Screw Apple for killing the clones

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Looking on xlr8yourmac.com and old Mac catalogs, I realize just how great the old clones (and Macs) for their time. Seeing the full specs, how upgradable they are, the feature sets, it seems like Apple's gone backwards in terms of features, performance, upgrades etc.



The Power Center towers, UMAX, Daystar Genesis (THAT thing was awesome), etc etc. Things like 6 PCI slots, more drive bays, up to 7 hard drives, SCSI....



X-Force 250 was an awesome computer for late 1997 featuring a lot more expandability than what Apple had at the time.



Also, I think killing the clones ultimately killed Motorola's interest in making serious processors for Apple. Remember Motorola StarMax? The clones were always faster, cheaper, and better. Apple killed them because of it, and ultimately it killed them in the long run.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I just though of this: can you imagine the clone market if they had to endure the G4 speed dump, the 18 month standstill and the GHz gap? Clone makers are probably breathing a collective "whew!"
  • Reply 2 of 13
    You do realize that the clones were eating Apple alive, right?



    With the clones, Apple didn't expand its market at all. Rather, the market share remained the same and the clone sales cannibalized Apple's own hardware sales. As we all know, Apple is primarily (*especially* then) a hardware company, not a software company. The license fees were not nearly enough to make up for the losses Apple was suffering.



    If the clones kept going, Apple would have died within another year from starving for cash.



    [ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 13
    Apple is basicly a hardware company and maker of the MacOS I don't think the MacOS would be here right now if they still had clones.
  • Reply 4 of 13
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 5 of 13
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    I agree completely. Clones where a bad idea. I even owned one. A Power Computing PowerBase 200. I was so glad when I donated it to my school and bought a shiny new G4.
  • Reply 6 of 13
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    A buddy of mine had a PowerBase 180 and we had, at an old job of mine, the Motorola StarMax towers.



    For a while, I was all about Power Computing. I was THIS CLOSE to getting one (a tower and 17" monitor).
  • Reply 7 of 13
    Actually, if the clones weren't killed we never would've been stuck at 500 MHz for 18 months. Motorola made clones too, and they used faster chips than Apple's computers did.
  • Reply 8 of 13
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,220member
    [quote] Also, I think killing the clones ultimately killed Motorola's interest in making serious processors for Apple. Remember Motorola StarMax? The clones were always faster, cheaper, and better. Apple killed them because of it, and ultimately it killed them in the long run. <hr></blockquote>



    Sorry man. Only someone totally oblivious to reality would think that the Mac "Clone Wars" were good. Powercomputing..try a %20 failure rate. The nearest clone had double the failure rate of Apple. It got to the point where I'd sell 5 and 3 would come back.



    Cloning didn't work because the Cloners were as Jobs said "leaches" they provided no R&D for the HW or Mac OS yet they wanted low cost licenses for the OS. Apple was about to be sunk.



    Then you had corny companies like Power Computing who had adv saying "Let's kick Intels ass" and then the next year they're getting ready to ship notebooks running NT <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



    Faster maybe..cheaper yes but better? Only if you value stripping the essence of a Mac. Those boxes had no soul. Umax was the only clone I even remotely liked with the S900.



    [quote] Actually, if the clones weren't killed we never would've been stuck at 500 MHz for 18 months. Motorola made clones too, and they used faster chips than Apple's computers did. <hr></blockquote>



    What crazy logic are you using for this. Motorola was stuck at 500mhz because IMO they didn't have their stuff together to ship a new core on a new process. The G4 needed the extra pipes that the G4+ gained. Actually had the clones taken off it would be a double edged sword. Apple would no longer have the ability to swiftly add features to the OS that matched their HW..they would have to ensure that their OS was developed with the most common denominator of Macs and Clones. Usually a lose/lose scenario.



    I understand you're young TW and i'm not THAT much older than you but believe me if you learn one thing in life soon it'll be quality ALWAYS costs more.
  • Reply 9 of 13
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by TigerWoods99:

    <strong>

    The Power Center towers, UMAX, Daystar Genesis (THAT thing was awesome), etc etc. Things like 6 PCI slots, more drive bays, up to 7 hard drives, SCSI....

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    they used 9500 motherboards in different cases basically.



    The clones did Apple no good. there was no benefit to apple. they did it too late and at a time when it was definitely not a good idea.
  • Reply 10 of 13
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    [quote]Originally posted by pscates:

    <strong>For a while, I was all about Power Computing. I was THIS CLOSE to getting one (a tower and 17" monitor).</strong><hr></blockquote>



    How close were you again?
  • Reply 11 of 13
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Screw the clones for killing Apple.



    Oh yes. Thank god/random mutations they did this already.
  • Reply 12 of 13
    [quote]Originally posted by TigerWoods99:

    <strong>Actually, if the clones weren't killed we never would've been stuck at 500 MHz for 18 months. Motorola made clones too, and they used faster chips than Apple's computers did.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    motorollas clones only use the 603e chip if I remember correctly... I think they clocked up to 240MHz which is pretty fast BUT the 603e was a piece of sh|t compared to any decent 604 for floating point.



    Power made some decent clones but the good ones used apple motherboards and the rest were hacked together with ide drives and a pc case. None of the clone makers went after any kind of media I/O or A/V setup. Except the Genisis which was designed to crunch dv or whatever.



    i say good riddance
  • Reply 13 of 13
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,220member
    Starmax 4000 series used 604e's

    Starmax 3000 series used 603e's
Sign In or Register to comment.