dont tell me apple has never used intel chips!

[coeus]

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_lc/stats/mac_lc_630.html

ha, well least apple tried...
i dont think its worth it.

but i wish you could put windows 98 on a 128MB rom chip so i can run windows inside macosx.

[coeus]

hate to double post but..

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_performa/stats/mac_performa_640cd.html

[AlphaTech]

If you read the information, and can remember that far back, Apple was shipping the computers with a pc compatibility card. That was to allow people to run peecee software on their Mac's without any software emulation. I never used one, so I don't know how well, or poorly they worked, but it couldn't have been all that good considering how short lived the option was.

It's bad enough that some people need to use virtual peecee to use some software, but to have the hardware in there too *shudder*

[yanny]

68LC040 is a cut down version of the Motorolla 68040 processor, the last one before the PowerPC chips.

[Spock]

This Mac did use a Wintel BUT it only used it to run Dos/Windows it did not run the MacOS. A seperate cpu was used to run MacOS. I know,I have two of these units.

[yanny]

One thing forgot to mention, the PC compatible card was not make by Apple.

[Mr. Anderson]

I remember these, what a travesty:(

What the hell was Apple thinking!

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by yanny
68LC040 is a cut down version of the Motorolla 68040 processor, the last one before the PowerPC chips.

hence it is in the Macintosh LC series... ;)

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by eyelikeart


hence it is in the Macintosh LC series... ;)

Not quite. THat only worked for the LC's with numbers above 600, IIRC. The Original LC, LC II, LC III, and some of the early ones with numbers (545, i think) hade '020 and '030 processors.

[Taft]

I remember using these things. They actually worked quite well.

The problem with them is they completely invalidated Apple's products. Think about it. By putting out PC compatible hardware they were basically admitting that PCs ran the world and that Macs weren't compatible enough with them on their own. Therefore you needed a PC along with your Mac.

It was a bg mistake from a marketing and product worth perspective. "Why not just buy a cheaper PC and save yourself the trouble?" That could've been their marketing slogan. I bet a lot of people were thinking it.

Matthew

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by coeus
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_lc/stats/mac_lc_630.html

ha, well least apple tried...
i dont think its worth it.

If we're gonna split hairs, why not remember the 8800 (i think) chips inside the original Apple, which was Intel, i'm pretty sure...

that's the closest they've ever come to really using them. Yeah you could get PC compatability cards, but you still can, i think... OrangePC for instance...

but i wish you could put windows 98 on a 128MB rom chip so i can run windows inside macosx.

*sigh*

pnw

[PCUser]

The Apple I used a MOS 6502, not an Intel 8088. Apple has never used an Intel chip as the central processor inside any of their computers.

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye


Not quite. THat only worked for the LC's with numbers above 600, IIRC. The Original LC, LC II, LC III, and some of the early ones with numbers (545, i think) hade '020 and '030 processors.

I should have been more specific....the "LC" in the processor #... ;)

[oldMac]

Yes. I remember the "DOS-compatible" Macs... I think that was under Spindler's reign. Spindler was an idiot.

They actually worked "okay". But printing over the network was a mess. They definitely had some issues.

Orange Micro (www.orangemicro.com) used to make 486 cards for Macs. I'm guessing that they were the company who actually provided the Apple-branded ones.

[Doraemon]

I own one of those 630 DOS Compatibles. My PC CD-ROM driver disk stopped working after a while and therefore I lost my CD drive when running the PC mode. Anyway. The PC card was outdated within weeks. Therefore, it was not of much use.

BTW: The LC 630 is basically a Quadra 630. Therefore, the casing looks like a Quadra and not like a LC.

[DannyZR2]

he he.. i believe the iPod actually has dual StrongARM processors made by intel.. right?

[stromie952]

Here is a site that outlines a couple of other Macs that had PC compatibility chips in them.

The Power Mac 7300 did have a Pentium 166 in it unlike the Power Mac 4400 which had a Cyrix processor. Interesting that you could switch on the fly in between the two operating systems and copy and paste in between the two.

Both machines still ran the 604e and the 603e chip for the MacOS respectively.

[stromie952]

Oops, I forgot to post the site along with the other stuff.
:p

Here it is

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1997/q3/970404.pr.rel.pc-pmsys.html

[mc68k]

Originally posted by PCUser
The Apple I used a MOS 6502, not an Intel 8088. Apple has never used an Intel chip as the central processor inside any of their computers.

Most of the pre-Mac line ('cept Lisa) used the MOS Technologies 6502 processor. The only computer not to feature it was the IIgs.

Apple hasn't used an Intel chip as it's main CPU, but all of the controllers for the PCI bus are by Intel, I believe.

68LC0x0 processors did not have a co-processor (FPU), to make the prices lower. So maybe LC stands for "Lacking Co-Processor".

[jefhatfield]

my anti-pc gripes in the past have been more directed toward the "win" side of wintel, or windows-intel