eBay for close to $400, but at times also find SE/30 for under $200. A lot depends on condition and whether the seller is a member of the classic macs cartel. There is a lot of screwing going on in the exchange of old macs. In the early 2000s, Classic II were consistently more expensive than SE/30.
There’s also a nostalgia factor that comes in waves - many people who want to relive the glory days want exactly what they had when young - others want the hot rod they always dreamed of.
I also love the feel of using these old systems, but I wonder how much of it is also to do with the physical experience.
Do you think you would get a similar or diminished experience with e.g a raspberry pi and a little LCD screen etc that booted straight into a minivmac emulator? ... I must admit I get a sense of satisfaction from turning on certain old electronics, like the resonating "clung" of the e transformer in my amplifier when I flip the switch, so maybe that's all part of it, the sense of an appliance, something less fallible, and also the absence of all those layers of complexity under the emulator.
I’m really not sure honestly. I think there is something to be said about having the real thing, but I’m not really convinced in the physical hardware over emulation debate. I get the same enjoyment in emulated SNES games as I did as a child on a real SNES for example.
In this case? I enjoyed saving the Mac, fixing it, making a few minor upgrades along the way. Apple hardware and software integrates so well together and I think there’s a lot of reason to have the whole package. That said when using it I’m looking primarily at the screen alone.
I think it’s really subjective and depends on the person ultimately.
> Do you think you would get a similar or diminished experience with e.g a raspberry pi and a little LCD screen etc that booted straight into a minivmac emulator?
With vintage hardware, you are constrained by what the machine can do. With emulation, you are constraining what the machine can do. It does make a difference. To give you an example of what I mean:
I collected vintage hardware in my university days. It was a time when you could get something like a Mac IIfx for next to nothing and still expect it to work. Well, crunch time came and I found that I was getting far too distracted. A vintage Mac provided an ideal work environment since it was great for preparing technical documents and didn't have all of the distractions of the Internet. Boot it into System 6 with Multifinder disabled, and it reduced the distraction of other software installed on the machine. Doing something similar with an emulator simply would not have been as effective. It is too easy to escape the sandbox in a multitude of ways.
Is this a physical differentiation (i.e. based upon the capabilities of the hardware) or a psychological one? I really don't know and I really don't know if the distinction matters. The outcome is the significant part, and that outcome suggests physical hardware does make a difference.
For me it's not so much any of the physical properties of the machine in question (though those can be nice in their own way), but more of an intangible sense of "realness" that's difficult to attain with an emulator. It may just be placebo effect but I think that long time computer users can probably pick up on subtle differences, and that likely shapes the experience more than is often thought.
Certainly, pulling out my PowerBook G3 Pismo is a significantly different experience than firing up SheepShaver or qemu_ppc running the same operating system.
> an intangible sense of "realness" that's difficult to attain with an emulator.
I wonder if this is due to input latency, because no matter how good the emulator, input devices have gotten waaay slower due to all of the layers in between, before even getting to the emulator... unfortunately it's not really something you can throw money at with modern computers.
> PowerBook G3 Pismo
I owned one of those, that thing is capable of frying an egg for real!
Personally: the lower the “action to result” latency, the more compelling and tactile something is.
We all know about the sub 100ms “golden zone”, but if something is ~10ms (custom hardware with optimized software) it’s significantly more real to me, and if something is <1ms it’s almost irresistible.
Like; 100ms is the barrier to entry and it goes up logarithmically from there.
Totally agree, ~100ms feels really subpar to me, but unfortunately seems to have become the status quo, most input devices seem to end up on the order of ~10s of ms usually closer to the 100 end by the time they affect pixels... every wired mouse i try on a modern machine and can whip from side to side and see the latency clearly, like a beat in my head, if the first beat is my hand movement, and I can clearly "hear" the second distinct beat of the computer responding, which means it's clearly perceptible... if you can perceive it in that extreme then it means it affect normal use more subtly, giving a comparably laggy feel that most people will never put their finger on.
From everything I've read it seems that this is just not going to be solved any time soon, because the latency is distributed across so many layers, each contributing a little more. Even going beyond the input bus the older computers are lower latency in terms of how long it takes for a pixel to move on the screen based on the new coordinate. It's a shame this isn't something that can be solved even in a niche way without making completely different hardware... I guess an FPGA could possibly come close, but only if you also abandoned USB input devices and had a custom (simpler) input bus.
I was so happy to see John Carmack leading the charge a few years ago, using Oculus to push for low-latency and high frame rate.
I think it’s because of him and others like him that we now have 240Hz displays, talk about OLED pixel responsiveness being much higher, and real industry progress around reducing the latency throughout the total pipeline.
I remember a time not that long ago when people were trying to argue that “the human eye sees at 60fps”. We’ve thankfully come a long way since then and I am hopeful for a future where we finally get lower latency than the old tech.
You can see the rest of the gang here: http://muezza.ca/cats.html