3 ms·

I didn't mind it that much because the higher the number was the more powerful the computer tended to be. The 9500 was super good. The 8500 not bad. The 7500 wa

I didn't mind it that much because the higher the number was the more powerful the computer tended to be. The 9500 was super good. The 8500 not bad. The 7500 was the best of the mediocre, and the 7200 was similar but not as great. During that time we bought our Macs from a local computer store. Our guy, Fred, always helped advise us, but he was pretty frustrated overall with the whole situation. I mean he also didn't get why anybody would want a Mac when Windows devices were cheaper, more standard, and less buggy. > One of the best things Steve Jobs did on his return was to trim the number of Mac models to a minimum. Fred always said that if they ever introduced colors to computer cases he was going to quit. Jobs came along with the iMac and less than a year later he retired. It cracks me up how he stuck to his word.

KerrAvon 2y ago
Keep in mind the 9500 (and 9600) and 8500 were at or near the top of the line and relatively easy to figure out. If that and the 7000 had been the only things Apple shipped, fine. The problem was the 4000/5000/6000 range, and Performa vs Quadra/Centris/Whatever. It was a complete and total mess. Your Fred also clearly had a weird sense of "less buggy." At that time, Windows was essentially a GUI atop an extended version of MS-DOS. Look up any contemporary serious review and you'll find complaints about stability. Compare to OS/2.
- troyvit 2y ago
  Heh I disagreed with Fred that's for sure. Also thanks for bringing back the memory of all those "other" macs. I'd forgotten how weird it was trying to distinguish between all those meaningless names, and the marketing behind them didn't really help much.
- cosmic_cheese 2y ago
  The most awful machine I've ever used was a circa-2000 98SE Celeron Compaq Staples special that my family bought when the old Performa gave out one evening and we needed a replacement right away. Aside from being a little slower, that Performa was better in every single way despite being four years older.
tcdent 2y ago
I used an 8500 as my personal machine for way too long. With a Sonnet G3 upgrade and maxed out RAM, it stayed viable for way longer than it should have.
- MikeRichardson 2y ago
  MacPro5,1 is the new 8500 then
Lammy 2y ago
> I didn't mind it that much because the higher the number was the more powerful the computer tended to be. The 9500 was super good. The 8500 not bad. The 7500 was the best of the mediocre, and the 7200 was similar but not as great. The general rule was that the first digit represented the form factor, the second digit represented the base model (logic board), the last two digits represented the value-add configuration (amount of RAM, size of HDD, and included software package), then CPU speed was given after a forward-slash, and there might be a CD somewhere in there for configurations which included an internal AppleCD drive. The PowerPC-era form factor numbering scheme was actually established in the 68k era with the all-in-one LC 500-series, the pizza-box Centris 600-series (descendant of the original LC form factor), the desktop Quadra 700 (descendant of the Macintosh Ⅱᴄx/ᴄɪ [compact] form factor), the mid-tower Quadra 800/840AV, and the full tower Quadra 900/950. Computers were called Macintosh when sold by Apple (like to schools) or sold through Apple's dealer network, called Workgroup Server (WGS) when sold in server configurations (like with AppleShare/IP) and called Performa when sold direct to consumers (like through CompUSA, etc). It started well with the initial models of NuBus Power Mac: the pizza-box 6100/60, desktop 7100/66 (I had this one!!!), mid-tower 8100/80, and full-tower WGS 9150 — different form factors but obviously denoted as the first PowerPC model (x1xx) of each series. The 6100 makes a good example of this era because it got an especially large number of consumer-focused SKUs where it was known as the Performa 611{0..8}CD, a server version known as the WGS 6150/60, and an eventual speed-bump when it became the Power Macintosh 6100/66 and WGS 6150/66: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_6100#Models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_6100#Models Then the exceptions to the numbering scheme started with the second generation of PowerPC machines, the first to switch from NuBus to PCI. They reintroduced all-in-ones as the Power Mac 5200 series (famously horrible machines) and stuck the same board in a Quadra 630 style case as the 6200, both with a PowerPC 603. They introduced a desktop 7200 and mid-tower 8200 with PCI but still using a PowerPC 601, so the x2xx still seemed to represent release order and not CPU. But then they simultaneously released the 7500 and 8500 with a PowerPC 604. Were these supposed to be fifth-gen models? What happened to 3 and 4? They introduced a six-slot PPC604 machine at the same time, the Power Mac 9500, but there was no PPC601 9200. Next year, the 6400 appeared in a curvy and quite nice-looking consumer mid-tower case, but 6xxx has now represented three different form factors. The 7600, 8600, and 9600 replace their respective x500 counterparts, so now we're back to release order? It doesn't mean CPU generation, because there are higher-end 9500s with PPC604e instead of just 604, and lower-end 7600s with just 604 and not 604e. The year after that, the Power Macintosh 7300 (I had this one!!!) replaces the 7200 and the 7600, so now we're going backwards even though it's a better computer? It doesn't mean release year, because the 5300 and 6300 are a year older and are just speed bumps of the 5200 and 6200. Except the 5260 which is newer than the 5300 and a much better machine, which was replaced by the 5400 which is a 6400 board in a 5xxx-style case. Except the 6360 which is a 6400 board in a 6200/6300-style case because they had already used 6400 for the tower form-factor the board came from. The 6500 and 5500 were speed bumps of the 6400 and 5400, but at the time of their release were two years newer than the 7500/8500/9500. The 4400 falls outside of all of this, so at the time it felt like Apple trying to build a cheap Wintel-style business machine. There had been 68030 machines numbered 4xx, but they were consumer-only Performa variants of the LC Ⅲ. Except the LC 475 which was a Quadra 605 in a LC Ⅲ style case. Except, except, except. What a fucking mess lol

KerrAvon 2y ago

Keep in mind the 9500 (and 9600) and 8500 were at or near the top of the line and relatively easy to figure out. If that and the 7000 had been the only things Apple shipped, fine. The problem was the 4000/5000/6000 range, and Performa vs Quadra/Centris/Whatever. It was a complete and total mess. Your Fred also clearly had a weird sense of "less buggy." At that time, Windows was essentially a GUI atop an extended version of MS-DOS. Look up any contemporary serious review and you'll find complaints about stability. Compare to OS/2.

troyvit 2y ago
Heh I disagreed with Fred that's for sure. Also thanks for bringing back the memory of all those "other" macs. I'd forgotten how weird it was trying to distinguish between all those meaningless names, and the marketing behind them didn't really help much.
cosmic_cheese 2y ago
The most awful machine I've ever used was a circa-2000 98SE Celeron Compaq Staples special that my family bought when the old Performa gave out one evening and we needed a replacement right away. Aside from being a little slower, that Performa was better in every single way despite being four years older.

tcdent 2y ago

I used an 8500 as my personal machine for way too long. With a Sonnet G3 upgrade and maxed out RAM, it stayed viable for way longer than it should have.

MikeRichardson 2y ago
MacPro5,1 is the new 8500 then

Lammy 2y ago

> I didn't mind it that much because the higher the number was the more powerful the computer tended to be. The 9500 was super good. The 8500 not bad. The 7500 was the best of the mediocre, and the 7200 was similar but not as great. The general rule was that the first digit represented the form factor, the second digit represented the base model (logic board), the last two digits represented the value-add configuration (amount of RAM, size of HDD, and included software package), then CPU speed was given after a forward-slash, and there might be a CD somewhere in there for configurations which included an internal AppleCD drive. The PowerPC-era form factor numbering scheme was actually established in the 68k era with the all-in-one LC 500-series, the pizza-box Centris 600-series (descendant of the original LC form factor), the desktop Quadra 700 (descendant of the Macintosh Ⅱᴄx/ᴄɪ [compact] form factor), the mid-tower Quadra 800/840AV, and the full tower Quadra 900/950. Computers were called Macintosh when sold by Apple (like to schools) or sold through Apple's dealer network, called Workgroup Server (WGS) when sold in server configurations (like with AppleShare/IP) and called Performa when sold direct to consumers (like through CompUSA, etc). It started well with the initial models of NuBus Power Mac: the pizza-box 6100/60, desktop 7100/66 (I had this one!!!), mid-tower 8100/80, and full-tower WGS 9150 — different form factors but obviously denoted as the first PowerPC model (x1xx) of each series. The 6100 makes a good example of this era because it got an especially large number of consumer-focused SKUs where it was known as the Performa 611{0..8}CD, a server version known as the WGS 6150/60, and an eventual speed-bump when it became the Power Macintosh 6100/66 and WGS 6150/66: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_6100#Models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_6100#Models Then the exceptions to the numbering scheme started with the second generation of PowerPC machines, the first to switch from NuBus to PCI. They reintroduced all-in-ones as the Power Mac 5200 series (famously horrible machines) and stuck the same board in a Quadra 630 style case as the 6200, both with a PowerPC 603. They introduced a desktop 7200 and mid-tower 8200 with PCI but still using a PowerPC 601, so the x2xx still seemed to represent release order and not CPU. But then they simultaneously released the 7500 and 8500 with a PowerPC 604. Were these supposed to be fifth-gen models? What happened to 3 and 4? They introduced a six-slot PPC604 machine at the same time, the Power Mac 9500, but there was no PPC601 9200. Next year, the 6400 appeared in a curvy and quite nice-looking consumer mid-tower case, but 6xxx has now represented three different form factors. The 7600, 8600, and 9600 replace their respective x500 counterparts, so now we're back to release order? It doesn't mean CPU generation, because there are higher-end 9500s with PPC604e instead of just 604, and lower-end 7600s with just 604 and not 604e. The year after that, the Power Macintosh 7300 (I had this one!!!) replaces the 7200 and the 7600, so now we're going backwards even though it's a better computer? It doesn't mean release year, because the 5300 and 6300 are a year older and are just speed bumps of the 5200 and 6200. Except the 5260 which is newer than the 5300 and a much better machine, which was replaced by the 5400 which is a 6400 board in a 5xxx-style case. Except the 6360 which is a 6400 board in a 6200/6300-style case because they had already used 6400 for the tower form-factor the board came from. The 6500 and 5500 were speed bumps of the 6400 and 5400, but at the time of their release were two years newer than the 7500/8500/9500. The 4400 falls outside of all of this, so at the time it felt like Apple trying to build a cheap Wintel-style business machine. There had been 68030 machines numbered 4xx, but they were consumer-only Performa variants of the LC Ⅲ. Except the LC 475 which was a Quadra 605 in a LC Ⅲ style case. Except, except, except. What a fucking mess lol