The First Mac

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #74,905

by orion

1/16/03 12:49:06 PM

The First Mac

ran off of a 800K Floppy Disk and 128 Kilobytes of RAM, no hard drive, not even a SCSI (Not until the Mac Plus, IIRC). I am sure you meant to put in there 128 kb instead of mb. 128 mbs was more than hard drives of the day could store on them. :)

The "Fat Mac" or Mac512K offered 512 kb of RAM, then the Mac Plus came along and changed everything with SCSI ports, 1 mb of RAM, etc.

Later in 1987, the Mac SE came out (I own one) and had an internal expansion port, something the Mac really needed to be taken seriously in the corp environment. How else could they drop in a Network card? Something that Apple didn't copy from Xerox, was the built in networking, at least not until later.

[link|http://pub75.ezboard.com/bantiiwethey|
New and improved, Chicken Delvits!]

I *heart* IBM Hardware - (deSitter) - (30) - Jan. 15, 2003, 04:16:00 PM EST

You *heart* Hitachi Global Data Storage - (tonytib) - (11) - Jan. 15, 2003, 07:49:14 PM EST

Astounding, No? - (deSitter) - (1) - Jan. 15, 2003, 08:02:07 PM EST

I must admit - (orion) - Jan. 15, 2003, 08:09:52 PM EST

And have no recollection of 20 MB CMI drives used in PC-AT.. - (a6l6e6x) - (8) - Jan. 15, 2003, 10:07:51 PM EST

Full hearted devices, took up a whole drive bay - (orion) - Jan. 15, 2003, 10:44:21 PM EST

Remember that well - (deSitter) - (6) - Jan. 16, 2003, 06:40:57 AM EST

For the record. - (inthane-chan) - (1) - Jan. 16, 2003, 11:08:40 AM EST

The First Mac - (orion) - Jan. 16, 2003, 12:49:06 PM EST

Slim pickings on CMI drive, but here's some: - (a6l6e6x) - (3) - Jan. 16, 2003, 11:18:45 AM EST

Re: Slim pickings on CMI drive, but here's some: - (deSitter) - (2) - Jan. 16, 2003, 05:17:33 PM EST

First ATs were shipped in 1984. So you may... - (a6l6e6x) - (1) - Jan. 16, 2003, 09:52:06 PM EST

You could hear.. - (deSitter) - Jan. 16, 2003, 11:08:45 PM EST

Re: I *heart* IBM Hardware - (admin) - (17) - Jan. 15, 2003, 08:10:02 PM EST

Can't possibly be based in reality - (deSitter) - (16) - Jan. 15, 2003, 08:25:46 PM EST

Guess you never had a 75GXP - (admin) - (6) - Jan. 15, 2003, 09:06:50 PM EST

Wow - one got through - (deSitter) - (3) - Jan. 15, 2003, 09:15:59 PM EST

Actually it was two. - (admin) - Jan. 15, 2003, 09:17:24 PM EST

Actually, IIRC the problem was glass platters - (tonytib) - (1) - Jan. 16, 2003, 04:02:15 PM EST

Re: Actually, IIRC the problem was glass platters - (deSitter) - Jan. 16, 2003, 05:12:26 PM EST

I've got a 60 GB 75GXP at work. - (Another Scott) - (1) - Jan. 15, 2003, 09:19:25 PM EST

About 8 hours.. - (deSitter) - Jan. 15, 2003, 09:27:59 PM EST

My experience with Seagate & IBM 3.5 in drives is that ... - (dmarker) - (8) - Jan. 19, 2003, 10:19:05 AM EST

You mean Hitachi, right? - (Andrew Grygus) - (7) - Jan. 19, 2003, 11:29:46 AM EST

I see a lot of PCs and a lot of disks. - (pwhysall) - (1) - Jan. 19, 2003, 12:07:14 PM EST

Fujitsu RMA problem. - (Andrew Grygus) - Jan. 19, 2003, 01:54:08 PM EST

Re: You mean Hitachi, right? - (deSitter) - (4) - Jan. 19, 2003, 01:32:39 PM EST

Re: You mean Hitachi, right? - No!! Fujitsu 2.5 in drive - (dmarker) - (1) - Jan. 19, 2003, 11:26:58 PM EST

fujitsu has better shock rating... - (bepatient) - Jan. 19, 2003, 11:38:25 PM EST

Seagate == Enterprise - (broomberg) - (1) - Jan. 25, 2003, 12:46:29 PM EST

No, they still make low end drives - (tonytib) - Jan. 25, 2003, 07:49:59 PM EST

iwethey.org

Dubplate pop out a mash up di dancehall. Crowd de pon di receiving end dema a bawl.
66 ms